What is and what should be SMA?

[^ban^]

I most definitely said that.

Ah, I see.

[Sacha]

Ahhh, I can't see!!!

Poor guy!

[Hossenfeffer]

At risk of bringing things back vaguely towards the topic; the problem is that SMA is an atmosphere, and one that's hard to define, quantify and differentiate. 

More than anything, it's about attitude.  That's something that can't easily be policed.

[vonGenf]

Yes; I've always thought the serious part and the atmosphere part were the most important of SMA.

[Shizzle]

Are there any other games/... that face similar problems?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I'm not sure how many games resemble BM in serious roleplaying. A lot of the MMOs are pretty lax about any kind of in-character stuff. Some of the uncommon ones that try, either as an alternative community on a "mainstream" game, or as a central premise (like BM), aren't exactly easy to find. Most of the time they exist as pen-an-paper, which is played among your friends anyway.

[Vellos]

At risk of bringing things back vaguely towards the topic; the problem is that SMA is an atmosphere, and one that's hard to define, quantify and differentiate. 

More than anything, it's about attitude.  That's something that can't easily be policed.

This.

Take religious freedom for example. It doesn't bother me if one or two realms exhibit religious freedom in a semi-modern sense; Iberia can be a sort-of analog for that. The problem is when historical correctness is abnormal.

It doesn't bother me if the occasional wealthy cavalier has plate armor. It bothers me when my chain-mail clad character is outclassed by seemingly every noble on the field, all of whom are dressed for the Reconquista rather than the Crusades.

It doesn't bother me if there is a republic or two out there arguing for something like democratic rights. I bothers me when those rights become an assumed norm, so that monarchialism becomes exceptional.

[vanKaya]

Vellos, there are few things you say I disagree with and this is a shame since I feel you'd make a worthy adversary. Having said that i must eagerly take this chance to engage you in a gentlemen's debate.

My contention: there is no such thing as monarchialism.

Your move sir.

[Vellos]

Touché. Monarchialism is a portmanteau of monarchy and manorialism. Monarchism might be a better phrase, being the sentiment which regards monarchy as the basically correct order of society, based on a belief that it is proper for one person to be at the top, and therefore appeals to a broader franchise are systematically undermined. Also plays into the idea of God as "King of Kings," being a logical progression of the idea that there can only be one entity at the top.

[Indirik]

Hmm..... If you have a lot of monarchies, and god is the "king of kings", then if you have a lot of Republics, is god the "Prime Minister of Prime Ministers"? And does he have to stand for reelection every month? And who gets to cast the votes? Would be a weird theology if the "head god" was re-elected every month.

[Shizzle]

Hmm..... If you have a lot of monarchies, and god is the "king of kings", then if you have a lot of Republics, is god the "Prime Minister of Prime Ministers"? And does he have to stand for reelection every month? And who gets to cast the votes? Would be a weird theology if the "head god" was re-elected every month.

I wonder who I would vote for

[Heq]

Wierd by Western standards, but logical in some sort of celestial beurocracy.

Doesn't fit within europe at all (with the possible exception of Florence), but while such theologies are difficult for people with massive amount of time and resources, I suspect it would be impossible in BM.  Maintaining a sufficiently large religion is hard enough without actively creating internal politics and debate.

You could...hmmm...If you claimed God Time was Different from Human Time and said that elections were every 100 years or something and then said "The current high god is X, but it's expected that the God of Y will move against him."

Need to get a character killed and learn to use the wikipedia...

[vanKaya]

Just my two cents on this whole SMA debate.

Firstly I think whoever emphasized the atmosphere part of SMA is bang on. It's not about keeping strict controls to make sure everything that happens can be backed up by an example from history, it's about creating an atmosphere that allows players to act and feel as if they are from that time period.

In regards to the manifest path I don't see what the big deal is and I find it mildly suspicious that so many proponents of SA seem to be against it. Yes the MP is not analogous to religion in a mideival sense but that is because it was created as a response to dwilights unique situation of having a ton of monsters and the presence of the Zuma. The fact that no other religion addreses them in such detail is what I think is what's really strange, especially considering how great of an effect they have on each of our realms.

Also really tom and the dev team are the biggest violaters of SMA. I challenge them to show me any evidence of monsters or undead or Zuma-like beings within mideival history.

What's that? This is game, not a history class? Ohhh right.

[vonGenf]

and I find it mildly suspicious that so many proponents of SA seem to be against it.

It's not true. Even if it were true, it would be a coincidence, but simple counting will show that you're wrong on that point.

[vanKaya]

Yes my mistake I'll withdraw that. Just a supposition I made but entirely baseless you're right and most likely, as you said, a coincidence more than anything.