BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Tel on May 09, 2011, 06:47:33 AM
-
I'm wondering how many others may agree or disagree with what this topic entails.
Battlemaster isn't a peaceful roleplaying game -- you aren't sitting around a Dungeon and Dragons game where all your characters are on the same team and your roleplaying out an experience working together against some non-human entity, that would be a form of non-competitive roleplaying. Battlemaster is a type of roleplaying game where your competing against other players; your making plans to take over other realms controlled by players, carefully stepping your way up the social ladder to rise above others in glory or personal ambition, or leading a conquest of personal honor or the unification of all lands and factions. Perhaps you could throw the words 'peace' in there someplace, but it really doesn't seem to fit into Battlemaster as either a long-term concept or even natural concept to consider in the Battlemaster lore.
Yet for all that, I've seen a fair few situations around the Battlemaster community over the years where people seem to reveal they don't see Battlemaster as... well Battlemaster. From the discussion mailing lists to IRC tidbits, to the wiki and, more recently, the forums located here -- people have discussed in a combination of OOC and IC around how Battlemaster could be a peaceful roleplaying game.
Some realms try to use the path of 'peace' as an in-game roleplaying characteristic and motivator for realm actions/direction, others try the so-called 'honor' and 'compassion' in which characters never resort to any form of violence and openly champion their characters in-game to oppose all war in politics, diplomacy, and even day-to-day roleplaying.
Roleplaying is quite limited only by your own imagination, but even Battlemaster has eventually developed a few firm, over-arching 'Rules of the BM Universe'... and I think strong non-competitive aspects can hardly be something to take seriously as either a long-term, serious realm-related direction, or as a heavily active characteristic and trait of player characters. Everyone is fairly free to roleplay their characters as they see fit, as per the naturally set out game rules...
... but serious, non-competitive roleplaying in Battlemaster really seems to be... contrary.
Like I said, this isn't some little corner of the internet where your roleplaying about happy fairies and saving dwarves while conquering evil hordes of demons, whilst at the same time drawing rainbows and having tea and cookies... Battlemaster strikes me as a little more competitive and rich in player vs player politics.
-
Aye. It always annoys me when I see people in power in the game walking a pacifist path, and I've seen it all too often.
-
The problem often seems to be those who once they've succeeded gaining power suddenly become so afraid of losing it they actually change their whole IC rational towards keeping it, ie although he/she might have been the most valiant and warlike char in the realm before being voted into power, a sudden miraculous change of IC heart leaves it's poor nobles not with a lion at the reigns as expected but a mouse.
-
You have to be careful not to confuse Battlemaster with a Realm vs Realm game. It is partly that, of course, but it is also mainly a PvP game.
You see many character who drag their realm into an unwarlike stance after gaining power; this does not mean they are playing non-competitively, on the contrary. This mean that the best path to fullfil their ambitions resides in not going to war. This is perfectly legitimate.
I agree that "serious, non-competitive roleplaying" is contrary to Battlemaster, although it does not bother me as such if people find fun in playing that. I disagree, however, that the same should be extended to realms.
-
I think the most important factor is that by going up in the hierarchy you start to carry on a lot of responsibility upon yourself. This means that when you start making choices you know you're influencing a lot of players be them your realm mates or enemies. So while one may expect that in a medieval roleplaying context a war can start over an insult, well, perhaps in bm is not happening so often.
I confess that this attitude it's probably not the right one to play with, but at least in my case I can't completely ignore it.
-
There is definitely conflict, but in a strange sort of individual way. Too many characters, players even, think that the way to whatever goals hey have or even their goal itself, is to subvert, sabotage, or appropriate power for themselves using whatever underhanded tactics possible. Is that realistic? Of course. However, there is also the thing about realms. You know how BM advertised it to the world as the game where you actually start off in a team? At least that's what I remember back in 2007 when I was surfing around in my dorm wondering what online game to spend a little time while I was bored in between lectures.
Too many people I think want something more, or different. Who knows what it is. But that only leaves the point that if everyone is a leader, then there will be no followers to do anything. That is not to say that there are no followers. Those would be the majority of characters who don't talk, usually played by players who don't have the time or otherwise don't put in too much time into the game. And that's good for them, because seriously, this is a game. Say what you like about my post count or time spent logged in, at the end of the day, I'm still aiming to get a dual doctorate, working my best to learn lab techniques so I have a better skillset, and I still won't be talking about any achievements in BM. It's a game, so it's good to have fun, but not so good to get obsessed.
Now, on that point, I have observed that there have been people, myself unfortunately included at one point, who think that the point of being heard or whatever in a realm is to be as loud and obnoxious as possible. Some examples that spring to mind are Anabellium West and Leoma Tahlim, both of whom are now inactive (And the Tahlim family seems to be gone. Meh.) Something about the loud ones makes me wonder though how many realms would truly see them off as loud and otherwise pointless, being capable of replacing them with someone just as capable but more amenable to the team spirit.
That, I think, is something sorely lacking in certain pockets of BM, perhaps even the majority. There is a lack of true teamwork, in that unlike a group that really works together and supports each other towards a common goal, maybe even share some friendship (Gasp, friendship? In BM?), the status quo to me seems more like a pragmatic arrangement, where little weasels can still snake into power. Lefanis family, Chenier family, Valentine family, Himoura family, I'm looking at you guys.
But, there is also the thought that many people are unwitting sheep to be led. While all the drama isn't necessarily a bad thing, it can get tiresome sometimes. Of course, the sword that hangs over a king's head has been there since the beginning, so those who don't want to taste that shouldn't attempt it. Aristotle also once said that a monarch was protected by his subjects while a tyrant feared them because anyone among them could achieve power through bloodshed much like he had. And so the revolving empire and all, yeah?
Now I'm going to stop there because I've gone likely into nonsense.
-
While agreeing with VonGenf over the point that a ruler, either newly appointed or otherwise, sometimes "needs" drag their realm into a period of peace for a while, perhaps to allow it heal it wounds and regain/build up it's strength for something in the offing etc, and likewise with Peri concerning the added responsibility you acquire while rising up the ladder, I nevertheless believe it's crucially important to not go overboard about it, as while a "look at what our realm risk's if we go to war/why don't we just simply try getting on with our neighbours?" etc stance is perhaps OK in the short term it's not in the long, as that runs the risk of players not only getting bored and leaving the realm, but worse perhaps even leaving the game, especially in the case of newbies who having signed up for a game they thought was about war actually seems be one about "peace in our time"!!
Sorry about getting on my soap box a bit there ;D
-
While agreeing with VonGenf over the point that a ruler, either newly appointed or otherwise, sometimes "needs" drag their realm into a period of peace for a while, perhaps to allow it heal it wounds and regain/build up it's strength for something in the offing etc,
You're still thinking at the level of the realm.
What I'm saying is that sometimes the way to gain more power/gold/influence/whatever your goal may be is by keeping the realm at peace rather than at war. This may be destructive to the realm, but not all your characters should identify their goals with the goals of the realm. This is still competitive playing.
-
I most definitely agree with that sometimes being the case, as while a war with their neighbors might indeed suit the realms interest, ie perhaps over some slight of their rulers honour, border dispute etc, there might well be nobles within it whose personal interests would suffer, ie Duke Skinflint ye greedy, the fine upstanding trader who at the moments making a fortune selling food to them, or the two De-Shady brothers who have an "understanding" with them to prevent such a thing happening ;)
-
When I joined BattleMaster back in 2006, there was definitely a more team-oriented, strategy-game feel to things. There was a lot of cooperation among the realm members to achieve a realm-wide goal. A lot of the more active players, from what I remember, were not the heavy role players. They tended to treat the main focus of the game as multiplayer strategy. There was, of course, some role playing involved, but realm-v-realm conflict was the major focus.
The trend I have seen over the past couple years has turned more away from that team-oriented strategy game. "Strategy gamers" are frowned upon by a vocal percentage of the players. The focus has seemed to shift more toward intra-realm conflict. It now tends to be a more internal politics type conflict in a lot of places.
Depending on what you're looking for, you really need to be careful with your realm selection. You can still find realms that tend to favor a more team-oriented realm-v-realm style game, as well as realms that support a more internal-politics style focus. But you have to look around quite a bit to find a good fit for you.
If you are looking for a more wide-open, pure RP environment, try out the priest game, or even the advy game. (Although finding people who want to do a lot of advy RPing can be a challenge!)
-
When I joined BattleMaster back in 2006, there was definitely a more team-oriented, strategy-game feel to things. There was a lot of cooperation among the realm members to achieve a realm-wide goal. A lot of the more active players, from what I remember, were not the heavy role players. They tended to treat the main focus of the game as multiplayer strategy. There was, of course, some role playing involved, but realm-v-realm conflict was the major focus.
This. Now, part of it is undoubtedly that neither of us knew about the political struggles as we were too new, but not all of it, or even most of it. One of the reasons I'm enjoying my character in Perdan right now is that it's the first realm I've played in for a good long while that got back to old-style BM for me. And, of course, the War Islands used to be two full continents full of this, and the loss of them sent the player count reeling in a way that I think we're still feeling.
All of the efforts to break the Realm from being All have worked. Duchies, regions, guilds, factions, religions, all of these now dominate the gameplay more often than not. Some days I like that (and it's certainly more realistic) but that's with three characters at or near the top of all the little groups they know of. Some days I really don't, and that's when I spend more time on Rhennthyl fighting a straight up war with Ibladesh.
-
When I joined BattleMaster back in 2006, there was definitely a more team-oriented, strategy-game feel to things. There was a lot of cooperation among the realm members to achieve a realm-wide goal. A lot of the more active players, from what I remember, were not the heavy role players. They tended to treat the main focus of the game as multiplayer strategy. There was, of course, some role playing involved, but realm-v-realm conflict was the major focus.
The trend I have seen over the past couple years has turned more away from that team-oriented strategy game. "Strategy gamers" are frowned upon by a vocal percentage of the players. The focus has seemed to shift more toward intra-realm conflict. It now tends to be a more internal politics type conflict in a lot of places.
Depending on what you're looking for, you really need to be careful with your realm selection. You can still find realms that tend to favor a more team-oriented realm-v-realm style game, as well as realms that support a more internal-politics style focus. But you have to look around quite a bit to find a good fit for you.
If you are looking for a more wide-open, pure RP environment, try out the priest game, or even the advy game. (Although finding people who want to do a lot of advy RPing can be a challenge!)
I count myself one of those vocal opponents.
I have my "team" in BM. My characters form personal alliances. That team is non-contiguous with the realm. Even back in the days of Oligarch, I was more loyal to some Sirionites than some Oligarchans. IMHO, BM is PvP.
When I ascend to power, maybe I want war against my neighbors. But maybe I consider my neighbors my friends, and my real enemy is that pesky guy in that other duchy who's always bothering me.
Because the goal of BM for many players is not "big, long-lasting realm," and many of those players also happen to be very active players having a higher concentration in higher ranks, much of BM simply won't be about fighting other realms. If your pet project is a war against another realm, have fun, but, for me, it's about forging a different kind of political dynasty, or about collecting economic strength, or about developing a religion, or, most simply, about developing a character.
I'm not interested in the Realm-Team as a player simply because my realm-mates are often people I'm in the greatest conflict with. I've no beef with a neighboring foreign duke who doesn't compete for power with me; I've lots of complaints against the capital duke who hoards power for himself and tries to play king-maker.
-
I have something I want to say about the roleplay I've seen lately. I don't like page after page of illiterate or pretentious "roleplay" -- especially if it's not something that people can respond to. Some people seem to be under the impression that roleplay consists of thinly-disguised religious/philosophical treatises or lengthy inner monologues regarding a characters' feelings on battle. (This isn't a single-player jRPG.) These posts are, quite frankly, tedious to read. How about something practical and tangible -- i.e., with very few feelings or thoughts -- such as: working in groups to destroy fortifications, looting and plundering, interacting with the army and one's lieges, etc.?
Roleplay is collaborative. In my opinion, it should be brief, it should be concise, it should be tangible, and it should allow others the chance to join in or respond.
-
Some people do find that they enjoy writing some sort of novella, and it's easy enough to skim past it. No need to begrudge them that pleasure.
We could advise for more dialogue, of course, which probably would make for more fun roleplaying and might bring back a greater sense of team spirit rather than what appears to be a trend of fragmented small, rarely large, factions all vying for their own goals. Hey, I'm all about the dream to one day be a part of a realm that does stand alone on a continent, surrounded by rogue regions of fallen enemies. And then the continent sinks or something haha, but whatever, epic ending I guess.
Well, the unfortunate part is that there is really no way to cure pretentiousness. Trying to talk to them OOCly about it will result in thorns. Trying to go ICly will result in thorns as well. Usually. Not everyone is like that, so try talking to some of them to see if they'll be more amenable to social roleplays.
-
I personally have no problem with either way of playing. Back when the invasion of Beluaterra was occuring, I had a character in Hetland. He was planning to betray the realm because he believed that Hetland was full of bigoted zealots. On Dwilight, however, Gustav Kuriga is loyal to the bone, though sometimes that loyalty causes him to be pulled in multiple directions.
-
I must say that though at first, realms like Caligus and Perdan annoyed me as they were distinctively different from the majority of realms nowadays that concentrate on intra-realm conflicts and power struggles. It is certainly fun to play in the realms where the main focus is player versus player, and as Vellos said, it's natural to have more beef with your own duke or council member who you don't agree with rather than an entirely foreign entity.
I do believe now, however, that the other kind of play is very enjoyable as well. When the realm plays as a team and work together for the common goal and share the results, it's heartwarming and feels like accomplishment. Thus, now I enjoy playing all my characters, including those in realms like Caligus that are very "old-schooled". 8)
-
...and as Vellos said, it's natural to have more beef with your own duke or council member who you don't agree with rather than an entirely foreign entity.
I agree that it is quite possible, and maybe even likely, for you to have more of a quarrel with your own realm mates than the putative enemy. But part of being a noble, and having a liege lord to whom you have sworn an oath of honor, is honoring that oath to the best of your abilities. You march to war not because you like your liege, or because you hate your enemy. You march to war because your liege lord, and your monarch (or whatever your political system calls them) has commanded you to do so. That doesn't mean you have to like it.
Now, that does not mean that all characters should be marionettes controlled by their marshals and rulers. But a noble's first loyalty should be to their liege. That means knights to their lord, lords to their duke, and dukes to their monarch. Of course you can have quarrels and disagreements. But in the end, your primary loyalty is to your liege. Betrayals, treason, and working against your liege lord should probably not be the norm. If it was, then the system breaks down. And it's hard to have organized, active military conflicts if the system that supports that kind of thing is in chaos.
I may be making huge jumps to a conclusion that doesn't follow, but perhaps that change in focus from team-based, realm-centric conflict toward personal political power struggles is part of the reason for the declining player base? I can't be the only player that prefers the "old school" style of team play.
I do believe now, however, that the other kind of play is very enjoyable as well. When the realm plays as a team and work together for the common goal and share the results, it's heartwarming and feels like accomplishment. Thus, now I enjoy playing all my characters, including those in realms like Caligus that are very "old-schooled". 8)
I like being part of a team, and knowing that the rest of the team feels the same way.
-
When there are too many subversive elements then the whole begins to decay. I believe there are quite a number of social studies done that concluded as much. There could be an entire piece of commentary based on observations of trends in player behavior in this game. Someone out there must be interested in wasting a lot of time.
-
I may be making huge jumps to a conclusion that doesn't follow, but perhaps that change in focus from team-based, realm-centric conflict toward personal political power struggles is part of the reason for the declining player base? I can't be the only player that prefers the "old school" style of team play.
I think it can be possible. After all, when nobles in high positions quarrel between them to the point of paralyzing the entire realm, it's hard for nobles or less important Lords to have a glimpse of what happens, besides perhaps sporadic huge public discussions. And for a newcomer it's not exactly easy nor stimulating to see people not doing anything besides arguing to death on pointless things, especially when half of it is done behind closed doors.
-
I must say that though at first, realms like Caligus and Perdan annoyed me as they were distinctively different from the majority of realms nowadays that concentrate on intra-realm conflicts and power struggles.
Hmm, I find this interesting, because my experience has been the opposite. I've always felt like the main focus of the realms I've been in has been on the inter-realm conflict; intra-realm fights were always secondary and often motivated by different views on what should be done regarding inter-realm affairs.
-
Westmoor has had a lot of intra realm conflict, and less inter lately. But it's all good fun. Power is power.
-
I may be making huge jumps to a conclusion that doesn't follow, but perhaps that change in focus from team-based, realm-centric conflict toward personal political power struggles is part of the reason for the declining player base? I can't be the only player that prefers the "old school" style of team play.
Though I personally prefer the intra-realm conflict and the PvP play rather than Realm vs. Realm, I think you're right.
This explains the appeal of realms like Averoth, where people are playing as a team. Averoth maybe does it excessively but, whatever else you say about them, they (and Thulsoma) do a great job inculcating team play. And have good player retention because of that.
-
It does get tiresome when you have too much intrarealm conflict. There's a reason why some powerful guilds in other multiplayer games dissolve eventually. Egos flare and conflicts among the members get in the way of their goals as a cohesive unit. People lose sight of their goals as the greater entity of the group, and instead get shortsighted about what they want as individuals. We all do it.
It's inevitable too, in every instance of groups throughout history. BM is just a very little part of that larger cycle of things, and it's also a game, so by and large it's objectively insignificant compared to the general entropy of the group. Still, it is odd. Even in late 2007 I felt like there was more focus on winning as a realm rather than winning as a player/character. What happened anyway?
-
Code changed to make realms no longer the main unit of play in a variety of ways. Taxes became extremely decentralized, Dukes (and to an extent Lords) got a lot more power, Council positions were dramatically weakened, whole realm military control was disallowed in order to fragment control to individual armies, leaving realms became much less dangerous after auto-bans were removed which made it much, much, much less dangerous to defect or secede, nobles are much more tightly bound to their regions and lieges by the oath system, a change of game culture has occurred where primary loyalty is usually supposed to be to your liege rather than your realm which makes it easier to factionalize.
In addition, character count has decreased, heavily weighting the scale toward nobles rather than realms because now nobles make or break realms, rather than overpopulated realms being able to keep nobles in place. Penalties for fighting at a distance seem to have increased making it harder to find enemies and thus people turn to internal conflict. And the game culture has changed from a place where realms that didn't even like yours would often help the "legitimate" government put down rebellions and secessions to one where even close allies will likely assist them to gain more power.
-
I'm with Indirik on this one. I much prefer to play 'on a team' so to speak, and realms with a high degree of internal strife generally turn me off.
-
...whole realm military control was disallowed in order to fragment control to individual armies...
Not quite true. You can still have whole-realm control. Just put everyone in a single army, and appoint the general as the Marshal. This is perfectly legal, if somewhat inflexible.
...a change of game culture has occurred where primary loyalty is usually supposed to be to your liege rather than your realm which makes it easier to factionalize.
True. But your lord's primary loyalty should be his duke. And the duke's primary loyalty should be the ruler.
This is unfortunately something that we don't see often enough. When a region lord has somehow been driven from his realm, and swapped allegiance to another realm, the knights rarely stay with their lord and the new realm. They almost exclusively immediately return to the old realm.
-
Code changed to make realms no longer the main unit of play in a variety of ways. Taxes became extremely decentralized, Dukes (and to an extent Lords) got a lot more power, Council positions were dramatically weakened, whole realm military control was disallowed in order to fragment control to individual armies, leaving realms became much less dangerous after auto-bans were removed which made it much, much, much less dangerous to defect or secede, nobles are much more tightly bound to their regions and lieges by the oath system, a change of game culture has occurred where primary loyalty is usually supposed to be to your liege rather than your realm which makes it easier to factionalize.
In addition, character count has decreased, heavily weighting the scale toward nobles rather than realms because now nobles make or break realms, rather than overpopulated realms being able to keep nobles in place. Penalties for fighting at a distance seem to have increased making it harder to find enemies and thus people turn to internal conflict. And the game culture has changed from a place where realms that didn't even like yours would often help the "legitimate" government put down rebellions and secessions to one where even close allies will likely assist them to gain more power.
In other words, the game became more historically accurate. However, comparatively few people opt into Medievalism, so numbers declined.
-
There comes a point when we realize that realistic doesn't equate to entertaining all the time, or at least to a large number.
Remember those huge tournaments in Atamara? I'm a bit conflicted about the transitions, but I think that too much catering to the cries for realism have made this game not only more complex, but frankly, less fun on a strategy game level. And how's this game advertised outside? Let's not talk about how we start off as part of a team anymore, because as far as I see, that's not exactly the point of the game anymore. A more accurate description would be: This is a game where you can spend about 15 minutes and probably have a pleasant normal experience of fighting in battles, possibly roleplaying, and checking out the options of different classes. For additional minutes, you get to dance in a macabre performance with deception and betrayal, liars at every turn, smiles hiding daggers, and a poison so sweet you cannot resist but to cast yourself into that web. Or in other words, this game is starting to resemble something more like "Corporate Cutthroat Sim, Selfish style" rather than "Create a Business Empire, Greater Good style"
Now, tell me earnestly, am I really off-base with that assessment? How many realms still hold to the gung-ho attitude of fighting as one, all for one, one for all, that sort of deal? How many have since thrown any sort of group mentality into the wind as the various internal factions struggle for power? Realistic? You bet. Fun? Depends, mainly on how many players you really want to sustain in this game.
-
I think maybe you slightly over-idealize how the game was several years ago, but the point is still valid.
In Terran we're kind of... mostly united. That is, the dominant faction is very dominant, and finds the weaker faction politically useful. So we're not really a totally unified team. We're like a symbiotic relationship.
-
In Terran we're kind of... mostly united. That is, the dominant faction is very dominant, and finds the weaker faction politically useful. So we're not really a totally unified team. We're like a symbiotic relationship.
While this is true, I do think the realm by and large holds a "realm centric" ideal. I mean, even though there are differing factions I think most everybody is united in the goal of having Terran survive and grow and spread. We might all have different ideas as to what it should ultimately look like, but I don't think there is any kind of abandonment of "team work" or working for the realm's success for that of individuals.
-
I find that most of you are over-idealizing the past and completely exaggerating how big intra realm conflict is. I have been in nearly all the islands, from Darka, Carelia, CE, Tara, and Minas Ithil on Atamara to Sirion and Fontan on East Island. I have played in Hetland on Beluaterra, as well as Aquilegia and Morek Empire on Dwilight. I even did a short stint on FEI. Only two of these realms had major intra-realm conflicts, the one in Aquilegia being caused by a multi while the other in Morek Empire was resolved without major fighting. Not counting the nobles with Allison helping Astrum (how is the whole conflict on Dwilight not an example of how ridiculous you guys are being? You have a whole religion of several realms cooperating to stop a group of realms that are cooperating to destroy it. Not to mention the fact that nearly the entire island of Atamara has risen up against CE), Morek Empire is united and one of the most powerful realms on the continent.
Personally, I would find the game you describe very dull. There isn't much point in playing your character as extremely loyal when everyone is the same way. Besides, on Islands where all of the land is covered by existing realms, how else are new realms supposed to be created than by secession?
-
I think the new style of BM has also given new players a much better shot at getting into higher positions.
While this isn't always the case: cohesive realms = little turnover in leadership.
Although I think heavy intra-realm conflict that happens to the point of crippling a realm is incredibly annoying. It's a hard line to place. I think I'm mainly happy with the way that BM has developed so I'm Vellos' side for this one. Having more personal freedom is certainly upside. I remember back when I played BM a long while ago, rebellions would be so hard to plot because everyone would just cry and tell the judge straight away. I think this happened partly because the government seemed like the almighty power in the realm and there was a heavy team feeling, so the word traitor had more weight.
Of course I may also be becoming better at double-crossing people. Sadly Battlemaster trains the mind for that kind of thing. :-\
-
Aye. It always annoys me when I see people in power in the game walking a pacifist path, and I've seen it all too often.
It all depends on the context.
On BT, I've built up my power and influence in order to increase conflict (to further gain more power and influence). Peace there always struck me as dull, and I always tried to disrupt it when opportunities presented themselves.
On Dwilight, though... There are *so many things* to struggle with, that war is the last thing I want. And I don't see that changing any time soon. I'm still careful as to now sign more alliances and treaties than desirable on the long-run, but still. Peace is what I've always strived for there, as war basically means death and I'd find little fun in dying to rogues and starvation as a result of diverted resources and manpower to a human conflict.
IMHO, the problem isn't rulers that seek peace. The problem is when all rulers of a continent do so, against the players' wishes.
-
Dwilight's an exception, because the war with the rogues can very, very easily completely consume the resources of every realm on the island with room to spare.
-
Maybe an OOC discussion within a realm, where players can express their desires, couldbring aid? Once the players are involved, the characters willmore orless follow, each in their own style :)
What has always bothered me though, is how people can be part of a realm not even sending one letter to anyone. Perhaps their should be more incentives, or penalties. Though I suppose those could be rp'ed too. (for instance a ceremony for the new ruler, absentees get punished -the problem then would be though, that people couldn't care less about the punishment, and banning them only weakens your own realm)
-
For myself I'm working on finding a way of using the army I'm marshal of for eliciting more team play in our realm, insomuch as encourage it's members play on two levels if possible, both as members of the realm "and" members of our army, in the hope build up not only a spirit of cooperation as fellow realm members, but also an enjoyable (and perhaps sometimes competitive) one as fellow brothers/sisters in arms.
-
Well, i am repeating rather similar things in my (now rare) posts, but when I believe to see what is crucial problem, than i lose interest for side effects.
the subject is "merging strategy and rp", isn't it? and author presented his impression, which i fully agree with, that competition is so limited.
i would go one step further and say that most of roleplaying is currently related to long green letters with more or less stylish efforts to bring in fancy expression and to describes feelings and visions about... nothing.
almost all roleplaying is about trivialities as there are rarely any dramatic events, ever, and i admire players who put effort into it, but am not optimistic such enthusiasm will last for too long as enthusiasm is flower that fades without proper food, and there is no basic food - events.
when i mean events, I would be exact - "event" is something that changes many things - change of people in power, drastic change in war situation, like acquiring cities, taking large lands, secession that make significant influence on power balance.
what event is not - change of people in power because players leave the game, finishing phase of gang-bang wars. secession from realm that is dying anyhow.
to be more specific - "finishing phase of gang-bang war" is the moment when there is clear noone will help gang-banged any more.
all described as non-events bring no fun, no drama, changes are not results of any interactive efforts - there is no any competition about anything.
more and more i believe the problem is in game mechanics more than in anything else, and i fear there is already process in place where many players who were carrying funny events for years are leaving because of that.
I will state some things to show why game mechanics kills competition, while it could be subject of new thread as well, or not, because all is about competition:
tome called the game battlemaster, as he described once, as in the beginning all become from this impressive battle mechanics we see in our battle efforts. though some current tweaks erased my ability to learn from battle reports, it is still deep and sophisticated thing.
it would be logical that skills in battles bring some in-game benefits, but currently it is on contrary
1. marshals, who need to have much of game knowledge, interactive skills, leadership, charactrer skills, deep understanding of players mutual relationship, and, of course IR - those marhsals are miserable in rank and influence, any completely unimportant region lord who barely ever talks to one of two of his knights outrank them. that is rather absurd in may opinion.
2. generals, that are mostly selected among the most experienced marshals, are on position which could give depth to overall game-play - from tiny little interests to overall continental politics. generals could organize their armies according to excellent wiki article which describes difference between generals and marshals, making wars much more than "go-to-region-A-fight-refit-to-region-B-than-go-back-to region-A cycle"
they could, if they are not rendered completely powerless.
finally
3. rulers. they have so little power and so much burden and responsibility, that any sense in playing left to them is to "keep things stable" as their power is so fluid and imaginary. they, only they can create really dramatic continental struggles, but they have to hold their shivering thrones, and have no power to do anything more than that.
4- all that influence which is coming from designed base of power - landed lords - is reactive power. i mean they can obstruct things, but cannot move things forward. nobody can move things forward as nobody is powerful enough to do so.
drama can come only from overly powerful characters, who feel strong enough to take risks, reasonably expecting that they are so strong that even failure will not cause absolute disaster for them.
fun could also come from sophisticated wars, but as war commanders are made shadows, nothing can move wars toward sophisticated events which could bring attentions of large number of players.
martial skills mean little, as large-alliance diplomacy is so much more important than military effectiveness that noone really cares. in future, who will actually care to develop martial skills?
the only real skill you need these days is to be very silent (not troublemaker), and extremely loyal (never question anything), and you will eventually be granted opportunity to collect wealth and ignore everybody else, forever.
-
I've seen my share of drama and exciting turn of events, storylines which people really invested themselves in, and RPs that had actual impact on what would happen next.
Not really lately, though. But still. It's not only the people from up high that must bring this. You just need enough people. Mind you, having experienced/influential people join in increases the potential significantly.
-
I gotta say, I disagree about rulers having having no "power" in an RP and theme sense. While they lack actionable power, they control the bully pulpit so to speak. Realms tend to quickly start to resemble their councils in a lot of ways, and praising or letting slide certain behaviour can really help establish a core RP mechanic, and RP leads to conflicts for reasons other then "winning".
If two or three players put the effort in and one is a ruler, the ball gets rolling pretty quickly. I don't have a lot of experience compared to most, but as long as there is some general compact between the rulers of a continent that action is perferable to inaction, I don't see any reason why a continent should ever be lacking in intrigue and war. It's right there in the guide to being a ruler, if you make mistakes your problem and not the regular players, people will be much more willing to play "lively" characters and start trouble.
-
I gotta say, I disagree about rulers having having no "power" in an RP and theme sense. While they lack actionable power, they control the bully pulpit so to speak. Realms tend to quickly start to resemble their councils in a lot of ways, and praising or letting slide certain behaviour can really help establish a core RP mechanic, and RP leads to conflicts for reasons other then "winning".
If two or three players put the effort in and one is a ruler, the ball gets rolling pretty quickly. I don't have a lot of experience compared to most, but as long as there is some general compact between the rulers of a continent that action is perferable to inaction, I don't see any reason why a continent should ever be lacking in intrigue and war. It's right there in the guide to being a ruler, if you make mistakes your problem and not the regular players, people will be much more willing to play "lively" characters and start trouble.
I'd say it depends a lot on the rulers' skills and expectations, too. Characters are generally conformist... but to a certain extent. If you decide you want a kingdom where the monarch is worshipped as a god, then you'll have to earn that worship with a lot of work, others won't simply give in simply because you pitched an RP concept out there. I saw multiple rulers try to give a "flavour" to their otherwise bland realms, but if that flavour doesn't really excite the players or match established RP, you are going counter-current.
-
I actually think that's doing it backwards.
I've kind of accepted that the moment Ciann became ruler she became as much everyone else's character as my own. The core themes and feel is still there but there are certian things that just had to change so everyone else could enjoy the game more. It's sort of like anything else, if you want to play a ruler it should be expected that you'll work to make the game fun for everyone else, so that means going with their concepts as well as your own.
Being worshipped as a God is usually more fun for the worshippee then the worshipper. Too much Hayek studied in school I guess, but my thinking while the top can try to inspire it needs to try to be something which everyone else enjoys, otherwise it's really just ego flogging, and that's why we have Dukes ;D
That may just be me, or maybe it's just the Far East, but we've got players who get asked what kind of stories they want to tell and they seem to enjoy telling them. I can't think of a more then a handful of characters in the kingdom that I don't know something about and that isn't involved in some story if they've been there for more then a month. Come to think of it, I should post that in the most proud forum because that's what I'm most proud of (though it's not a personal accomplishment by any stretch).
-
I actually think that's doing it backwards.
I've kind of accepted that the moment Ciann became ruler she became as much everyone else's character as my own. The core themes and feel is still there but there are certian things that just had to change so everyone else could enjoy the game more. It's sort of like anything else, if you want to play a ruler it should be expected that you'll work to make the game fun for everyone else, so that means going with their concepts as well as your own.
Being worshipped as a God is usually more fun for the worshippee then the worshipper. Too much Hayek studied in school I guess, but my thinking while the top can try to inspire it needs to try to be something which everyone else enjoys, otherwise it's really just ego flogging, and that's why we have Dukes ;D
That may just be me, or maybe it's just the Far East, but we've got players who get asked what kind of stories they want to tell and they seem to enjoy telling them. I can't think of a more then a handful of characters in the kingdom that I don't know something about and that isn't involved in some story if they've been there for more then a month. Come to think of it, I should post that in the most proud forum because that's what I'm most proud of (though it's not a personal accomplishment by any stretch).
Well, I'm not saying the best thing to do is to try to get oneself worshipped as a god, but to each his own, I guess. Mind you, being the "god"'s right hand and chief of piety would probably be rather interesting, and there'd be many ways for everyone to react to this. As with any RP pitch, though, it can easily flop.
The ruler (mostly, though every other meaningful character as well imo) should indeed set his priority to be creating fun for all his peers. It doesn't have to be selfless or democratic, though, and can manifest itself in a great number of ways.
-
I have something I want to say about the roleplay I've seen lately. I don't like page after page of illiterate or pretentious "roleplay" -- especially if it's not something that people can respond to. Some people seem to be under the impression that roleplay consists of thinly-disguised religious/philosophical treatises or lengthy inner monologues regarding a characters' feelings on battle. (This isn't a single-player jRPG.) These posts are, quite frankly, tedious to read. How about something practical and tangible -- i.e., with very few feelings or thoughts -- such as: working in groups to destroy fortifications, looting and plundering, interacting with the army and one's lieges, etc.?
Roleplay is collaborative. In my opinion, it should be brief, it should be concise, it should be tangible, and it should allow others the chance to join in or respond.
-
I must say, I too miss some more team work in the game.
I suspect many strategy players left due to the end of war islands and the mechanic & atmosphere changes that made strategy be regarded as the bad guy for a while. Strategy play was very team-enforced, with lots of attention to the military (even region maintenance was treated militarily) and not a lot of internal power struggle. They were the status quo, so when they started to leave or try to adapt to a new gamestyle, I suspect the characters that were scheming to overthrow the status quo were able find their way, and slowly became the status quo themselves. Now, strategy players have retreated to some niches, and the new ones that come don't find many of these environments to thrive in. It's probably a dynamic balance that will change over time.
(which all comes back to my previous post on player retention: the key is to find a realm that suits your style)
Basically, yes, I think we did go from team vs team to player vs player. And even in my own realms I'm not sure how to change the atmosphere. Just as an example: some time ago, spies were very rare, were considered scum IC, banned, executed, etc. Nowadays, people basically expect that any unsatisfied knight will probably tell your plans to the enemy just for fun or power or something.
Which means that even the awesome RP and thrill that was to be a spy, now's seen with "oh, you too? gee, go ahead and move already"
Of course these are huge generalizations... and going off topic a bit, about the Roleplaying part of the thread. I think the secret would be to have your character be a pacifist (after all, we should roleplay people who don't want to risk their lives) but be bad enough at it that s/he always gets mixed up with a war.