One of us clearly does not have a clue of IC and OOC, and about roleplaying

[Tiridia]

I am flabbergasted. It is not often that something in BM makes my head spin thus as to be quite unable to untangle a mental knot that it has caused. This correspondence, however, is one of such things. Without further elaboration, here is the brief exchange of letters for your amusement:

Letter from A (1 day, 11 hours ago)
(Personal message to X)
Sir X,

Would you by any chance be interested in exploring the path of a noble cavalier, a path of truth, honor and proper etiquette?

Respectfully,

A

Here is my young lord character trying to reach out for the new player, hoping him to join a society he has recently created. This is what he receives as an answer.

Letter from X   (1 day, 11 hours ago)
Earl A,

No, the life of a cavalier does not appeal to me. I find that 'proper etiquette' is only useful around women. I am a man of war, and war dictates what a man needs do. Even if that need is one that is not 'proper'.

Signed,

X

Subtle and eloquent. Not really, but straight to the point. It rubs my young lord the wrong way in all the possible ways. His face grows red as he shouts to his scribe and hastily dictates the following response:

Letter from A  (1 day, 10 hours ago)
(Personal message to X)
Sir X,

You may yet find that proper etiquette does open doors that otherwise shall remain forever closed for you. For that matter, it is "Lord [region name]" for you.

For [realm].

A

Feeling thus undermined by a newcomer, he composed this brief letter, which he thought was clever and witty. He had some distant hopes that the newcomer might not hit his head to the brick wall with his brash manners, so he took the time to write a brief warning. You put your hand on a hot stove and you get burnt. With his recent lordship and young age, he feels the need to puff up his ego. To distance himself from the newcomer, he chooses the most formal way of address and throws that for the newcomer. But the newcomer is steadfast and stands resiliently in his commitment to his cause:

Letter from X  (1 day, 10 hours ago)
Earl A,

I did not neglect your title, and am shocked that you are so tempermental as to send a veiled threat to a mere no-one, on his first day in realm. You would do well to inspect your own etiquette I daresay, as no one is likely to wish to stay around with such a greeting as yours.

Signed,

X

By now my young lord is furious. He has inherited some of the temperament that runs through his family, but he has enough of a peace of mind as to refrain from further correspondence. Then a thought occurs to me that the player of X might be a new player, because his letters certainly give a hint of such a possibility. Whilst my character has made up his mind, I think it prudent to write to the player just in case. You know, it's all about friends gathering to play together and such, so I try to be nice:

Out-of-Character from A  (1 day, 9 hours ago)

(Personal message to X)
Hello,

This is the player of A.

Whilst A will not respond to the letter written by X, I will, just in case you are really a new player and not a returning one, in which case you already know what you are doing and I wish you the best of luck with it, and hope that interesting developments from this first exchange of letters create drama for many months to come. But in case you are really a first time player, I wish to make clear the distinction between the players and the characters they play. A might be... a bit cocky with his success at the recent tournament and a lordship at a young age. That's who he is so that is how I play him. Such attitude is prone to create conflict, which is good, as various levels of conflict both in and outside the realm is the spice of the whole Battlemaster experience, at least in my opinion.

I myself am a recently returned player and have played BM for quite some years before. Regardless of whether you are a returning player or not, welcome to Battlemaster and be sure to rock the boat at proper and improper times.

With this letter I hoped to settle the matters and let our characters agree to disagree among the classic division "nobility for culture" and "nobility for war". But now to the grande finale which concluded our correspondence and resulted in the utter flabbergastation mentioned earlier.

Out-of-Character from X  (1 day, 9 hours ago)
Thank you for the welcome.

I am in fact, a returning player. I know full well the differentiation between players and characters, but do not know how that plays into it. My character pointed out the veiled threat, on his arriving day in realm, in character. It is not reassuring that one of the two people in realm who have contacted me, have been hostile no matter how subtle or in character it is. My character pointed that out appropriately. Thank you for letting me know about your victories and successes, but they are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I see no need for more OOC contact regarding the matter, and am confused as to why you brought it up in the first place.

It is not very often that I am truly truly confused. As much as I have tried, reading this last message does not make sense in any level. It is as if I was being held accountable for the writings of my character and should somehow... do what about it? An apology? To admit my error and write back, in character? As we can see he was equally confused here. Of course I will never know just what exactly was relevant to the matter at hand or even just exactly was the matter, as he was not interested in further discussion. There is, of course, the possibility that I have gravely misunderstood something as essential as IC and OOC differentation, in which case I would most sincerely need it clarified to me in capital letters.

[Dishman]

It seems like you both have characters (perhaps players) with quite a bit of pride and little patience with the slightest of insults. As far as IC/OOC, it seems like IC you guys will hate each other but you are making attempts to be OOC friendly. It seems like IC and OOC is largely irrelevant in the exchange I saw.

As far as titles go, if he addressed you as 'earl', then he's covered his bases. So long as he pays homage to your station (in a little way or in a big way), then he is supplicating himself to you. A noble lets his lessers supplicate however they choose, so long as they do.

[Buffalkill]

Your character values rank and propriety, so your character (and perhaps your OOC self too) is vexed because Sir X has chosen (and it's clearly by choice and not ignorance) to play a brash, somewhat disrespectful character and not show you the deference that your character is expecting. At this point, I think you should play along. No reason to take it OOC personally.

[Wolfang]

To be honest I see no issue at all with how the other player reacted, as Dishman says, the title Earl is perfectly suited and your taking offence at this should warrant his character taking offence at your taking offence.

Also I also don't see why you brought the OOC matter up. There should be no need for you to explain why your character is acting like a dick, it's his job to interpret this. Although I personally believe the whip should not be used on newcomers to the realm so soon, especially threatening to exclude him from certain positions, but then, it is your character.

[Indirik]

Some players greatly dislike using OOC letters in almost any situation. You may have found one here.

[Tiridia]

Thank you all for your replies. They have all helped me to see the situation in less confusing light.

Some players greatly dislike using OOC letters in almost any situation. You may have found one here.

This might be the heart of the matter. I did ponder whether or not to send that OOC message, but for the off chance that it really was a new player, I thought it would be a pity if the newbie mistook the arrogance of a character to something that would reflect the actual players of the game. A returning player knows better for sure, so in that case (and in fact, in this case) an OOC message of the kind that I wrote was quite unnecessary. Nevertheless I find it odd for a player to hold another player accountable for the conduct of his character. Yes he is an arrogant bastard who has a very peculiar way he wants those of a lower rank to address him and yes, he perhaps expects more respect than he is due, but that is how I have designed him. And yes, I do know his attitude will at times get him to trouble and win him more enemies than friends.

Controversy is good for the game, and arrogant bastards make for good villains for some, and villains in turn help to make good stories.

For the record, if it is the culture of a realm / continent to address lords the manner X did it, then that is how it is and of course it is all good and quite sufficient. But of course if a lord demands a different form of address, he is inviting conflict if the other party does not wish to play along. What happens then is part of the fun in BM, whatever form it takes. In my view, in BM you need both friends and enemies to make it interesting.

A bit of an aside, I find it a useful exercise from time to time to make a point of generating conflict with another character while making sure that on OOC level we the players both have ways to enjoy it. Whatever form the conflict takes, it can be fun for both, such as in cases of long lasting family feuds, and to acknowledge that what fun there is is half created by the other player for your amusement (and vice versa) helps to retain a friendly atmosphere. Granted, it does not always work. Perhaps there is some satisfaction with letting the emotions boil at full force by including the very real person moving the puppet with the hate of the puppet itself.

[Indirik]

I have, on occasion, found it useful to send a short OOC note to another player when our IC arguments get nasty, just to make sure that the other player knows it is just IC hostility. I've never had a bad reaction to this from the other player. I keep it short, and try not to explain my character's IC motivations behind things.

[Tiridia]

Indirik,

That's good. Now that I look at it, explaining my character the way I did may come across patronizing and look like as if I was forcing some narrative or another on the other player, all the while providing him with IC knowledge by OOC means that he neither needs nor desires. The safe way would indeed be to keep it short. Thank you.

[Velax]

Yeah...it may be a good idea to back off from any new players (returning or otherwise). Yeah, good RP and all that, but we're trying to keep players here. If the first interaction I had with someone in a new game was them telling me I'd better join their organisation or be denied positions and demanding I call them by a certain title, I'd be reconsidering my choice.

[Tiridia]

Velax,

This is also true. My character might have just as well drawn his own conclusions from the first response by X and simply ignored him since. It would have worked better overall. It also seems that all who have commented, the player of X included, see the in the correspondence a threat of being denied positions. That is not what I had in mind, nor what I pictured my character to have in mind at all. But now that I look at it, it can easily come across that way to the player.

In the situation of the correspondence, gaining a lordship is more or less a matter speaking a few words in public, which adds to the farce of my character's pompous attitude.

All in all, this has been very helpful. I was genuinely baffled by the correspondence, but now I am much less so.

[egamma]

Telling him to address you as "Lord [Region Name]" when you signed your letter with your name (A), is conflicting. If someone signs their letter, you should reflect that signature in your reply.

[Tiridia]

Telling him to address you as "Lord [Region Name]" when you signed your letter with your name (A), is conflicting. If someone signs their letter, you should reflect that signature in your reply.

This is just silly. If we imagine a king desiring to be addressed as "Your Highness", he hardly signs his letters as "Our/My Highness". Since this happened in Dwilight (who would have guessed?), please take a look at the wiki:

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Serious_Medieval_Atmosphere

and

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/RP_Primer

...specifically part 4, the forms of address.

So, I did not conjure this odd preference out of thin air. I read the page and thought it looked nice so I built my character pretty much around an idea of a stiff traditionalist who values form above content. Of course the wiki is not the law, but the concept presented there offers interesting ideas and opportunities. It is not at all unreasonable, in this context, for my character to expect a lower ranking noble to follow a certain procedure, especially when thus instructed. Of course it can be ignored, but not without a consequence. So we have a traditionalist and a revolutionist on a collision course - big deal. It's as classic as it can get in wars of culture throughout the history. It's just one of the many opportunities for IC conflict.

The other noble probably gains a lordship soon and evens the odds, and perhaps even outranks my little earl in some time. That too is but more wood to the campfire to tell more stories.

[Gustav Kuriga]

This is just silly. If we imagine a king desiring to be addressed as "Your Highness", he hardly signs his letters as "Our/My Highness". Since this happened in Dwilight (who would have guessed?), please take a look at the wiki:

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Serious_Medieval_Atmosphere

and

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/RP_Primer

...specifically part 4, the forms of address.

So, I did not conjure this odd preference out of thin air. I read the page and thought it looked nice so I built my character pretty much around an idea of a stiff traditionalist who values form above content. Of course the wiki is not the law, but the concept presented there offers interesting ideas and opportunities. It is not at all unreasonable, in this context, for my character to expect a lower ranking noble to follow a certain procedure, especially when thus instructed. Of course it can be ignored, but not without a consequence. So we have a traditionalist and a revolutionist on a collision course - big deal. It's as classic as it can get in wars of culture throughout the history. It's just one of the many opportunities for IC conflict.

The other noble probably gains a lordship soon and evens the odds, and perhaps even outranks my little earl in some time. That too is but more wood to the campfire to tell more stories.

He called you Earl. Earl is equivalent to a Lord's ranking in BM. Therefore, there was no conflict for which your character to get miffed about other than the one you've created out of thin air.

[Tandaros]

Yeah...it may be a good idea to back off from any new players (returning or otherwise). Yeah, good RP and all that, but we're trying to keep players here. If the first interaction I had with someone in a new game was them telling me I'd better join their organisation or be denied positions and demanding I call them by a certain title, I'd be reconsidering my choice.

Spot on assessment, here. /agree

[Penchant]

He called you Earl. Earl is equivalent to a Lord's ranking in BM. Therefore, there was no conflict for which your character to get miffed about other than the one you've created out of thin air.

Often yes it is stated as equal, but his character might prefer Lord instead of Earl so conflict. Some might not care if they get any title, some like him for instance might be really specific on their title.