It is an arguably dark time in BM History. A shrinking player base, realms full of stagnant characters, and unfortunate incidents between players all point to a general decline in atmosphere. Whether these be the latter days of a once-grand gaming experiment, or simply a natural recession in the larger scheme of things, remains to be seen.
My objective will be to cover the current issues in the form of a journalistic editorial. Though I have my own opinions, I will do my best to prevent my own bias from getting in the way of what is essentially an anthropological analysis.
I am not a certified expert in anything I am talking about. It is not my intention to blame any player, group of players, realm, organization, devs, magistrates, Tom, Dick, Harry, what have you. The purpose is illumination, not condemnation.
Article The First:
Power Games
First, let me start by addressing the stigma of the term 'power gamer'. This is commonly thrown around as an insult in Roleplaying communities, and it is basically used to describe a person who is seen as placing technical achievement above playing in character.
Psychologically speaking, games are most often used as an outlet for either one's frustrations, or their ambitions, or some combination of the two. To put it simply, games are usually a 'power fantasy'; they allow the player to imagine that they are greater, or at least more interesting, than they are in reality. It sound all very juvenile when put in those terms, but the reality is that those power fantasies actually serve a meaningful purpose in our society, both on a pragmatic and aesthetic level! Art imitates life, and for many, life means the acquisition and use of power.
This is especially true in a game like Battlemaster, which is more a game of politics and diplomacy than its name would suggest. Noble characters in BM are a reflection of how the player views the concept of power. I won't stray too far into Nietzche here, but my basic point is that, whether conscious of it or not, many players play the game of power. But when you're playing a Medieval Lord in a Dark-Age setting, that's essentially right in-character! The motivation of that character archetype is well-aligned with the motivation of the players themselves.
Now, I am not saying all players play for this reason. There are plenty of players who just want to write a good story, create an interesting character, and add their personal literature to the collective environment. So some play for power, and some play for literature. The Gamers and the Writers. I'm sure there are other, more specific motivations you can pull out of the collective player base, but for the purposes of dealing with the issues at hand, these are the two motivations that should be examined.
I am not here to make a value judgment on which motivation is better, both in terms of by-proxy morality or in terms of which is better for the game as a whole. What I am here to do is try to create an understanding that 1.) People play for different reasons, and 2.) In this case, no reason is more 'correct' than the other.
Most people would say that Gamers and Writers, as I have just described them, are diametrically opposed. But the truth is that they actually support each other in a symbiotic relationship. The game needs ambitious players whose goals are to run things right and grab everything with both hands (like the classic Noble). It also needs players who are willing to take the time to translate those technical achievements (or lack thereof) into setting and story.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that our current rash of problems is at least partially caused by an imbalance in these two motivations: one has begun to eclipse the other. If we are to view the recent changes to BM with any objectivity, it should be done with the perspective that the goal of those changes is (or at least should be) to correct an imbalance.
* * *
So there you have it. Next week on The Bendix Perspective: Player Characters Divide and Conquer
Feel free to leave comments if you like, but I will not be personally answering any questions with regards to my articles. It is what it is, and I feel no obligation to defend or explain it further.
Excellent perspective and I agree with it for the most part, but I feel that dividing the game into Gamers and Writers doesn't quite catch the reality. I find there are Powergamers, CENSORED, Casuals, and Actors.
Powergamers are people who treat the game like a game of Risk and are interested in maximizing efficiency and CS and production and all the variables they can to "win". On the positive side they are the most effective generals and help realize the plots and schemes that CENSORED and Actors seek to fulfill. On the negative they can destroy the atmosphere of the game turning it into any other MMO. Mendicant-led Aurvandil comes to mind, but a particular example that strikes me is when my Dwilight character, Karibash, was found to be commanding a 200 man unit. I immediately saw on the forums that this was inefficient, a waste, I should be maximizing my CS with a smaller unit, etc. There were a few, however, who recognized the statement that a 200 man unit made: I was to be feared, not to be underestimated, a terror that will keep your descendants awake at night for generations. Powergamers have declined considerably in this game from the 2004-2008 heyday.
Next there are CENSORED who are interested in totally epic™ stories and schemes and plots. I have little love for this genre of player and you will find I colour my description accordingly. On the positive they scheme and plot as much as any Actor and have ample time to invest to carry out their plans. On the negative they scream and shout and complain that this isn't exciting enough, you should have done this to make it so much cooler, and I find are responsible for a lot of the bad feelings in this game. To me the CENSORED are simply bad Actors, unconcered with consistency in their character instead searching for the most awesome and cool and epic stories they can carry out. This turmoil and self-interest results in the negative feelings which drive away the most important group, the Casuals.
Casuals are the bulk of the game. They're here to play a game. They don't scheme as much, aren't very concerned with signing on right at the turn everyday to scout for 40 minutes or plan the next campaign or write infinite letters. They're pawns, but to call them pawns degrades their worth. They fight the wars that the Powergamers plan and carry out the plots and schemes that CENSORED create and are the bulk of the story that Actors write. On the positive they create the manpower required to run the game. On the negative their nonchalantness can lead to some stagnation, but not nearly as bad as some would want you to believe. Casuals are the cogs of the BM story and the most vital part I find. Casuals are declining at an alarming rate, alongside the decline of Powergamers.
Actors are what makes this game unique. They create interesting, believable and, most importantly, consistent characters. They create stories, whether that be schemes and plots or by being the voice in battle. An Actor has memorable last words, are at the centre of great shifts, and are a basis of development in the BM story. On the positive they keep the story not only moving but coherent; grudges, friendships that last generations, and grand histories of the rise and fall of empires. On the negative they require an obscene amount of time to play and as a result are the rarest players. They also can contribute considerably to stagnation due to their desire to maintain consistency in their characters. Atamara comes to mind with this; the old rulers all value honour considerably and despite sabre rattling will never blink. At their worst, Actors infuriate CENSORED creating bad blood which drives away Powergamers who take Casuals with them.
The key to this game is character development. Powergamers and Casuals aren't bad, but creating inconsistent characters who only seek to mess things up and change them is what results in bad blood. An Actor plays a medieval noble who lusts after power and to make their mark in history. They fall into stagnation as they reach their peak of power and it is up to another Actor with greater desires or, as has been happening recently, a CENSORED to push them from power. Powergamers and Casuals power these movements. Without the Actors to create the story, the game loses its appeal and falls into decline. The game cannot survive with CENSORED, we need Actors to create a coherent story.
That's my 2 cents. If you're offended and feel I spelt out your name in this, tough luck.
Quote from: BarticaBoat on August 22, 2013, 02:50:37 AM
Powergamers are people who treat the game like a game of Risk and are interested in maximizing efficiency and CS and production and all the variables they can to "win". On the positive side they are the most effective generals and help realize the plots and schemes that GoT-addicts and Actors seek to fulfill. On the negative they can destroy the atmosphere of the game turning it into any other MMO. Mendicant-led Aurvandil comes to mind, but a particular example that strikes me is when my Dwilight character, Karibash, was found to be commanding a 200 man unit. I immediately saw on the forums that this was inefficient, a waste, I should be maximizing my CS with a smaller unit, etc. There were a few, however, who recognized the statement that a 200 man unit made: I was to be feared, not to be underestimated, a terror that will keep your descendants awake at night for generations. Powergamers have declined considerably in this game from the 2004-2008 heyday.
Defined in this manner, the game needs a vast influx of powergamers, because they are the only people who do anything.
Quote from: Kai on August 22, 2013, 03:45:53 AM
Defined in this manner, the game needs a vast influx of powergamers, because they are the only people who do anything.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you get powergamers=only people who do anything in the game? Also, very interesting perspectives both Bendix and Bartica Boat.
I suppose actors do something as well.
QuoteCasuals [...] fight the wars that the Powergamers plan and carry out the plots and schemes that GoT-addicts create and are the bulk of the story that Actors write.
Looks to me like the casuals are the brawn, and the powergamers are the brain, the actors/GoT-addicts are the mouth.
Quote from: Bendix on August 22, 2013, 01:51:45 AM
Most people would say that Gamers and Writers, as I have just described them, are diametrically opposed.
And sometimes, they still are—particularly at the extremes of their respective groups. There are people who are so heavily invested in the Game side that they are willing to go to absurd lengths—and do things that, from a character or writing perspective, make absolutely no sense—to "get ahead". Conversely, there are people who are so heavily invested in the Writing side that they deliberately try to divorce themselves from the Game requirements—such as actually maintaining the region they are Lord of, or participating in the realm—preferring instead to sit and write long narrative scenes about their characters.
It is people like these extremes, generally, that cause the most problems in the game.
Quote
But the truth is that they actually support each other in a symbiotic relationship. The game needs ambitious players whose goals are to run things right and grab everything with both hands (like the classic Noble). It also needs players who are willing to take the time to translate those technical achievements (or lack thereof) into setting and story.
Absolutely.
And the game needs to support both, in the proper balance.
Quote
If I were a betting man, I would bet that our current rash of problems is at least partially caused by an imbalance in these two motivations: one has begun to eclipse the other. If we are to view the recent changes to BM with any objectivity, it should be done with the perspective that the goal of those changes is (or at least should be) to correct an imbalance.
Actually, I think that the perception that there's been worse troubles recently with players than in the past is just that: a perception, not the reality.
What
has happened recently is that with the Magistrates making grievances between players public, we've seen a couple of things: first, people are actually starting to see the issues that affect their fellow players; and second, a consensus has developed that harassment is not something we want to condone (and consequently, multiple cases of harassment being publicly reported and going through the Magistrate process).
As someone who was able to see many of the Titan cases as they happened (though I was never a Titan), I can assure you that though the recent spate of cases are unusual for their public and contentious nature, the rate of reports to the dominant judicial authority in the game (whether Magistrates or Titans) has actually been much lower recently than in the past.
I think we've had several powergamers who have aged and turned to casual players, myself included. Those playing in Lukon--who used to have the best army in the Colonies--are now suffering from the same, which has let Oritolon do very well against them in battle. So realms are quieter now.
Posted by: egamma
« on: Yesterday at 04:07:10 PM »
Insert Quote
I think we've had several powergamers who have aged and turned to casual players, myself included. Those playing in Lukon--who used to have the best army in the Colonies--are now suffering from the same, which has let Oritolon do very well against them in battle. So realms are quieter now.
Na, the young blood woke up the old blood, gg incoming
I like to think I play three different characters in three different ways.
Eoric is the casual, the drone who gives scout reports but does little other than follow directions. There are exceptions to this, like when nothing is happening he'll try to stir the pot a bit. When the pawns start sabre-rattling and/or causing trouble that is when something needs to happen and leaders need to make the realm engaging.
Enoch is the actor, the character I try to give some depth. Subtle schemes, multiple contacts across realms. SMA Dwilight and Sanguis Astroism helps facilitate this very well.
Emeric (Willy before) is my GOT character. Actively trying to cause drama. Absconding with gold/unpaid fines, looting against orders, and (in time) more abrasive actions.
I've yet to really try powergaming. That seems reserved for generals/marshals. I dabbled with Enoch in a brief stint as General, but found the number crunching and contingency plans too distracting from the actual game itself. I'm sure there is a type of euphoria in it once there are high stakes and winners/loser to the powergaming...but I've not had a chance at that yet.
In general, I think these are good arch-types for playstyles, but it's good to remember that some (if not most) players will span all those styles.
You can also break a power gamer into a couple of categories...
The minimaxer... Who uses 'the math' to figure out exactly what it will take to 'win' an encounter/war/whatever...
and
The manipulator... Who is, as the name implies, working the social angles to 'win' an encounter...
You see a lot of minmax talk in the forums...from dev. and players. You normally see a social aspect post go unquoted and commented on.
The result is you have a game being developed by mechanics/numbers people that leans to favor those people. They then try to compensate the balance by using more numbers and calculations...
That is the game balance that is out of whack. We have gone away from this game being a social experiment.
Quote from: SaDiablo on August 23, 2013, 02:08:34 AM
Posted by: egamma
« on: Yesterday at 04:07:10 PM »
Insert Quote
I think we've had several powergamers who have aged and turned to casual players, myself included. Those playing in Lukon--who used to have the best army in the Colonies--are now suffering from the same, which has let Oritolon do very well against them in battle. So realms are quieter now.
Na, the young blood woke up the old blood, gg incoming
We offered gg and ares declined.
GoT = Game of Thrones?
Why in the world would liking Game of Thrones mean you don't create consistent characters, that you whine about things not being exciting and demand that they get their way, are especially self centered, drive away casual gamers and are responsible for most of the negative feelings in the game and etc? And have more time to play? This connection is a really strange one to make in an analysis of player types. It's like seeing a list of socioeconomic classes go "lower class, middle class, upper class, and dog owners."
its obviously shorthand. e.g. the world is made up of non-weabs and naruto fans.
Very cool thing you're doing, Bendix. Reminds me of what I tried to start doing with The Journal on the wiki. Look forward to the next one!
Quote from: Daycryn on August 24, 2013, 08:28:05 AM
Why in the world would liking Game of Thrones mean you don't create consistent characters, that you whine about things not being exciting and demand that they get their way, are especially self centered, drive away casual gamers and are responsible for most of the negative feelings in the game and etc? And have more time to play? This connection is a really strange one to make in an analysis of player types. It's like seeing a list of socioeconomic classes go "lower class, middle class, upper class, and dog owners."
He didn't mean to offend the GoT fanbase, as he said clearly that it is game of thrones ADDICTS he meant, not regular fans. Game of Thrones is all about scheming and plotting on a truly epic scale and thus he makes a reference to GoT to describe the BM players who play it most and above all for the excitement of the medieval world, way beyond the ordinary BM player.
Quote from: Watly on August 24, 2013, 11:24:55 PM
He didn't mean to offend the GoT fanbase, as he said clearly that it is game of thrones ADDICTS he meant, not regular fans. Game of Thrones is all about scheming and plotting on a truly epic scale and thus he makes a reference to GoT to describe the BM players who play it most and above all for the excitement of the medieval world, way beyond the ordinary BM player.
It still doesn't make sense. Game of Thrones is actually chock full of exceptionally consistent and believable characters, and plenty of the mundane and ordinary quite apart from EPIC-ness. And again, there are plenty of 'powergamers' who must be GoT fans, same with casual gamers, and plenty of the personalities he describes who aren't fans of the series at all. It's just not a very strong correlation and it's coming off as a negative stereotype. Whether qualified with "addicts" or no.
Quote from: Daycryn on August 25, 2013, 06:44:01 AM
It still doesn't make sense. Game of Thrones is actually chock full of exceptionally consistent and believable characters, and plenty of the mundane and ordinary quite apart from EPIC-ness. And again, there are plenty of 'powergamers' who must be GoT fans, same with casual gamers, and plenty of the personalities he describes who aren't fans of the series at all. It's just not a very strong correlation and it's coming off as a negative stereotype. Whether qualified with "addicts" or no.
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.
Quote from: Kai on August 25, 2013, 09:14:55 AM
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.
I've always found this to be a conflicting opinion. you have a game about medieval nobles, which just SCREAMS intra-realm politics, and then expect it to be a game with teams like football or baseball. there wouldnt be much need for roleplaying since that would mean this was a pure strategy game.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on August 25, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
I've always found this to be a conflicting opinion. you have a game about medieval nobles, which just SCREAMS intra-realm politics, and then expect it to be a game with teams like football or baseball. there wouldnt be much need for roleplaying since that would mean this was a pure strategy game.
Agreed. It's a team game until it's not, i.e. until it's no longer in the character's personal best interest.
Everyone should have personal interest in mind with every action.
We really do need a more publicized and rounded out RP guide. Show people how to see from a perspective.
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.
You can work towards fulfilling your own selfish ambitions without disrupting the whole realm. It doesn't have to be one or the other
Quote from: Sacha on August 25, 2013, 07:18:00 PM
You can work towards fulfilling your own selfish ambitions without disrupting the whole realm. It doesn't have to be one or the other
Like Bankers using the Shadow government option.
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.
Quote from: Indirik on August 25, 2013, 07:05:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on August 26, 2013, 01:42:12 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Anaris on August 26, 2013, 02:02:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 26, 2013, 02:03:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Bendix on August 22, 2013, 01:51:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on August 26, 2013, 01:42:12 AM
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.
Quote from: Sacha on August 25, 2013, 08:12:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Dishman on August 25, 2013, 07:26:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Kai on August 25, 2013, 09:14:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Indirik on August 25, 2013, 07:05:50 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Indirik on August 25, 2013, 07:05:50 PM
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).
Quote from: Blue Star on September 04, 2013, 06:32:17 PM
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 :-)
Quote from: Blue Star on September 04, 2013, 06:32:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Tom on September 04, 2013, 07:00:38 PM
You should wait for Might & Fealty :-)
Tom, O I am waiting don't worry I will jump aboard, just been busy.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on September 05, 2013, 12:36:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Blue Star on September 05, 2013, 06:06:11 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Blue Star on September 04, 2013, 06:32:17 PM
but nope I still haven't seen John Snow (wonder if he's in BoM).
That's because he knows nothing.
Quote from: Stabbity on September 07, 2013, 07:21:24 PM
That's because he knows nothing.
Careful, I got warned by moderators for making that joke. With no apology and my threads locked when I tried to defend the joke.
I absolutely insist that power gaming and acting can go together. You can optimize for success, then sing an epic tale of valour about it afterwards. Without victory, there can be no freedom to tell your own tales!
Stabbity's convoluted plots are a demonstration that you can play the game like a game-of-thrones series. Perhaps it's just that most human beings lack the social understanding to pull such things off.
I believe that ic and ooc separation goes out the window once you have people who will play to win. Ultimately, you don't just deceive or screw over a character, but also a person who controls the character and tries to act in its best interests. When you plot against characters, you plot against people - you're not playing against fictional strengths and weaknesses of someone's avatar, but against a person who thinks and trusts and hopes.
Also, unless you have a Lord who is really on the ball about dealing with his relationship with his knights, the game pretty much begins at Lordship.
This third column is (obviously) coming extremely late. It's shaping up to be a hectic schoolyear here in hicktown, USA- I swear every year we lose more staff and gain more kids. We have the Republicans to thank for that, at least in my county.
So today (or rather last week and the week before) we are going to talk about how we actually construct and embody characters, and why, as always, no one should judge anyone for any of it.
Article number 'C':
Improv! (Or Die)
The principles of Improvisational Acting or Comedy, often known simply as 'improv', can play a huge role in the way we play a roleplaying game. People talk about how dramatic acting and writing can affect the game, but this is actually a false assumption. An RPG is its own medium within the literary world.
Playing an RPG is different from writing a novel or screenplay, because in a novel or screenplay the story is set, from beginning to end, by a single person, who controls every character, and has concrete ideas in how to work toward an ending. You can't really compare it to a thing like, oh, for instance, Game of Thrones, because, although they have similar settings, they are completely different mediums. That would be like trying to compare "The Mona Lisa" to "Scarface" (So please, don't try. At least not in this thread.)
Playing an RPG is different from acting, because you are not reading from a script when you play an RPG. You have actual decisions to make based on how other players play their characters. The surprises are actually surprising. The choices we make are what ultimately what defines our character.
The false assumption we make about characters in an RPG is that they are built and conceptualized by the player before he begins playing. Now, while some players may attempt to develop a solid concept or not, the character never turns out exactly how you expect, because you don't know what to expect. You cannot conceive of an arc, so all you're left with is archetype. And that's not good enough. Characters grow with every choice they make. Therefore, to generate interest, one must make choices, and force other characters to make choices.
The closest we come to Roleplaying Games in the artistic community is Improvisational Acting. Anyone who has ever taken an improv class will tell you that the two most important rules are to:
1.) Always agree with your partner(s), no matter what, in order to keep the story flowing: Always keep moving the story forward; never try to backtrack. If you try to backtrack an improv, and say "Hey, wait, no you can't do that, let's go back and start over" you're breaking character, breaking the suspense of disbelief, and trying the audience's patience. It's not a book; you can't go back and rewrite and edit before you send it to the press. As soon as you do something it's done.
2.) GO BIG. Always expand on things: If you don't make your ideas seem important, the audience won't think it's important. The premise must be explicit. You must be obvious, as opposed to subtle; it's not a film, where you can give the audience a visual close-up of your character's face, and all the nuanced movement and expression that comes with that. You need broad strokes to connect with everyone.
BM players rarely have a problem with rule #1, but when they do it can really hurt other players experience. If a player is doing something a little bit unorthodox, don't rain on their parade out-of character, especially if it has involved other characters. About a year ago I saw one player make fun of another player for having a pet wolf as being unrealistic. It may not be entirely realistic, but as long as it generates interest and keeps with the setting I will go out of my way not to have a problem with it. Try to make things work, instead of calling people on their errors- people work hard on some of these aspects of roleplaying.
Right now, Battlemaster does NOT have a problem with people straying too far from the settings: no one is trying to jam alien-vampire-cowboys into the game; no one is riding dragons; no one is Terminator. Battlemaster does have a problem, however, with people not generating enough interest. If someone is at least trying, my opinion is that we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We should be supportive.
I feel that most BM players have no problem adhering to rule 2, in certain situations. Little rivalries and quarrels between characters get blown up into duels to the death, intense grappling over positions and power, and even to betrayals and defection. This is what drives a lot of the game, and should looked at from a larger perspective. It is inviting other characters to weigh-in on the situation, and giving everyone a chance for further character exposition. You are forcing a choice by making a mountain out of a molehill, and that's good story fuel.
However, I feel a lot of players, good, decent players even, have a problem actually making those choices, and committing to something. Avoiding confrontation becomes the norm, and eventually you're not even there. Now, you might say "Well, I don't really care about the Roleplaying, just about the power-game", that's fine, but if you avoid conflict too much, you will fall out of favor with everyone. If you have no enemies, you will have no friends. No one will follow you when it comes time to fight, and your realm will lose. There is no growth without conflict. The nature of the game dictates that playing your role is power, more than any Ducal seat or Rulership can ever provide.
Culture ultimately ensures both victory and entertainment. Contribute to your realm's culture if you want to survive.
* * *
It took a while, but I feel it was a good way to cap off what I started in article #2.
Next week (or whenever; I got no !@#$in' idea) I will switch gears and start in on the heavy stuff: the ethics of battlemaster, both in-game and out!
I like your rule 2: go big or go home.
Quote from: Indirik on September 16, 2013, 12:30:41 AM
I like your rule 2: go big or go home.
What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement... :-[
Quote from: Lacedaemon on September 16, 2013, 10:24:54 AM
What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement... :-[
How does that impact potential RP? Even the poorest knight can be the centre of a great tragedy.
Quote from: Bendix on September 16, 2013, 12:21:59 AM
1.) Always agree with your partner(s), no matter what, in order to keep the story flowing: Always keep moving the story forward; never try to backtrack. If you try to backtrack an improv, and say "Hey, wait, no you can't do that, let's go back and start over" you're breaking character, breaking the suspense of disbelief, and trying the audience's patience. It's not a book; you can't go back and rewrite and edit before you send it to the press. As soon as you do something it's done.
This actually contradicts one of BM and SpellMaster's classic Rules of Roleplaying: the "Yes, but..."
It is primarily applicable when you are roleplaying in an adversarial situation—your character fighting against the other player's character in one way or another—and they roleplay something that would simply allow them to declare victory without you getting a chance to respond. So if they said, "But then Kepler breaks past Delvin's defenses and sinks his blade deep—a mortal wound!" I might respond with, "He breaks past Delvin's defenses, yes, but when he lunges in to thrust the blade home, it glances off the chain mail Delvin was wearing beneath his tunic!"
It is not always a necessary technique when roleplaying with someone who follows the rules of RP etiquette properly, but when dealing with someone who has no problem god-moding to ensure that he always wins, following your rule would just leave you dead every time.
Quote from: Anaris on September 16, 2013, 04:15:18 PM
This actually contradicts one of BM and SpellMaster's classic Rules of Roleplaying: the "Yes, but..."
It is primarily applicable when you are roleplaying in an adversarial situation—your character fighting against the other player's character in one way or another—and they roleplay something that would simply allow them to declare victory without you getting a chance to respond. So if they said, "But then Kepler breaks past Delvin's defenses and sinks his blade deep—a mortal wound!" I might respond with, "He breaks past Delvin's defenses, yes, but when he lunges in to thrust the blade home, it glances off the chain mail Delvin was wearing beneath his tunic!"
It is not always a necessary technique when roleplaying with someone who follows the rules of RP etiquette properly, but when dealing with someone who has no problem god-moding to ensure that he always wins, following your rule would just leave you dead every time.
It doesn't really disagree. "Yes, but..." is agreeing with your partner(s), and adds on to it. He is simply saying, don't go OOC arguing about whether or not someone can do something in their Roleplay, because it just wrecks the roleplay immersion of it.
Quote from: Anaris on September 16, 2013, 04:15:18 PM
So if they said, "But then Kepler breaks past Delvin's defenses and sinks his blade deep—a mortal wound!" I might respond with, "He breaks past Delvin's defenses, yes, but when he lunges in to thrust the blade home, it glances off the chain mail Delvin was wearing beneath his tunic!"
Not quite, your example would be almost breaking the rule itself, because you don't say "yes", you only say "yes" to a part.
A better reply would be to accept ALL of the other roleplay and saying "...a mortal wound - or so it seems. The blow would have killed anyone surely, but Delvin staggers back, revealing a hidden chain mail under his tunic that saved his life just then." - it is almost the same, but with an important difference: You are not denying the mortal wound and saying "no, it didn't happen and here is why". You say "yes, that was a mortal wound, except..." - it's a small difference, but a vital one.
Okay, the obvious caveat to my thesis is that you would follow the rules of the game first and foremost- that should have gone without saying. The rules of improv, self-imposed when in character, come second. It's not some absolutist doctrine.
It's just to illustrate the way techniques from one theatrical discipline can be applied to interacting with other characters in Battlemaster.
Quote from: Lacedaemon on September 16, 2013, 10:24:54 AM
What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement... :-[
Where...where does that realm exist!?
Quote from: Lacedaemon on September 16, 2013, 10:24:54 AM
What about all those poor little knights in overcrowded realms with few opportunities for advancement... :-[
LIES THERE IS NO SUCH REALM THESE DAYS!
Quote from: Perth on September 09, 2013, 12:35:02 AM
Careful, I got warned by moderators for making that joke. With no apology and my threads locked when I tried to defend the joke.
To anyone who is not familiar with the Game of Thrones series, it was an obvious and blatant personal attack. Your warning points were rescinded the same day that they were given. Should I really apologize for not reading/watching the Game of Thrones? As a moderator, is it my responsibility to watch the Game of Thrones?
Quote from: egamma on September 25, 2013, 07:36:53 PM
To anyone who is not familiar with the Game of Thrones series, it was an obvious and blatant personal attack. Your warning points were rescinded the same day that they were given. Should I really apologize for not reading/watching the Game of Thrones? As a moderator, is it my responsibility to watch the Game of Thrones?
Of course not. But I was pretty flabbergasted that I was punished for something as innocuous as saying "you know nothing" in an environment where people frequently curse at one another, accuse each other of cheating, lying, etc.
But, whatever, you obviously mistook my intentions and didn't get the joke. No big. But why in the world were you locking the threads I started trying explain the joke/defend myself? That did nothing but further the feeling of persecution.
Quote from: Perth on September 25, 2013, 09:09:54 PM
Of course not. But I was pretty flabbergasted that I was punished for something as innocuous as saying "you know nothing" in an environment where people frequently curse at one another, accuse each other of cheating, lying, etc.
But, whatever, you obviously mistook my intentions and didn't get the joke. No big. But why in the world were you locking the threads I started trying explain the joke/defend myself? That did nothing but further the feeling of persecution.
I don't actually remember locking the threads, sorry, that's been quite a while. And we've come a long way as far as the cursing and accusations are concerned--I think if the post had happened last week, the moderator actions would have been a lot less surprising.
Quote from: egamma on September 26, 2013, 02:04:18 PM
I don't actually remember locking the threads, sorry, that's been quite a while. And we've come a long way as far as the cursing and accusations are concerned--I think if the post had happened last week, the moderator actions would have been a lot less surprising.
I'm sorry for bringing it up again, was having a bad day at work yesterday. It's in the past and no harm was done. No hard feelings.