BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Eirikr on July 01, 2013, 07:03:05 AM
-
Something has been bothering me for a while: Is it considered metagaming if you view messages as real or fake depending on their game mechanic format?
Let me clarify a few things in that very complex question:
- "Metagaming" is, essentially, using OOC information to make IC choices.
- By "game mechanic format", I mean anything ranging from scribe note links to manually copied and pasted letters. This includes other code-forced information, such as assassination attempt notices.
- The very nature of the game is to promote roleplaying, however, it seems to be a common thought that game mechanics trump roleplaying.
- Regardless of the consensus, I am certain that this is essentially impossible to change. Therefore, I'm just looking to ease my own mind.
Now let me provide an example of what I mean:
Report from Kepler (8 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (10 recipients)
I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts!
Kepler
Knight of Keplaria
star [reply to sender] | [ignore] | [userdetails] | [vulgarity]
If someone copies this to you, as is, would you take it as real without a thought (pretend it has some controversial content)? Of course, someone could have altered it in the copy and paste, but the format makes it look like someone was too lazy to do that.
Another example:
Report from Kepler (8 minutes ago)
Message sent to everyone in your realm (10 recipients)
Scribe Note Scout Report (Keplerstan)
Kepler
Knight of Keplaria
star [reply to sender] | [ignore] | [userdetails] | [vulgarity]
Assuming there's a link to an actual scribe note in there, is there anything besides the format and forced results of game mechanics that make your character believe it's true?
My point is this: We, as players, know that certain sources are reliable and can only occur via certain means provided in the game. Sometimes, it's due to the format. Other times, it's due to the knowledge that the information simply can't be forged. (Hence why I don't have a fake scribe note to link to. ;) ) When is it unreasonable to argue that a piece of information is fake? Alternately, would your character ever accept a roleplay that tries to establish a game mechanically created piece of information fake? What makes your character so confident in their opinon?
-
You're giving me a headache ;)
I think it would just be silly to try to establish a piece of information that's clearly been generated by the game as fake (i.e. a scribe note; an assassination attempt notification; tax returns; etc). The game says hero Bob has been killed in battle. Your character says that the scribe who issued the notification was drunk and Bob is well and enjoying his breakfast. It doesn't change the fact that Bob's really lying in a pool of his own blood and soon to be heading to the family tomb. The fake version of events won't be accepted without equally convincing proof, which is impossible to obtain.
Characters accept this because they exist in a shared reality where the scribes sending out that sort of information never get it wrong. Questioning it would never occur to them because their reality would break to consider such a thing. Information generated by game mechanics are the laws of nature of their existance, thereby trumping everything else. The comparison in the real world is like someone saying to you that gravity has stopped working. So you throw an apple in the air and it comes down on your head. The laws of nature clearly don't support the fake argument.
Of course, letters can be faked because they're subjective. So a character might always be suspicious of something passed to them through a third party.
-
You're giving me a headache ;)
I think it would just be silly to try to establish a piece of information that's clearly been generated by the game as fake (i.e. a scribe note; an assassination attempt notification; tax returns; etc). The game says hero Bob has been killed in battle. Your character says that the scribe who issued the notification was drunk and Bob is well and enjoying his breakfast. It doesn't change the fact that Bob's really lying in a pool of his own blood and soon to be heading to the family tomb. The fake version of events won't be accepted without equally convincing proof, which is impossible to obtain.
Characters accept this because they exist in a shared reality where the scribes sending out that sort of information never get it wrong. Questioning it would never occur to them because their reality would break to consider such a thing. Information generated by game mechanics are the laws of nature of their existance, thereby trumping everything else. The comparison in the real world is like someone saying to you that gravity has stopped working. So you throw an apple in the air and it comes down on your head. The laws of nature clearly don't support the fake argument.
Of course, letters can be faked because they're subjective. So a character might always be suspicious of something passed to them through a third party.
I think this is an excellent breakdown of the issues here.
Disbelieving information given to you by the game that is never wrong (note: some information given to you by the game has a chance of being wrong: for an obvious example, see the precise details of CS in scout reports) is foolishness, and its logical extension is that your character cannot believe anything that happens around him, because it's all reported by messages. Nor can he believe that any of the letters sent to him are real.
So...yeah, that's stupid, and leads to pointless frustration when you try to interact with people who are playing the game in a sane manner.
If you're having trouble with the disconnect between what real people can believe and what BM characters can believe, remember this: Real people can meet in person and hand each other gold coins.
-
What about more complex cases, such as the obvious infiltrator in the same region as a noble, yet he is 'not identified' after the attack? We all know who did it, but he wasn't actually caught... Does it become metagaming to link the attacker through a scribe report placing him in the region?
Or torture reports, where it is impossible for the information itself to be fake unless it was fake for the original recipient?
You guys have said basically what I was thinking, but I've seen it played differently. "Should" doesn't always translate into "does".
-
What about more complex cases, such as the obvious infiltrator in the same region as a noble, yet he is 'not identified' after the attack? We all know who did it, but he wasn't actually caught... Does it become metagaming to link the attacker through a scribe report placing him in the region?
I don't see how. All that is completely IC information.
Or torture reports, where it is impossible for the information itself to be fake unless it was fake for the original recipient?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you asking whether it is metagaming to believe the messages obtained through a torture report without question?
If so, I'd say that's more of a borderline case, particularly given what we know today about the unreliability of information gained through torture. However, in general, I would say that yeah, it's acceptable to declare that our characters "know" that such information can never be false.
(At least until we coders can figure out a way to make some of it be false...)
-
I don't see how. All that is completely IC information.
Oops, I meant to make that more absolute; is it metagaming to claim scribe note evidence as undeniable proof? That is, if the attacker isn't ID'd, but is game mechanically obvious, would our characters take it as obvious as well?
I understand that this will ultimately fall to how the characters play it, but is it right to get fed up (IC) when someone tries to deny this kind of proof? Or should we (potentially) accept the RP description?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you asking whether it is metagaming to believe the messages obtained through a torture report without question?
Yup.
-
Oops, I meant to make that more absolute; is it metagaming to claim scribe note evidence as undeniable proof? That is, if the attacker isn't ID'd, but is game mechanically obvious, would our characters take it as obvious as well?
I understand that this will ultimately fall to how the characters play it, but is it right to get fed up (IC) when someone tries to deny this kind of proof? Or should we (potentially) accept the RP description?
The scribe note is undeniable proof that the noble is there.
It is not undeniable proof—either IC or OOC—that they are the ones who did the deed. (Unless they're the only noble in the region, and there's no way another noble could have gotten out of there in the meantime.)
-
It is not undeniable proof—either IC or OOC—that they are the ones who did the deed. (Unless they're the only noble in the region, and there's no way another noble could have gotten out of there in the meantime.)
Various people take a different positions on this. In particular, some people claim that just because a scout report shows that a particular noble was in the region doesn't prove that *they* were responsible for the explosion that destroyed the fortifications, even if they were the only noble there. After all, there were 10,000 other people in that region. Who's to say that one of the other people in the region didn't do it? "I was there, but I didn't do it." These people sometimes argue that you should believe another character (who is of the high nobility) over the word of a minor, possibly non-noble, functionary. So if the noble says "I didn't do it", but the functionary (i.e. game generated message) says "He was spotted at the scene of the crime", obviously the functionary is lying, and to believe them over the word of the noble would be bad RP.
Others will point out that a lifetime of experience for our characters has proven that these things never happen except when a noble is present. If it doesn't happen except when a noble is present, then only nobles do it, so therefore the noble is responsible. They argue that this is something that their characters would notice, and that to have their characters ignore the connection would be to play their characters as being stupid. These people point out that the minor functionaries (i.e. geame generated messages) have never lied or been wrong in the past, so trusting them is an obvious no-brainer, and to doubt them would, again, mean their character is an idiot.
After playing BattleMaster for a while, it is pretty clear that the people who follow these different philosophies are pretty well entrenched in their beliefs. If Bedwyr were here, he could launch a pretty extensive diatribe about it. (He's in the "my character isn't stupid" camp.)
Which play style is "right"? I personally don't think there is a right or wrong. Play your character however you want, and let other people play their character their own way. If you want your character to be fooled by another character's clever tale, go for it. If you don't, then don't. And don't expect some other player to play your chosen way.
-
Various people take a different positions on this. In particular, some people claim that just because a scout report shows that a particular noble was in the region doesn't prove that *they* were responsible for the explosion that destroyed the fortifications, even if they were the only noble there. After all, there were 10,000 other people in that region. Who's to say that one of the other people in the region didn't do it? "I was there, but I didn't do it." These people sometimes argue that you should believe another character (who is of the high nobility) over the word of a minor, possibly non-noble, functionary. So if the noble says "I didn't do it", but the functionary (i.e. game generated message) says "He was spotted at the scene of the crime", obviously the functionary is lying, and to believe them over the word of the noble would be bad RP.
Others will point out that a lifetime of experience for our characters has proven that these things never happen except when a noble is present. If it doesn't happen except when a noble is present, then only nobles do it, so therefore the noble is responsible. They argue that this is something that their characters would notice, and that to have their characters ignore the connection would be to play their characters as being stupid. These people point out that the minor functionaries (i.e. geame generated messages) have never lied or been wrong in the past, so trusting them is an obvious no-brainer, and to doubt them would, again, mean their character is an idiot.
After playing BattleMaster for a while, it is pretty clear that the people who follow these different philosophies are pretty well entrenched in their beliefs. If Bedwyr were here, he could launch a pretty extensive diatribe about it. (He's in the "my character isn't stupid" camp.)
Which play style is "right"? I personally don't think there is a right or wrong. Play your character however you want, and let other people play their character their own way. If you want your character to be fooled by another character's clever tale, go for it. If you don't, then don't. And don't expect some other player to play your chosen way.
Well, one I've heard recently in-game, is the idea that a peasant could have been the one that did the assassination attempt, even though there was only one other noble in the region.
-
These people sometimes argue that you should believe another character (who is of the high nobility) over the word of a minor, possibly non-noble, functionary. So if the noble says "I didn't do it", but the functionary (i.e. game generated message) says "He was spotted at the scene of the crime", obviously the functionary is lying, and to believe them over the word of the noble would be bad RP.
I find this to be one of the most pointlessly aggravating arguments in the game.
Like I said before, if you do not trust the word of these "functionaries" here, why should you ever trust them? Why should you believe them when they tell you that the fortification was even damaged? Why should you believe them when they tell you the noble is there? Why should you even believe the letters you receive, which were penned by a commoner scribe and delivered by a commoner messenger? Why, in short, should anything in the game be trusted?
That way lies madness. I wonder if we could fight this absurdity by making it explicit somewhere in the game's text that the people responsible for all these reports are minor, NPC nobles. That would certainly gut the "would you believe me or a dirty commoner" argument.
Which play style is "right"? I personally don't think there is a right or wrong. Play your character however you want, and let other people play their character their own way. If you want your character to be fooled by another character's clever tale, go for it. If you don't, then don't. And don't expect some other player to play your chosen way.
I do think there's a right and wrong. And the problems come when the two camps collide. Generally, the people who accept game-generated messages as just being part of the game, and thus trustworthy, have no expectation that there will be any disagreement, because it's obvious what happened. So they're blindsided and often have to take some time just to adjust to the fact that there are (from where I sit) a bunch of trolls just trying to get someone off for a crime that he obviously committed.
Imagine the scenario where you've got a dozen players who subscribe to the "game-generated messages are trustworthy" camp, and two players who subscribe to the "just like in real life, no one can be fully trusted (and if you RP your characters to believe otherwise, you're obviously an idiot, which is usually implied)" camp. One of those is the actual culprit in the attack, and the other is the Judge.
The culprit, when challenged on his actions, says, "No, you must be mistaken, you can't believe these dirty commoners when they tell you it was me!" The judge backs him up. The rest of the realm points at the culprit's history of flouting orders, doing whatever he damn well pleases, and causing trouble. The judge, who wasn't particularly sympathetic to the shenanigans before now, just says, "But if we punish him for this on the word of a bunch of commoners, we may as well just abandon the whole system of nobility."
Ladies and gentlemen, the story you have just read is paraphrased from truth. Only the names have been removed because I can't recall all the details.
...In fact, I've seen this scenario play out multiple times, the most recent being when Galen Perth tried to get out of responsibility for auto da fe-ing a fellow Zonasan in good standing, and Vellos not only stood up for him, but agreed with his multiple wild claims of having received different reports than what the game actually generated, and having done things in different orders than what actually happened (and thus, different than the order in which we all received the messages).
-
I have a question to add that seems related, though if it isn't I apologize.
What happens when two game related messages more or less contradict each other in a RP sense?
For example, earlier in the FEI war Edmund was sent reports via Greater Aenilia that said the Arcaean army in, erm, Nahad, I think, was murdering peasants, pillaging, burning, etc. Since the reports shared with Edmund looked official, he assumed they were and applied the appropriate outrage to what he saw as unnecessary violence. When confronted a few turns later with the fact, however, Velax was able to provide a scribe report that noted that the population of the city and it's infrastructure was relatively unchanged.
Now, it's possible the reports of pillaging and murdering were falsified, but they looked legitimate (I never looked into it, so if anyone reveals it now I suppose my question is invalidated, though at least I'll know). The scribe note obviously wasn't falsified since it can't be. So, here Edmund was stuck with two seemingly legitimate sources that totally contradicted each other. I played it off as Edmund disbelieving an Arcaean's ability to count so many people for a report at once, but I didn't particularly like doing it since a scribe note obviously isn't going to be wrong but I have every IC reason for believing the earlier takeover reports saying villagers were being slaughtered wholesale.
-
There's not necessarily any contradiction. Just because there's been some looting doesn't mean there's going to be massive depopulation of the region being looted.
That usually takes several turns of sustained, focused slaughter.
-
Well, the takeover messages specifically mentioned that peasants were being killed, though I can't remember it entirely since it's out of my message history by now. Then the scribe report said that population went down by one, I think. Again, this is all by memory, so I might be remembering something wrong.
Shouldn't we assume that if multiple nobles (which the reports Edmund were sent listed more than one noble) are attacking and killing peasants during a takeover that a scribe note would reflect more than 1 death? Or given the game mechanics, we ignore it since we know it takes a while for actual depopulation?
-
The 'your character must believe functionaries because after a lifetime of experience they have never been wrong' argument can be easily avoided, if you adopt a different way of perceiving your relation to BM.
Imagine there BM is an actual working world in another dimension, and the only way we perceive it is through this website. The only messages that manage to get through to our side are the messages that are true. We never learn about the fake messages.
It's not hard to imagine your characters to be busy doing daily things even if you don't roleplay them doing it. It is equally easy to imagine that these characters are bombarded by fake messages all the time. Where you as a player receive a single scribe note, it's not hard to imagine your character actually received a dozen, had them verified (?), and in the end concluded one of them was right.
Looking at it this way I think it is quite easy to continue believing in the game mechanics, but also for the player to decide not to believe them when suitable (such as for RP reasons, to keep things interesting, or to gain an advantage).
-
This discrepancy is built into the game design and there is no getting around it - you pretty much have to do one of the two things described above.
The only way around it would be to integrate infiltrator actions to things that can happen for other reasons. You'd need some kind of crime/control system where your warehouses could get sabotaged by NPCs if they had reason. That's not a small undertaking, but until it happens, the only people who do sabotage warehouses or assassinate nobles are other nobles. That's just the way of the BM universe.
-
Well, the takeover messages specifically mentioned that peasants were being killed, though I can't remember it entirely since it's out of my message history by now. Then the scribe report said that population went down by one, I think. Again, this is all by memory, so I might be remembering something wrong.
Shouldn't we assume that if multiple nobles (which the reports Edmund were sent listed more than one noble) are attacking and killing peasants during a takeover that a scribe note would reflect more than 1 death? Or given the game mechanics, we ignore it since we know it takes a while for actual depopulation?
Oh, sorry; I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about looting, not TO messages.
The new TO system is still (unfortunately) unfinished. None of its actions have any game-mechanic effect aside from moving the TO along towards either a Love TO or a Fear TO.
It's just one more thing that's on my list.
-
This discrepancy is built into the game design and there is no getting around it - you pretty much have to do one of the two things described above.
The only way around it would be to integrate infiltrator actions to things that can happen for other reasons. You'd need some kind of crime/control system where your warehouses could get sabotaged by NPCs if they had reason. That's not a small undertaking, but until it happens, the only people who do sabotage warehouses or assassinate nobles are other nobles. That's just the way of the BM universe.
I have been considering adding more events like this to add some plausible deniability. Perhaps not to every infiltrator action (or other nasty thing people can do and maybe not get caught), but at least to some.
-
Oh, sorry; I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about looting, not TO messages.
The new TO system is still (unfortunately) unfinished. None of its actions have any game-mechanic effect aside from moving the TO along towards either a Love TO or a Fear TO.
It's just one more thing that's on my list.
Ah, that would explain it then. So I guess either assuming the reports are rumors or the scout report was false was the best bet anyway. Thank you.
-
I have your solution right here (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4389.0.html)
-
I have your solution right here (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4389.0.html)
+1 Well played, sir.
The serious discussion in here has been very enlightening. I agree pretty staunchly with some things and have had others shown as good alternatives. Overall, I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks everybody!
-
I have a question to add that seems related, though if it isn't I apologize.
What happens when two game related messages more or less contradict each other in a RP sense?
For example, earlier in the FEI war Edmund was sent reports via Greater Aenilia that said the Arcaean army in, erm, Nahad, I think, was murdering peasants, pillaging, burning, etc. Since the reports shared with Edmund looked official, he assumed they were and applied the appropriate outrage to what he saw as unnecessary violence. When confronted a few turns later with the fact, however, Velax was able to provide a scribe report that noted that the population of the city and it's infrastructure was relatively unchanged.
Now, it's possible the reports of pillaging and murdering were falsified, but they looked legitimate (I never looked into it, so if anyone reveals it now I suppose my question is invalidated, though at least I'll know). The scribe note obviously wasn't falsified since it can't be. So, here Edmund was stuck with two seemingly legitimate sources that totally contradicted each other. I played it off as Edmund disbelieving an Arcaean's ability to count so many people for a report at once, but I didn't particularly like doing it since a scribe note obviously isn't going to be wrong but I have every IC reason for believing the earlier takeover reports saying villagers were being slaughtered wholesale.
Its not metagaming to believe him, because when you check the reports that the scribes of your realm who have no reason to lie tell you the same story, then it would seem that the Arcaean is actually telling the truth.
-
Its not metagaming to believe him, because when you check the reports that the scribes of your realm who have no reason to lie tell you the same story, then it would seem that the Arcaean is actually telling the truth.
The scribes are working together to tell you the same lies.
-
I'll speak up as one of the proponents of the, "You should believe nobles over minor functionaries" camp.
The problem arises in instances where the game itself is ambiguous. I recall a case in PoZ where my character was at odds with one of Tim's characters over the situation surrounding one of Perth's characters' controversial actions.
Long story short, the early RPs were contradictory: many characters made totally impossible statements about what happened, or RP'd drastically different events. Characters claimed to hear and see things from miles away, and alleged weather out of line with the season, etc. And the game only states a small amount of information: yes, it's undeniable that so-and-so was arrested. But it is quite debatable what the exact details were. And in a confusing situation with lots of IG reports coming out (such as a religious uprising followed by arrests follower by upset peasants), the game can sometimes create contradictory reports, or reports that are at minimum very, very hard to reconcile into a coherent narrative.
Game mechanics do trump RP. But, IMHO, game flavor text only kind of trumps RP. And when game flavor texts don't always perfectly align, and then players trying to retcon their actions to fit those flavor texts all tell different and incomprehensible stories...
I choose not to trust the peasant scribes. I'll still to the word of the nobles I trust.
---
To a related question I think was asked: is it meta-gaming to forge the trappings of message details, like timestamps and formatting and such. IMHO, no it's not. Think of it as, IG, our characters forging the seals on the letters and the signatures and such. There are non-textual clues to a letter's validity, we simulate them by developing our own non-textual (or at least para-textual) clues.
-
To a related question I think was asked: is it meta-gaming to forge the trappings of message details, like timestamps and formatting and such. IMHO, no it's not. Think of it as, IG, our characters forging the seals on the letters and the signatures and such. There are non-textual clues to a letter's validity, we simulate them by developing our own non-textual (or at least para-textual) clues.
I agree with this. Forging the timestamps and addressees on a message is no different than forging the Date or salutation on a paper letter. I have heard a few people vociferously claim that doing so is metagaming, but I absolutely don't agree.
One think to be careful of: Different people handle the matter of IC-forged messages differently. Some people roll with it, and others react quite strongly in an OOC manner. So be careful, and be aware that some people might really get pissed off.
-
Well, one I've heard recently in-game, is the idea that a peasant could have been the one that did the assassination attempt, even though there was only one other noble in the region.
Yes, I've seen this claim, too. The thing is, a peasant has never, in the entire history of BattleMaster, ever been arrested in the process of attacking a noble. It's one of the quirks of the world. Peasants are never implicated in any assaults on nobles. It just doesn't happen. So to adjust your character's thinking to assume that such a thing would require you to RP your character as believing that something that has never, ever happened is a plausible explanation of events. i.e. you're character would have to be a moron.
Or so the argument goes. Again, Bedwyr had some really good arguments for this school of thought.
-
Peasants are never implicated in any assaults on nobles.
They assault priests all the time.
They also form mobs and kick out region lords.
-
They assault priests all the time.
Mobs of them, in the public square, after perfectly understandable provocation by the pronouncement of heresies and blasphemy.
They also form mobs and kick out region lords.
Again, mobs of them, in broad daylight.
None of this remotely resembles a lone infiltrator sneaking into your camp at night and stabbing you in the dark.
-
They assault priests all the time.
They also form mobs and kick out region lords.
En masse, yes, groups of them do things. But they never do it solo. And they never get arrested for it. And they never end up in your dungeons for it.
-
Mob attacks sometimes go unreported, sometimes. I mean if a noble gets wounded from a attack and has no idea he was attacked two peasants who were very unhappy might of shoved him into a alley knocked him over the head with a club and beat him up really good, and left him for better or worse. mm never walk alone unless your a good swordsmen and are aware of your surroundings.
-
Mob attacks sometimes go unreported, sometimes. I mean if a noble gets wounded from a attack and has no idea he was attacked two peasants who were very unhappy might of shoved him into a alley knocked him over the head with a club and beat him up really good, and left him for better or worse. mm never walk alone unless your a good swordsmen and are aware of your surroundings.
That is what we call a mugging, which does happen in BM. They just never kill you or try to either.
-
En masse, yes, groups of them do things. But they never do it solo. And they never get arrested for it. And they never end up in your dungeons for it.
You've clearly never been attacked by ruffians while traveling unitless.
It doesn't take mobs: it takes a few highwaymen with daggers.
-
You've clearly never been attacked by ruffians while traveling unitless.
It doesn't take mobs: it takes a few highwaymen with daggers.
I suppose I should clarify:
IMHO, it is metagaming to have your character act with certainty that a noble (a noble!) slunk around in the shadows with a dagger. Far more likely to be one of those darn adventurers.
Many, many, many assassinations happen without an obvious culprit: just because you've never seen a person other people thought was a commoner (my characters have often doubted the lineage of other "nobles") kill someone doesn't mean you would necessarily think it incredible.
-
IMHO, it is metagaming to have your character act with certainty that a noble (a noble!) slunk around in the shadows with a dagger. Far more likely to be one of those darn adventurers.
This is absolutely wrong and wrongheaded. It is completely and totally appropriate for our characters to know what is actually possible in the game world.
I notice you tend to be very selective about the things you consider to be metagaming. I've never seen you advocate having our characters believe they can pass gold back and forth between each other in person, or believe that they could recruit more speedily if they went directly to the recruitment center in the region. Or that they might be able to pass entirely through a single region in under a day (assuming that the travel times into and out of the region are both less than 6 hours).
You only seem interested in encouraging people to disbelieve in the game-world restrictions when it comes to the possibilities of people getting away with doing nefarious deeds, even in cases where the facts of the matter are blatantly and unquestionably against them.
-
I suppose I should clarify:
IMHO, it is metagaming to have your character act with certainty that a noble (a noble!) slunk around in the shadows with a dagger. Far more likely to be one of those darn adventurers.
Many, many, many assassinations happen without an obvious culprit: just because you've never seen a person other people thought was a commoner (my characters have often doubted the lineage of other "nobles") kill someone doesn't mean you would necessarily think it incredible.
So nobles are idiots who always get caught even after months and months of training but all adventurers are so skilled that they never, ever get caught attempting to assassinate a noble. We truly are fools while adventurers are the masterminds, so when in doubt, blame the adventurers. Yep, that is totally reasonable.
-
The other aspect is that it takes a lot of training to successfully manage to infiltrate a noble camp full of guards, not even bringing up the success of stabbing target, which only a noble can afford. I wouldn't be opposed (though I doubt it'd happen) to give adventurers the ability to stab nobles. Of course, without infil skill, it'd be incredibly risky and more likely to get captured than someone who underwent much training. And, of course, you could be killed/wounded either in the process of getting captured by an overzealous unit or, failing that, executed by the judge as an example to all other uppity commoners.
-
The other aspect is that it takes a lot of training to successfully manage to infiltrate a noble camp full of guards, not even bringing up the success of stabbing target, which only a noble can afford. I wouldn't be opposed (though I doubt it'd happen) to give adventurers the ability to stab nobles. Of course, without infil skill, it'd be incredibly risky and more likely to get captured than someone who underwent much training. And, of course, you could be killed/wounded either in the process of getting captured by an overzealous unit or, failing that, executed by the judge as an example to all other uppity commoners.
i could be wrong but I thought I heard somewhere there advy gained infil skill as an advy so if that is true it wouldn't be impossible for them, but I am pretty sure advys, even if freemen, don't need a ban to be executed.
-
This is absolutely wrong and wrongheaded. It is completely and totally appropriate for our characters to know what is actually possible in the game world.
I notice you tend to be very selective about the things you consider to be metagaming. I've never seen you advocate having our characters believe they can pass gold back and forth between each other in person, or believe that they could recruit more speedily if they went directly to the recruitment center in the region. Or that they might be able to pass entirely through a single region in under a day (assuming that the travel times into and out of the region are both less than 6 hours).
You only seem interested in encouraging people to disbelieve in the game-world restrictions when it comes to the possibilities of people getting away with doing nefarious deeds, even in cases where the facts of the matter are blatantly and unquestionably against them.
I wouldn't be averse to people having characters who believe they can pass gold back and forth. I've frequently RP'd my characters paying gold for something when I didn't in fact do so.
It's not that I give special credence to nefarious deeds: it's that the point is usually only debated when it relates to nefarious deeds.
-
The other aspect is that it takes a lot of training to successfully manage to infiltrate a noble camp full of guards, not even bringing up the success of stabbing target, which only a noble can afford.
This is pretty much the exact argument I used when it came up for me.
-
You only seem interested in encouraging people to disbelieve in the game-world restrictions when it comes to the possibilities of people getting away with doing nefarious deeds, even in cases where the facts of the matter are blatantly and unquestionably against them.
That's probably because the nefarious deeds are meant to breed conflict IG and IG/IC conflict is all that keeps this game going. Whether you can actually pass gold to someone in person isn't really something to get rattle the swords over. The ambiguity of who actually stabbed King Kepler, on the other hand, is an excellent source of conflict and even more so if there is actually some ambiguity to it. As it is now, you ALWAYS know who it is who stabbed you or someone else. It zaps all of the fun, intrigue, and conflict out of the class.
-
Well that's not true. If you're smart, and have a little bit of luck, they'll never even suspect it was you. Hell, I stabbed someone once and the guy who got blamed for it wasn't even in the region when it happened. I laughed all the way to the bank with the 1,000 gold bounty.
-
That's probably because the nefarious deeds are meant to breed conflict IG and IG/IC conflict is all that keeps this game going. Whether you can actually pass gold to someone in person isn't really something to get rattle the swords over. The ambiguity of who actually stabbed King Kepler, on the other hand, is an excellent source of conflict and even more so if there is actually some ambiguity to it. As it is now, you ALWAYS know who it is who stabbed you or someone else. It zaps all of the fun, intrigue, and conflict out of the class.
That's not at all true. There can be plenty of ambiguity, if you don't try to treat an infiltrator like a ninja who's supposed to slip invisibly behind enemy lines and kill their leader, then slip invisibly back without a trace.
Furthermore, it's not like Vellos is even picking battles that make any sense. Frankly, when Galen auto da fe-ed Sigrún, it would have been hard for him to make more of a hash of it if he'd tried. The evil-overlord-ish message preceding the auto da fe, and the barrage of confused, contradictory attempts to disclaim responsibility afterwards, are so far from the kind of mastermind you're advocating for it's really not even amusing.
If, instead, you had built up to it with days of RP, establishing the peasantry of (IIRC) Razrpot as unruly, under the influence of a more radical school of your religion, and Galen as trying in vain to quiet them, that would have been one thing. I think it would still be borderline at best as far as the conflict between RP and game mechanics goes (after all, if you can claim that you performing an auto da fe is actually completely contrary to your character's intentions, why not claim that executing your character was also completely contrary to the Judge's intentions? She tried to have you released, but the guards all revolted against her and killed you to spite her!), but it would at least have been better than what happened.
So...yeah, if Vellos is trying to promote "good gameplay and RP," he's not picking examples to support that.
Seems to me he's just crying "metagaming" when it happens to suit his IC interests. Which is far worse metagaming than what any character believes.
-
If, instead, you had built up to it with days of RP, establishing the peasantry of (IIRC) Razrpot as unruly, under the influence of a more radical school of your religion, and Galen as trying in vain to quiet them, that would have been one thing. I think it would still be borderline at best as far as the conflict between RP and game mechanics goes (after all, if you can claim that you performing an auto da fe is actually completely contrary to your character's intentions, why not claim that executing your character was also completely contrary to the Judge's intentions? She tried to have you released, but the guards all revolted against her and killed you to spite her!), but it would at least have been better than what happened.
I have no problem with your judge example.
I have no problem with some characters choosing to believe the judge is lying.
What I have a problem with is players acting with a level of certainty that makes no sense for a character to have.
-
What I have a problem with is players acting with a level of certainty that makes no sense for a character to have.
It makes perfect sense.
Our characters live in a different world than we do. The rules of that world are not the same as the rules of this world. Suggesting that a peasant was the one who assassinated Duke Kepler is very much akin to suggesting that your cat was the one who typed up the terrible essay you turned in. Yes, technically it might not be physically impossible, but the idea just doesn't make sense based on everything you know about the world and how it works.
Even worse than "no one was identified, but he's the only one in the region" being metagaming is the suggestion that an infiltrator who was identified as he escaped from his attack might not be the one responsible. That's more like saying your cat designed and built a rocket and traveled to the moon and back.
Don't get me wrong, I love plausible deniability, and I want to add more of it to the game—like reinstating buying (foreign) regions, but doing so in such a way that it looks just like the region revolted and chose you as its new lord. I think that kind of stuff works really well.
What I think is preposterous and immensely aggravating is people who, like you, try to sow FUD purely in the name of sparking more conflict where it's not needed. From where I sit, that episode with Galen was the first wedge that started the division in Zonasa that led to half the realm hating the other half and wishing they were fighting on the side of the war that actively betrayed and attacked our realm.
-
What I think is preposterous and immensely aggravating is people who, like you, try to sow FUD purely in the name of sparking more conflict where it's not needed. From where I sit, that episode with Galen was the first wedge that started the division in Zonasa that led to half the realm hating the other half and wishing they were fighting on the side of the war that actively betrayed and attacked our realm.
Erm, Galen and Onamont were the only ones speaking up for Galen... and neither one have been in PoZ for quite a while.
-
Erm, Galen and Onamont were the only ones speaking up for Galen... and neither one have been in PoZ for quite a while.
Didn't say they were, but at least the impression I have is that that was the point where people started to turn against each other in PoZ, and it gradually degenerated from there.
-
Didn't say they were, but at least the impression I have is that that was the point where people started to turn against each other in PoZ, and it gradually degenerated from there.
No, people were looking for excuses long before then: because PoZ was boring as hell and desperately needed SOMETHING to spice it up.
-
Well that's not true. If you're smart, and have a little bit of luck, they'll never even suspect it was you. Hell, I stabbed someone once and the guy who got blamed for it wasn't even in the region when it happened. I laughed all the way to the bank with the 1,000 gold bounty.
Okay. The great majority of the time then.
Furthermore, it's not like Vellos is even picking battles that make any sense. Frankly, when Galen auto da fe-ed Sigrún, it would have been hard for him to make more of a hash of it if he'd tried. The evil-overlord-ish message preceding the auto da fe, and the barrage of confused, contradictory attempts to disclaim responsibility afterwards, are so far from the kind of mastermind you're advocating for it's really not even amusing.
I wasn't talking about Galen's incident. But since you brought it up, I don't disagree with you on it. No, it wasn't some awesome plan that I thought up for days on end leading up to it. Nor have I been advocating that people have to be "mastermind planeners" in order to have fun in this game. You are. It was, and I believe I stated this on the forums when it happened, a random "hey, I'm really bored with Galen, with this religion, and with PoZ in general lets do something crazy and see what happens." And so had Galen auto-de-fa'ed someone and then try to defend his actions.
From where I sit, that episode with Galen was the first wedge that started the division in Zonasa that led to half the realm hating the other half and wishing they were fighting on the side of the war that actively betrayed and attacked our realm.
Really? Didn't know that. Then from where I sit my actions with Galen may have achieved more than just finding a way for me to rid myself of the character. They actually caused in game conflict. That's a good thing, especially for Zonasa because it was an extremely boring realm. Why does that upset you?
But this whole Galen example is a tangent and not at all the point I was trying to make by popping into this thread. My point was simply the point that you made. I love plausible deniability in this game. What I was trying to say is that there should be more of it and especially in the case of the infiltrator class. What I hate about the infiltrator class is there is virtually no plausible deniability.
-
But this whole Galen example is a tangent and not at all the point I was trying to make by popping into this thread. My point was simply the point that you made. I love plausible deniability in this game. What I was trying to say is that there should be more of it and especially in the case of the infiltrator class. What I hate about the infiltrator class is there is virtually no plausible deniability.
There's plenty, if you're smart, patient and careful. Unless your character is either captured or specifically identified leaving the scene of a successful action, there are ways to create uncertainty about who's responsible even with everyone's knowledge of game mechanics.
When I was briefly an infiltrator, I had a unit and traveled around with our realm's army and did things while there was a whole army in the region with me. How do you tell which troop leader is actually secretly an infiltrator? Another thing I used to do was follow well-known infiltrators around. Everyone was always inclined to blame them for any shenanigans I might undertake. Just making sure there are multiple people of any sort in the same region as you are when you undertake infiltrator actions is a pretty good way to generate plausible deniability, especially if the fact that you're an infiltrator is not well known.
-
All of which is exactly the sort of thing I mean when you need to stop thinking of infiltrators as ninjas.
To me, it seems like you and Vellos aren't asking for more plausible deniability: you're asking for implausible deniability.
-
All of which is exactly the sort of thing I mean when you need to stop thinking of infiltrators as ninjas.
Right now, as it stands, infiltrators are ninjas. I'd love for that to change but, as of now, they're ninja-nobles.
To me, it seems like you and Vellos aren't asking for more plausible deniability: you're asking for implausible deniability.
No, I'm arguing for ambiguity. For the same reasons players can't just go look up the battle code, for example, or fame points. Players should have a good idea of how they can protect their character and investments, because the game isn't fun if you can randomly just lose everything.
But players absolutely should not have a perfect knowledge of what is possible. IMHO, metagaming isn't a yes/no proposition: some things are more meta-gamish than others. And the very definition of meta-gaming is stepping outside the game; taking knowledge you know from beyond the game parameters (i.e. you know that peasants CAN'T attack nobles, which your character doesn't know) and applying it to the game.
As I see it, you're arguing that our characters live in a world where the game mechanics are their fundamental reality: that nobody had religions until religion was implemented, nobody ate food until food was implemented, the planet had no seasons until seasons were implemented, the manner in which food is consumed has been revolutionized several times, etc. You're making an argument which, to me, is as fallacious as the old High Tech Battlemaster joke page.
The mechanics are best-attempt proxies for the world our characters live in. And sometimes, the mechanics are insufficient guides, or incoherent guides, or contradictory guides, or even broken guides in the case of bugs. And when those things happen, you find a way to fix it with RP. And where the game, players, or some mixture of those two becomes complicated, confusing, "nefarious," the leeway for RP can, does, and should expand.
You don't really think every infiltrator always assassinates at night, in bed, with a poisoned dagger, do you?
-
(i.e. you know that peasants CAN'T attack nobles, which your character doesn't know) and applying it to the game.
This really does irk me. My character DOES know that.
How can a single peasant, without any training, experience, or knowledge of how a military camp is set up, infiltrate a well-guarded military encampment, sneak by multiple guards, including ones specifically stationed to protect high value targets like say a council member, not only do that, but then stab a noble OR have the skill to fight the noble in hand-to-hand combat, without any training, and then sneak out of the camp without getting discovered.
Not only is not remotely conceivable that a peasant could ever succeed in such an attempt, but it is inconceivable that a peasant would ever even think of attempting such a deed. It would be guaranteed death for the peasant. It is quite historical that while peasants were disposable, nobles were not, and often held for ransom and such, instead of simply killed off hand.
If anyone in-game tells me a peasant could have carried out an assassination attempt my character will consider them clinically insane. (As this has happened, my character does think this)
-
The mechanics are best-attempt proxies for the world our characters live in. And sometimes, the mechanics are insufficient guides, or incoherent guides, or contradictory guides, or even broken guides in the case of bugs. And when those things happen, you find a way to fix it with RP. And where the game, players, or some mixture of those two becomes complicated, confusing, "nefarious," the leeway for RP can, does, and should expand.
You don't really think every infiltrator always assassinates at night, in bed, with a poisoned dagger, do you?
Only the ones who get caught. But every single infiltrator ever captured in the attempt was caught with a poisoned dagger under his cloak.
-
Right now, as it stands, infiltrators are ninjas. I'd love for that to change but, as of now, they're ninja-nobles.
No, they're not. If they could be invisible, you'd have a case, but they can't.
No, I'm arguing for ambiguity.
You're arguing for unnecessary ambiguity, from unreasonable quarters.
As I see it, you're arguing that our characters live in a world where the game mechanics are their fundamental reality: that nobody had religions until religion was implemented, nobody ate food until food was implemented, the planet had no seasons until seasons were implemented, the manner in which food is consumed has been revolutionized several times, etc. You're making an argument which, to me, is as fallacious as the old High Tech Battlemaster joke page.
Except that the High Tech Game has so many holes in it, it's obviously just a joke.
Furthermore, I'm not arguing all that. I'm arguing that there was no uniform formal structure to religion, or any ability to use religion to influence the peasantry before religion was implemented. I'm arguing that nobody starved before food was implemented. I'm arguing that on the continents that still don't have seasons active (which is most of them), there's no regular variation in how much food is harvested per day throughout the year.
The mechanics are best-attempt proxies for the world our characters live in. And sometimes, the mechanics are insufficient guides, or incoherent guides, or contradictory guides, or even broken guides in the case of bugs. And when those things happen, you find a way to fix it with RP. And where the game, players, or some mixture of those two becomes complicated, confusing, "nefarious," the leeway for RP can, does, and should expand.
That doesn't mean you get to force everyone else to accept your character's word over a game-mechanic report.
That doesn't mean you get to force everyone else to believe that even though everyone knows perfectly well who attacked Duke Kepler, not only should our characters not know this, they shouldn't even suspect it, because look! there's an alternate hypothesis that plays into the notion that peasants always lie and nobles always tell the truth!!!
I'm sorry, Vellos, but again, if you had picked situations in which to attempt to advance this philosophy that could conceivably be said to provide engaging conflict or good RP, I'd be much more inclined to agree that you have some sort of a point. As it is, your "appeal to RP" rings hollow. Oradrikkon was not only asking our characters to believe utterly ludicrous things, he was asking that we completely dismiss the obvious answer. And I think much less of Morgan for entertaining the notion for longer than 5 seconds.
-
I'm sorry, Vellos, but again, if you had picked situations in which to attempt to advance this philosophy that could conceivably be said to provide engaging conflict or good RP, I'd be much more inclined to agree that you have some sort of a point. As it is, your "appeal to RP" rings hollow. Oradrikkon was not only asking our characters to believe utterly ludicrous things, he was asking that we completely dismiss the obvious answer. And I think much less of Morgan for entertaining the notion for longer than 5 seconds.
I think you're misremembering the situation, so I'll stop arguing.
-
Just a side note* Not all peasants/commoners are untrained/unskilled.
(Proof) Adventurers and they walk through lands invisible for the most part. Can't adventurers duel nobles?
Bandits/robber/cutthorats hold nobles for ransom even other nobles.
-
They are untrained/unskilled in infiltrating a well-armed camp. Bandits/robbers only strike nobles with no units or very few men. Adventurers don't attack monster/undead hordes (the equivalent of a strong unit), only when they're smaller sized (though the text does refer to attacking undead armies, which isn't entirely sensible either).
-
And comparing a duel to an infiltrator action is laughable.
Besides, (don't tell anyone IC) advies are technically bastard nobility anyway. Otherwise they'd lop their own limbs off with those swords.
-
Adventurers are not invisible, in any way. Their presence in a region is plainly declared for anyone who cares to look. The fact that few people look is irrelevant.
And no, advys cannot duel nobles.
-
Indirik: I'm pretty sure advies are invisible on regiondetails.php to nobles (other advies can see other advies), but not 'send message to all in region' or the arrest adventurer list.
-
Yes, I was refering to you have to message all in region or have the arrest adventure come up.
-
They are untrained/unskilled in infiltrating a well-armed camp. Bandits/robbers only strike nobles with no units or very few men. Adventurers don't attack monster/undead hordes (the equivalent of a strong unit), only when they're smaller sized (though the text does refer to attacking undead armies, which isn't entirely sensible either).
I think this is the best counterargument as far as the Adventurer point goes. I'd also add that in no way are Adventurers portrayed as sneaky; they walk up to a noble's camp and they'll be turned away like any other peasant. (Yes, the can try to sneak up on undead and monsters, but that's a "oh god, I'm fighting these unnatural beasts... I'd better be careful".)
All things considered, I'd have to agree with the idea that nobles have the experience to tie someone's presence to the crime. Even if you want to say "well, there's no direct proof", the fact stands that the noble (and his camp, if any) is the only variable that is different. Maybe I'd accept one of that noble's men being the scapegoat, but that noble is also responsible for his men. If our nobles can't recognize that, then it's a miracle that trading works at all.
-
Yes, I was refering to you have to message all in region or have the arrest adventure come up.
Except for the fact that they show up in regional information pages and scout reports. Just like everyone else without a unit.
-
Indirik: I'm pretty sure advies are invisible on regiondetails.php to nobles (other advies can see other advies), but not 'send message to all in region' or the arrest adventurer list.
I was pretty sure I have often seen advies on that list. Hmm... maybe priests can see them? I don't have a priest character anymore.
Anyway, they are visible on the character list, with their location listed.
-
Considering the similarity of priests and advies, it wouldn't surprise me if only priests could see them. But when I arrested an advy awhile back, I definitely never saw it on the region report.
-
Yeah, I've checked now, and can't see the advy in Semall with my warrior character who is there.
But I bet it has something to do with being a priest. I am 100% certain I've seen advies on the region details page on Dwilight while I had a priest character there.
-
Yeah, I've checked now, and can't see the advy in Semall with my warrior character who is there.
But I bet it has something to do with being a priest. I am 100% certain I've seen advies on the region details page on Dwilight while I had a priest character there.
Confirmed, priests can see commoners in region details.