Making Stuff Happen - A Rant

[squirrel]

People complain when nothing is happening in a realm, and I totally get that. It's depressing to play a character and see nothing but five or six automated messages from the turn change.

But it's hard not to get cynical when you try to make something happen and the overwhelming response is "hey, you can't make something happen unless everybody votes on it first! derpy derp!" You feel like a sucker when it seems like everyone else is waiting for you to stick your neck out so they can squash you.

I'm probably just whining about sour grapes, but honestly I can't think of another game I've played that was more risk-averse than this one. It's like a game of NetHack where you're so worried about setting off traps that you just hold down the "." key and hope that a monster runs into your lap.

[Anaris]

Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough.  Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something.  Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.

But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her.  No matter what it was she was trying to do.

[egamma]

Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough.  Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something.  Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.

But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her.  No matter what it was she was trying to do.

Judges should hand out more fines than they normally do.
Bankers should organize the rural regions to charge the dukes for their food.

There are plenty of people who can stir things up.

[Carna]

Should have had whoever that was hung. Or their head lobbed off. Defenestration is a definite option. Askilion has high towers, I expect.

I've never had a problem with things being too quiet. "Too quiet" is just code for opportunity knocking. How easy is it to stand out if you're the only one standing at all? Every game I've played has this to one degree or another. It generally leads to people quitting because they're bored or try so hard they get burned out.

Still, it is the responsibility of the ruler (or RC) to make sure a realm doesn't stagnate. We're all players, but it comes to ability (a Queen does sorta have more ability to louden things up) and genre. I don't think much of Rulers that tell Knights that they're the one's who should be speaking up. That's putting it mildly. Knights should take part, obviously, but if people are to be prompted, it should be the top tier of the hiarchy, followed by the lords et al. Doesn't happen enough in my opinion, and methinks I'm not alone in that view.

Finton.

[Stue (DC)]

i will repeat my usual mantra, as short as possible - things cannot happen if there are almost no chance to make really interesting event, and really interesting event has very simple definition - event that influences power balance.

Small events like actions of harsh judges, duels, rulers speeches and so on, do give nice additional flavor as supplement to major events. but they cannot be replacement for major events. so people eventually do not care for small events when there are no large events, and apathy prevails.

unfortunately, even continent-wide wars make change only to realms who suffer heavy consequences, but they eventually disappear; all other realms remain apathetic as they are simply - too stable internally.

[Stue (DC)]

Should have had whoever that was hung. Or their head lobbed off. Defenestration is a definite option. Askilion has high towers, I expect.

Still, it is the responsibility of the ruler (or RC) to make sure a realm doesn't stagnate. We're all players, but it comes to ability (a Queen does sorta have more ability to louden things up) and genre. I don't think much of Rulers that tell Knights that they're the one's who should be speaking up. That's putting it mildly. Knights should take part, obviously, but if people are to be prompted, it should be the top tier of the hiarchy, followed by the lords et al. Doesn't happen enough in my opinion, and methinks I'm not alone in that view.

Finton.

if dukes are made pivotal power in bm, than, following your logic which i mostly agree with, it would be dukes responsibility to make things happen as well. the same would apply to council members, and even to the region lords who have one single knight as a vassal.
the problem is that many attempts lead to risks while doing almost nothing and being completely silent carries no risk.
if silence would be more risky than at least some level of interactive effort, we could expect more things to happen.

[Chenier]

Should have had whoever that was hung. Or their head lobbed off. Defenestration is a definite option. Askilion has high towers, I expect.

I've never had a problem with things being too quiet. "Too quiet" is just code for opportunity knocking. How easy is it to stand out if you're the only one standing at all? Every game I've played has this to one degree or another. It generally leads to people quitting because they're bored or try so hard they get burned out.

Still, it is the responsibility of the ruler (or RC) to make sure a realm doesn't stagnate. We're all players, but it comes to ability (a Queen does sorta have more ability to louden things up) and genre. I don't think much of Rulers that tell Knights that they're the one's who should be speaking up. That's putting it mildly. Knights should take part, obviously, but if people are to be prompted, it should be the top tier of the hiarchy, followed by the lords et al. Doesn't happen enough in my opinion, and methinks I'm not alone in that view.

Finton.

Rulers have a duty to do their best to keep things from stagnating, but players have no right to complain when they aren't making any efforts themselves.

That's *my* mantra. Too many people expect things to magically happen.

[Revan]

Rulers have a duty to do their best to keep things from stagnating, but players have no right to complain when they aren't making any efforts themselves.

That's *my* mantra. Too many people expect things to magically happen.

Have to confess that I feel like I've turned into that guy. A BMer who moans/is resentful that no-one else makes an effort whilst not really putting in much effort himself. No-one else can be bothered so I won't be bothered. A real self-defeating posture, though a justifiable one I think. All of BM has become quiet, it isn't just me.

I'm trying to ease myself back into interacting in the largely silent realms I inhabit. If nothing is happening, I'm going to try and spark something or discuss something or post something. Better than everyone sat looking at turn reports. Maybe we should make a little campaign of this. Sign a charter or something >.<

Re: Rulers, I've had this problem myself. Sure people want you to be publicly active and leading by example, but sometimes you're doing so much stuff behind closed doors making that extra effort can be a real chore. I was also conflicted by the nature of my position. I did want to talk more, but RP wise, I don't feel like I should be engaging in banter with my nobles or having an ale in the tavern or whatever. You're the King. Of necessity, the way the ruler engages with the realm is going to be different to the way the average noble can.

[Chenier]

Sometimes, things are silent not because nobody is doing anything, but because it's all being done in private. And sometimes still, just making the least of a public gesture showing interest will get you included in these groups.

I, for one, do a lot of things in private. But I always reply when people write to me, or write about something I can comment on. And I always seek to include people who show they give a damn, especially if they publicly expose enough about themselves so that I may judge if said person has the potential to be turned into a valuable ally (and thus worth extra attention).

I know others do this too, as, especially in the days when I was not as influential, it often happened that I was this new guy that someone picked up to turn into an ally.

Make some noise, and you may have positive echoes. Or you may disturb some people, that's all fun and games too. There is, however, a skill in making noise, and some poorly master it and usually just end up ignored by everyone.

[JPierreD]

Well, it is a big problem when those in power are /too/ good at maintaining power. There needs to be some rotation in the leadership, unless the rulers are great both at governing and keeping people interested. Players whose sole motivation is to be in power end up killing realms. If they succeed, they'll make the realm much less interesting, and if they don't they'll probably cause some OoC resentments and weaken the realm. They need to learn to play not only as the powerful ones from time to time. Else people will just leave and find somewhere else more interesting.

[Chenier]

Well, it is a big problem when those in power are /too/ good at maintaining power. There needs to be some rotation in the leadership, unless the rulers are great both at governing and keeping people interested. Players whose sole motivation is to be in power end up killing realms. If they succeed, they'll make the realm much less interesting, and if they don't they'll probably cause some OoC resentments and weaken the realm. They need to learn to play not only as the powerful ones from time to time. Else people will just leave and find somewhere else more interesting.

You don't need to be good at both. You just need to have both covered by someone in the realm. The ruler doesn't need to be the one who keeps things interesting.

In Enweil, for example, I was the one who brought Enweil into wars and made things happen, after I joined it, finally getting it out of its lethargic state. However, it was only much, much later than I got significant support in my rulership bids and finally got elected. Handkor was good at keeping power while maintaining a rather passive agenda, but I managed to make things move as a mere lord of a godawfully poor rural.

I don't know how many people manage to get elected as rulers for the sake of being ruler. The two most common profiles I encounter are those who get elected as rulers so that they can achieve more, and those that get elected as rulers out of fear of what might happen if another (that they implicitly do not trust) does.

[JPierreD]

True, Ruler is a more dynamic title. Dukes, on the other hand...

[Shenron]

Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough.  Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something.  Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.

But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her.  No matter what it was she was trying to do.

My theory is that Askileon and Giask are simply too rich to have quiet realms rule them. They are always going to have money-hungry people after them, and people will make up anything to achieve an underlying aim. Even if they themselves do not realize it.

[Chenier]

True, Ruler is a more dynamic title. Dukes, on the other hand...

Are often chosen precisely because of how quiet they are.

[Stue (DC)]

Well, it is a big problem when those in power are /too/ good at maintaining power. There needs to be some rotation in the leadership, unless the rulers are great both at governing and keeping people interested. Players whose sole motivation is to be in power end up killing realms. If they succeed, they'll make the realm much less interesting, and if they don't they'll probably cause some OoC resentments and weaken the realm. They need to learn to play not only as the powerful ones from time to time. Else people will just leave and find somewhere else more interesting.

rotation of weakened rulers changes little when most of sensible power is held among never-rotating dukes.