Sanguis Astroism

[Graeth]

That brings us to one of the other key facets of the game: The actions that you take now will come back to bite your ass in the future. The game has a persistent history. Little insults and minor struggles can blow up to be major conflicts. Each little poke of the stick may be small. Put them together and they add up to a whole lot of pissed off. This goes both ways. In this war, Astrum did take the shot, and wiped out Asylon. Now you have a lot of pissed off ex-Asylonians who will probably spread out, and take those grudges with them. I wouldn't be surprised if several of them eventually lead a push that slams Astrum hard at some time in the future, possibly wiping them out, too.

I'm not so sure Astrum will be the ones the ex-Asylonians are gunning for.  If Aslyon learned anything from the Unterstrom debacle, they will attack those pulling the strings next time, and not those dangling on the ends.

[Dishman]

One of the key facets of BattleMaster is the fact that your actions have consequences. The butcher will present the bill. You can lose everything. Make the wrong choice, and your entire realm can be wiped out. This is the spice that makes the stew worth eating. Would you really want to play a game where no matter what you did, your adversary always stopped just a hair from wiping you out, and let you recover your strength so you could just do it all over again next week?

If I had this mentality when Enoch was Regent, SA would have been dismantled, more than a few people would have quit, and you would have been up in arms that it was 'not playing with friends'.

I agree that it is unwarranted for people to say Astrum/Morek don't know how to play BM, but it is equally unwarranted to say Asylon deserved it. Asylon got dealt an exceptionally !@#$ hand by unusual circumstances. If you think 'the butcher's bill' includes GM interference then one of us really is playing the wrong game and should leave.

[Vellos]

If I had this mentality when Enoch was Regent, SA would have been dismantled, more than a few people would have quit, and you would have been up in arms that it was 'not playing with friends'.

I agree that it is unwarranted for people to say Astrum/Morek don't know how to play BM, but it is equally unwarranted to say Asylon deserved it. Asylon got dealt an exceptionally !@#$ hand by unusual circumstances. If you think 'the butcher's bill' includes GM interference then one of us really is playing the wrong game and should leave.

It is notable that Astrum's lands were also wiped out by the same monsters.

Yes, the circumstances were unusual. They vindicated a particular strategy (wide-ranging alliance networks) over another. But unusual circumstances are normal. There is no one right way to play BM.

All the same, I think there's a middle ground. On the one hand, I sympathize with Indirik that the ability to actually create a vibrant and dynamic history is a key element of what makes BM worthwhile. On the other hand, I've had my share of getting pissy because I lost, and there are many cases I can think of where it seems to me the "Aggregate Fun" of Battlemaster could have been improved if somebody had chosen to let the defeated live to fight another day.

But what that means, that both those argument seem to have some merit and truth to them, is that gettin' all hot and bothered because in one specific instance players chose one play style over the other is wrong. And again, I'm not saying this judgmentally. I've gotten upset over dead realms too.

[Indirik]

If I had this mentality when Enoch was Regent, SA would have been dismantled, more than a few people would have quit, and you would have been up in arms that it was 'not playing with friends'.

That particular topic has been well-debated in different thread. (Or ten threads...) We will have to agree to disagree on what happened there, and why. Suffice it to say that we disagree. (Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. If we all agreed on everything, this game would be pretty boring.)

Anywho... The statement I made applies to more than just the current Asylon v. Astrum war. I was pretty careful to edit my message to specifically NOT cast blame on anyone. Everything I said applies equally to both Asylon and Astrum. (And quite a few other situations I could start reeling off.) Both realms sniped at each other and pissed each other off. They fought a couple wars. In the end, one realm was almost certainly fated to wipe out the other. It nearly turned out to be both being wiped out. However, Astrum will still have to live with the fact that it wiped out Asylon. (At least according to what I read on the forums. I don't play on Dwilight right now.) That means a bunch pf pissed off Asylon nobles wanting revenge. It just may come back to bite them in the ass some day long in the future. (The name Coimbra is still bandied about on EC despite being dead for over nine years!)

I agree that it is unwarranted for people to say Astrum/Morek don't know how to play BM, but it is equally unwarranted to say Asylon deserved it. Asylon got dealt an exceptionally !@#$ hand by unusual circumstances. If you think 'the butcher's bill' includes GM interference then one of us really is playing the wrong game and should leave.

I did NOT say that Asylon deserved to die, and especially not at the hands of a developer-induced event. What I said was the your actions have consequences. Astrum spent years making Asylon angry, mostly by ignoring Asylon's attempts to be relevant. This eventually resulted in huge consequences for Astrum when Asylon (who eventually did become relevant) and two other realms decided to take them down. Asylon spent years pissing Astrum off, for many little reasons, and a couple  big ones. This eventually resulted in Astrum taking the opportunity to finally put a bullet in Asylon's head when it got the chance.

Does this mean Asylon "deserved" to die? Nope. At least, not more than any realm deserves to die. But the actions that they took in the past set up the events that led to what happened to them. If they had been friendlier with Astrum, maybe Astrum would have let them keep that city. If Astrum had been friendlier with Asylon, maybe Asylon would have never attacked Astrum in the first place.

Which all goes back to what I was trying to say in the first place: "Hello, Actions. I'd like to introduce you to your progeny: Consequences."

[Bjarnson]

Astrum did not whipe out Asylon, Morek did if any realm is to be branded the Asylon-slayer it should be them, it was their armies that crushed ours, Astrum just jumped in at the end to claim land.

And the whole Astrum vs Asylon conflict is a old one, it is something that has been there for years, and it was something that I enjoyed, I enjoyed having them as my nemesis, nothing personal against the players of Astrum but it was a nice flavour that had matured during ages of disagreement and hostility. They did not whipe us out during the first war, we did not whipe them out during the second, I had hoped to see more wars over the contested lands that where our borders, but then the monster spawn happened, so things changed.

I have no bitterness or resentment towards Astrums players for doing what they did, it was the only natural thing that they would wage war on Asylon.

The interesting part on Dwilight now is that every realm exept Luria Nova is allied or federated with Morek... So yea, this will be fun, and by fun I mean that I expect Morek+allies to drop the hammer on any attempt for Asylonians to regain strength and take vengance.
And by fun I do not mean fun...

[Wolfang]

Hopefully they do considering you're trying to wipe out Barca  ;)

[Vita`]

Trying? No one had any desire to wipe out Barca cept the monsters (and one could argue they don't exactly have desires). Barca getting wiped out is entirely on them - they practically asked Luria to kill them with a cherry on top.

[Wolfang]

Put it the way you prefer then, it boils down to the same thing.

[Qyasogk]

That's one thing some players just don't understand. This game is not about winning. It's about making it interesting for everyone. Something Astrum and Morek players will never ever understand.

We actually agree that BM is not about winning! It's about drama and storytelling, and what is more interesting than role playing a great and glorious death?

As a DM it was always frustrating dealing with character deaths. No matter how amazing or heroic the death was and how intense and exciting it was for everyone to play, there was always someone who had this sense of "I messed up" because everyone always wants to win at everything. But that actually makes for some really boring drama.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Astrum never defeated Asylon. The GM monster plague has nearly wiped us out. Quite possibly the lamest thing to happen on Dwilight ever. That being said I still intend to play with my full attention and bring back from the grave a realm similiar to the idea of Asylon.

[Zakilevo]

Astrum never defeated Asylon. The GM monster plague has nearly wiped us out. Quite possibly the lamest thing to happen on Dwilight ever. That being said I still intend to play with my full attention and bring back from the grave a realm similiar to the idea of Asylon.

Astrum didn't beat Asylon. I did  8)

[Indirik]

That being said I still intend to play with my full attention and bring back from the grave a realm similiar to the idea of Asylon.

I honestly hope you do.

[Glaumring the Fox]

I honestly hope you do.

I have too many enemies to stop playing.  8)

[Stabbity]

I have too many enemies to stop playing.  8)

Huzzah for Dwilight's most wanted! o/

[Marlboro]

Astrum never defeated Asylon. The GM monster plague has nearly wiped us out. Quite possibly the lamest thing to happen on Dwilight ever. That being said I still intend to play with my full attention and bring back from the grave a realm similiar to the idea of Asylon.

This is pretty much the only reason I haven't outright deleted my Dwilight character.