BM culture

[Shizzle]

How about setting duelling limitations based on H/P? If the challenger would not meet a certain required H/P relative to the person he challenges, an H/P penalty would ba applied to the challenger. I'm not for simply preventing the challenger to request a duel for RP value. Sometimes it's just cool to be the brat challenging the top dog, even knowing that the duel will never be held. Even at an H/P cost

I also like the Champion thing. Perhaps something reserved to Dukes and Rulers? (not for Prime Ministers, though)

[Solari]

I also like the Champion thing. Perhaps something reserved to Dukes and Rulers? (not for Prime Ministers, though)

I know a lot of dukes and kings who use their income and station to ride into every battle they can.  It's likely that their swordfighting skill is as high or higher than most.  Some other kind of restriction (if any) on the use of Champions would probably be a better idea.

[Dante Silverfire]

I know a lot of dukes and kings who use their income and station to ride into every battle they can.  It's likely that their swordfighting skill is as high or higher than most.  Some other kind of restriction (if any) on the use of Champions would probably be a better idea.

This assumes that they are using infantry or Special Forces. Personally, I have a character who selectively uses Cavalry and another who once used only archers irrespective of how many funds they have.

But yes a different criteria is preferred.

[Indirik]

Why put any kind of criteria on it at all? Just let any noble have someone champion them in a duel. That lets you use a champion for various RP reasons as well. (Poor health, advanced age, class, etc.)

This brings up the question, though: Should there be some mechanism to allow the challenger to decline the substitution of a champion, thus canceling the duel altogether? And should the challenger be allowed to know who the champion will be when they are offered the choice to proceed or back out?

[Solari]

Why put any kind of criteria on it at all? Just let any noble have someone champion them in a duel. That lets you use a champion for various RP reasons as well. (Poor health, advanced age, class, etc.)

This brings up the question, though: Should there be some mechanism to allow the challenger to decline the substitution of a champion, thus canceling the duel altogether? And should the challenger be allowed to know who the champion will be when they are offered the choice to proceed or back out?

Excellent questions that should probably be answered in another subforum. 

[Vellos]

I'll agree with Perth on this.

I have no idea what this thread is "getting at."

What "dickishness"? Can we get some examples please? I have not personally witnessed this anytime recently (maybe I was the dick?), so I'm curious what people are talking about.

Then again... I do play most intently in that wonderful bubble of BM bliss, Terran....

[Vellos]

Actually, there is an issue in BM culture.

Nepotism.

I swear, the same players play together all the time. I try to be careful to mix it up some; I've played as an ally and an enemy to Anarises, Bedwyrs, Solaris, Chéniers, Lefanises, and many other families. The only prominent families that I have played with in multiple different circumstances that I have always been an ally with that immediately come to mind are Perth and Keithson.

I think if "old" BM players would work harder at destroying, IC, their OOC friends' characters and building up, IC, their OOC "not-as-much-of-friends' " characters, it would go a long way.

In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.

[Anaris]

In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.

So...you want to cause a realm to spiral down into total insanity, then?

Keep in mind that it's far, far easier for two people who generally like each other and get along well to fight against each other than for two people who tend to strike sparks off each other constantly to work together.

[Chenier]

Actually, there is an issue in BM culture.

Nepotism.

I swear, the same players play together all the time. I try to be careful to mix it up some; I've played as an ally and an enemy to Anarises, Bedwyrs, Solaris, Chéniers, Lefanises, and many other families. The only prominent families that I have played with in multiple different circumstances that I have always been an ally with that immediately come to mind are Perth and Keithson.

I think if "old" BM players would work harder at destroying, IC, their OOC friends' characters and building up, IC, their OOC "not-as-much-of-friends' " characters, it would go a long way.

In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.

I've played in the same realm as Lefanis with many characters and for extended periods of time.

That was enough.

As for Anaris, circumstances have put them regularly in realms opposing those I've went to. Result of circumstances, really. Took me quite a while to associate Anaris with Riombara, as in my earlier years a realm was a thousand times more important than the person ruling it. I OOC wouldn't mind it though I have a hard time seeing cooperation IC actually working out.

And by the way, none of the OOC friends I've brought into this game, or who brought me into the game, still play. Any friendships my family and characters hold have been developed purely IG. And I've never been one to turn people who want to help me away (except if that character pissed off another of the family or if the family as a whole has a bad history with mine). I have never marginalized newer families because of their youth: indeed, I tend to find that they make better allies, because they tend to be a lot more eager to prove themselves.

But really, how's nepotism an issue in the BM culture? I can imagine it being so in some cases, but not in most places I play. The realms I play have tons of positions attributed to the single person putting his name in the referendum for it. Yea, I tend to be at the top, and yea, I tend to take up a lot of power... but that's because I don't see anyone who actually wants to take that power. I'd rather take the power and make something of it than give it to someone that doesn't really want it and won't do anything of it. In the past, when ambitious people were more plentiful, I used to want to limit myself to one or two titles in order to satisfy the greatest number of allies possible. I don't really do that anymore, but it ain't because I've become greedy or power-hungry.

Years ago, I had to constantly struggle to increase my power or influence, and put great efforts because the old guard seemed to universally be, everywhere, considering me as a trouble-maker that threatened their hard-earned titles with propositions of such silly things as wars. I always feared that, years later, I would become like that, and that having achieved my power I would crush all those who challenged me, and I promised myself I wouldn't let that happen, that I would use my power to promote fun instead of stifling it. Maybe my strategies work, maybe not, I can't really say, but I can say that I don't see anyone running around even remotely resembling what me and the people I associated with. The other challengers to my powers are not people close by would would like what I have gotten, but people far-away who would rather I be more quiet and docile or have strategic interests against me or my realm.

Note: I'm also not sure what making all the established families working together would accomplish? We could organize power structures that would create invincible alliances, until all the rulers of the continents we play together on are friends? I don't see what the fun in that would be.

[Indirik]

Vellos is correct. There is a fair bit of that in the game. It would be interesting to see if some statistics nut could put together some kind of web or graph to show how various players play together on different islands. I would bet there's some kind of correlation.

There would be a tendency for players who play in a realm to get to know each other. And when they move around, to choose realms those people play in. After all, the same players would tend to produce the same play style that you already like, right?

From experiences I have had in the past year or so, though, this can also result in some OOC bias against players as well. If you play for years in Keplerstan while fighting against Evilstani, then die and start a new character in Evilstani, you are likely to get a very cold reception. And that's likely to be an OOC unfriendliness, too. I have experienced something similar myself:

"We'd all rather you just left and went somewhere else."

   

[Bedwyr]

I know a lot of dukes and kings who use their income and station to ride into every battle they can.  It's likely that their swordfighting skill is as high or higher than most.  Some other kind of restriction (if any) on the use of Champions would probably be a better idea.

Ah...No.  That doesn't get your sword skill to high levels at all.  My Abington characters, who never led anything but infantry, and during one point fought in battles multiple times a week, every week, for months on end, never got above 50%, and I'd be surprised if either got much over 40%.

Which is the problem I have with duelling.  You will always be at a disadvantage to people who spend time at academies training.  And you know what?  That's boring as hell, burns through gold like anything, and is generally only available to people who have a lot of clout in the realm so they can get out of any of the standard duties.

[Bedwyr]

Actually, there is an issue in BM culture.

Nepotism.

I swear, the same players play together all the time. I try to be careful to mix it up some; I've played as an ally and an enemy to Anarises, Bedwyrs, Solaris, Chéniers, Lefanises, and many other families. The only prominent families that I have played with in multiple different circumstances that I have always been an ally with that immediately come to mind are Perth and Keithson.

I think if "old" BM players would work harder at destroying, IC, their OOC friends' characters and building up, IC, their OOC "not-as-much-of-friends' " characters, it would go a long way.

In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.

I tend to enjoy doing this, when I can, but the problem is that people often don't take it well.  I've been lucky enough that Tim and I are still friends despite two of my characters betraying two of his, and there are a few other examples of that I can name, but I tend to like playing for major stakes, and when you play on that level and destroy someone else's long-laid plans...(shrugs) Doesn't always go well OOC.

I'm not sure nepotism is necessarily a bad thing, so long as it isn't taken to extremes.  One of my favorite parts of the game is the relationships between families as well as characters.  There's a whole circle of Houses that House Bedwyr considers "associated" (some members, in back rooms where no one can here, might be heard to whisper "vassals"), others it considers enemies, and often it gets more complicated.  House Himoura, for instance, is divided into two branches, one of which the Bedwyrs are very friendly to, and the other of which they'll try to kill on sight.

And to a certain extent, there's no getting around it.  When I call for a colony, where do I go to find the people for it?  Places where I already know people, of course.  Otherwise the colony never gets off the ground.

[Solari]

I'll agree with Perth on this.  I have no idea what this thread is "getting at."

It was supposed to be getting at a discussion on why there are commonly repeated tropes about new and old players and how older players tend to reference a BM "culture", but has taken a much better detour into issues of trust, playing style and the like.  And maybe that's what comprises the "culture".  Either way, I've personally learned more useful information about the way people approach and play the game from this thread than from any extended IRC session or OOC gabfest through the game's message system. 

[Chenier]

Vellos is correct. There is a fair bit of that in the game. It would be interesting to see if some statistics nut could put together some kind of web or graph to show how various players play together on different islands. I would bet there's some kind of correlation.

There would be a tendency for players who play in a realm to get to know each other. And when they move around, to choose realms those people play in. After all, the same players would tend to produce the same play style that you already like, right?

From experiences I have had in the past year or so, though, this can also result in some OOC bias against players as well. If you play for years in Keplerstan while fighting against Evilstani, then die and start a new character in Evilstani, you are likely to get a very cold reception. And that's likely to be an OOC unfriendliness, too. I have experienced something similar myself:

   

Well, that's rather normal. If you go to unknown lands, why not at least pick a place where you know someone in? Especially if he's powerful there? Means you get an easier time to fit in, and someone to help you get some promotions. Also means you get some contacts with minimal effort, 'cause hey, we all gotta set priorities eventually. When I went to AT, that's sure what I did, 'cause I didn't know anything about politics there. (still don't, but that's another issue)

As for cold receptions, that's rather normal. IC, family is supposed to matter a lot, after all. And lots of families play in the same style, even if they aren't necessarily clones. I won't hide it, I tend to play characters with a few similar characteristics, such as a volatile temper, too much pride, self-righteousness and a strong desire to crush everyone that stands in their way. This varies a bit from character to character, but it's usually quite noticeable for anyone, and then a few random personality traits are added, and (especially) the mix is influenced by the character's history. What can I say, I find such extravert characters to be more fun to play, so those I dump more time on tend to follow these same visible traits. Some have said there were clones, but it's much easier to see similarities between characters than differences when you don't deal with them much privately (though granted, my last batch of characters was somewhat less inspired, none have as much personality as Jean-Olivier, Louis-Joseph or Nicolas had).

So to make a judgement on a character based on his family is quite reasonable, and normal. But hey, sometimes characters prove that they aren't so bad in the end, and such wariness wears down. Machiavel was quite suspicious of Marche for a while, for example, but ended up seeing he wasn't so bad and supported him. Same for Vellos II, he got a bit more open-minded to him with time.

[Chenier]

Ah...No.  That doesn't get your sword skill to high levels at all.  My Abington characters, who never led anything but infantry, and during one point fought in battles multiple times a week, every week, for months on end, never got above 50%, and I'd be surprised if either got much over 40%.

Which is the problem I have with duelling.  You will always be at a disadvantage to people who spend time at academies training.  And you know what?  That's boring as hell, burns through gold like anything, and is generally only available to people who have a lot of clout in the realm so they can get out of any of the standard duties.

That's the same issues I have with dueling, really. The only people actually good at it are the ex-adventurers and people who have a lot of gold and who, for long periods of time, did nothing but train at the academy.