Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    A small whine...

    Gary (GeeMan) is right when he says alliances were common in the medieval
    era. They were largely formed as part of marriges. Those founded on some
    other basis were often sealed by marriages. Given the role bloodlines play,
    I would think marriage alliances would play a key role in BR. The
    impression I get from the materials is that people don't get married. Or
    perhaps they marry for personal reasons, rather than state reasons. Its
    just not an issue, in BR. I suspect its because marriage leads to babies,
    which raises the specter of inheritance.

    Vassalage is a big issue, and that strikes me as odd. Comming from history,
    vassalage was a relationship between two clearly unequal people. The
    overlord, who had many vassals, and the lord who had several knights, for
    example. The count of Bellam is a vassal of Baron Roesone. I would not
    expect the Baron Roesone to be anyone's vassal looking at the at-start map.

    Considering realism (and I mean that in the genre sense as well), I prefer
    it to fanstasy. Some gamers come to RPG's from the fanstasy genre, and want
    to put themselves in the role of Conan the Barbarian, or King Arthur, or
    Luke Skywalker, or what have you. Other players, myself included, read
    non-fiction and would prefer to play RPG's to undertake the persona of the
    Black Prince, or Alexander the Great, or one of their common soldiers. Its
    not enough to have his name and stats, you want to face the same kinds of
    problems you read about in the biographies and the histories. These kinds
    of players want realism.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    159
    Downloads
    21
    Uploads
    0

    A small whine...

    GeeMan wrote:
    >
    > Well, this is going to rapidly degenerate into an off-topic debate about styles of
    > play but.... So what? Who cares if people play AD&D in an unmedieval manner?

    Tsk, tsk, you are wandering away from the main topic. I don't care about
    playing AD&D in an unmedieval manner, but I do care about playing in
    Cerilia (and in Anuire specifically) in a medieval manner, since that's
    what Anuire is very strongly based on.

    > Sure racism, religious intolerance, imperialistic warfare, etc. were all part of
    > the medieval world. So was open plumbing (where plumbing existed at all) an infant
    > mortality rate well into the double digits, no bathing for commoners (and only rare
    > bathing for the aristocracy) amazingly bad medical technology, poor dietary intake,
    > massive illiteracy and a life expectancy in the early 30's. If you are going to
    > try to recreate the medieval period in an RPG then you really need to include all
    > that other stuff which, frankly, just isn't a lot of fun.
    >
    How are they "not fun"? Well, granted, things like infant mortality
    aren't really needed or wanted in a game, but religious crusades and
    imperialistic wars are IMO a lot of fun to have and open up a whole new
    area of adventure possibilities. Specifically in Cerilia/BR, which we
    are/were talking about and where such things are especially appropriate.

    > Regarding alliances: I think people are misplacing a lot of world history when
    > they say alliances were not common in the medieval period. They certainly were.
    > The error is that people are applying the relative lack of alliances between the
    > larger political organizations like (modern names) Spain, France, Germany, etc. and
    > applying that to the much smaller county and duchy size political organizations
    > that BR characters play. When the an empire breaks up there will be a desperate
    > and rapid struggle for power. Diplomacy and alliances will form and fall. That
    > makes perfect sense.
    >
    > Anuire as a whole is rather a small nation by medieval European standards. It's 500
    > miles across total. The "nations" within that country are really just duchies,
    > counties, sometimes a whole province. Alliances within medieval nations were
    > absolutely common, especially during a time of civil war, which is what is
    > happening in Anuire since the death of Michael Roele. [I was about to list a bunch
    > of examples, but in the past that has been a big problem because people glom onto
    > those examples and things turn into an historical debate almost immediately rather
    > than a discussion of BR. If anyone wants historical examples for background
    > purposes please email me off the list and I'll send you some sources.]
    >
    > If there is an unmedieval aspect of BR PBeMs its that players mistake their small
    > counties for independent nations and try to deal with each other as sovereigns
    > rather than regional nobles.
    >
    True. My complaint though was more about the huge alliance blocs that
    tend to form in PBEMs, and are normally quite unified, unbreakable, and
    long-lived. This is not very realistic. Sticking to an alliance after it
    is no longer useful to you (and may, in fact, even be contrary to your
    current plans) is not a mark of a successful ruler. Of course, some
    honorable LG types may feel the need to "keep their word", but in
    general huge alliances that last for years of game time seem rather
    unrealistic to me.

    > Do you actually want to play in a game where religious intolerance and racism are
    > the standard? Why would you want to do that? Oh, it may be more "realistic" but,
    > again, I don't think you can endorse that one aspect of realism without dealing
    > with all the others, and even if you did who would want to play anymore?
    >
    Well, maybe the faint-hearted who only want to see flowers and bunnies
    in a game may not want to play, but the things mentioned above, as I
    said, create a lot of potential adventure and roleplaying opportunities.
    Let's run a poll. Many here no doubt have played temple regents in a BR
    PBEM. How many, at one time or another, have felt the urge to "crush the
    heretics", yet did not do that, knowing that you'd be accused of
    "religious intolerance" or "racism"?

    > B. They are confusing the thematic basis of a fantasy RPG. That is, that it ISN'T
    > realistic.

    Some people seem to think that fantasy and realism are mutually
    exclusive. They are not. A fantasy world can still have realistically
    thinking and operating people who may have their own versions of what is
    right and wrong, and act accordingly.

    > C. They try to enforce their own gaming style (which is completely subjective) to
    > people who are just trying to do their own thing.
    >
    I'm not trying to enforce my gaming style on anyone. I'm just speaking
    my opinion.

    > Here's my deal with constant warfare in an PBeMs: It's boring. I have yet to play
    > in a PBeM in which someone didn't declare war in the first couple of rounds. There
    > are a whole bunch of other domain actions that I had wanted to use, you know? When
    > someone declares war suddenly everyone else has to stop what they were doing and
    > deal with that one guy. It turns the game into the kind of mindless, hack 'n
    > slash, no-role-playing bore that (I thought) was the antithesis of role-playing.
    >
    I'm sorry that you feel warfare is the antithesis of roleplaying. I have
    to disagree. I think warfare, just as any other situation in a game, can
    have the potential for a lot of roleplaying. That is, assuming people
    don't attack just for the heck of it, but have clear goals that they
    want to achieve, and set about achieving them.

    > If you were in any other gaming session and one of the players started attacking
    > other players, that would be a clear-cut DMing decision, wouldn't it? You'd smack
    > that player down like a naughty child, because that's basically how he's acting.

    No, I wouldn't (assuming he has a reason for attacking). And I would
    consider any DM who would as trying to impose his own views on how the
    game should proceed.

    > His decision to start attacking other players will interfere with their
    > role-playing and dominate the session. Suddenly, the adventure you as the DM had
    > in mind would be out the window, and you spend all your time dealing with the

    So, in the name of "running the adventure you as the DM had in mind",
    you would punish a player who had his own goals for his domain? Why do
    you need the players at all?

    > trouble maker. I feel the same way about a BR PBeM. Players who go attacking
    > other players without provocation should be dealt with in the same way. Otherwise,
    > the game is going to spin out of control (which I've seen happen time and again in
    > PBeMs) and the game winds up fizzling out because everyone loses interest.
    >
    Ahh, but there it is: attacking without provocation. Of course, what
    constitutes provocation is subject to interpretation. I think the game
    will fizzle even faster if the DM slaps down any player who attacks
    another (regardless of whether the attacker had a goal to accomplish by
    that), just because the DM feels that players shouldn't attack each
    other.

    > Oh, well. That's enough for one rant.
    >
    Here's another one :)

    - --
    ******************
    Aleksei Andrievski
    aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Azure Star
    solmyr@kolumbus.fi
    http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html

    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    159
    Downloads
    21
    Uploads
    0

    A small whine...

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:
    >
    > Gary (GeeMan) is right when he says alliances were common in the medieval
    > era. They were largely formed as part of marriges. Those founded on some
    > other basis were often sealed by marriages. Given the role bloodlines play,
    > I would think marriage alliances would play a key role in BR. The
    > impression I get from the materials is that people don't get married. Or
    > perhaps they marry for personal reasons, rather than state reasons. Its
    > just not an issue, in BR. I suspect its because marriage leads to babies,
    > which raises the specter of inheritance.
    >
    Well, I don't exactly see a lot of people arranging marriages in PBEMs.
    I wouldn't have any problem with an alliance based on marriage (and thus
    limited to TWO domains, not half the map).

    > Vassalage is a big issue, and that strikes me as odd. Comming from history,
    > vassalage was a relationship between two clearly unequal people. The
    > overlord, who had many vassals, and the lord who had several knights, for
    > example. The count of Bellam is a vassal of Baron Roesone. I would not
    > expect the Baron Roesone to be anyone's vassal looking at the at-start map.
    >
    Well, remember that equal or unequal status isn't determined solely by
    how much land you have. I certainly think that e.g. Ilien could easily
    be a vassal of Roesone, and Roesone a vassal of Diemed, Aerenwe, or
    Ghoere (for the moment forgetting their love/hate for each other).
    Avanil already has three vassals which is good, Boeruine could easily be
    the liege of Talinie, Mhoried of Cariele, etc.

    > Considering realism (and I mean that in the genre sense as well), I prefer
    > it to fanstasy. Some gamers come to RPG's from the fanstasy genre, and want
    > to put themselves in the role of Conan the Barbarian, or King Arthur, or
    > Luke Skywalker, or what have you. Other players, myself included, read
    > non-fiction and would prefer to play RPG's to undertake the persona of the
    > Black Prince, or Alexander the Great, or one of their common soldiers. Its
    > not enough to have his name and stats, you want to face the same kinds of
    > problems you read about in the biographies and the histories. These kinds
    > of players want realism.
    >
    I agree completely.

    - --
    ******************
    Aleksei Andrievski
    aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Azure Star
    solmyr@kolumbus.fi
    http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html

    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  4. #14
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    A small whine...

    >Sticking to an alliance after it is no longer useful to you (and may,
    >in fact, even be contrary to your current plans) is not a mark of a
    >successful ruler. Of course, some honorable LG types may feel the
    >need to "keep their word" [...]

    As a LG regent, one should simply avoid binding agreements. Platitudes on
    the friendliness of your realms, rather then specifically agreeing to
    specific measures are what is called for. Regents need to be flexible and
    adapt to changing circumstances, lawful characters need to make this
    flexibility part of their "visible policy", and openly say, "I can't promise
    that".

    Lawful charaters who got into binding agreements need to find legalistic
    outs. Treaties are often long and cumbersom, with many stipulations. Let
    the PC's Chancery have a look see, and maybe there were certain (even minor)
    provisions that the other side defaulted on, breeching the treaty on the
    other end.

    Some characters will accept any technicallity, other need a good faith
    breech.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  5. #15
    RocksHope@aol.co
    Guest

    A small whine...

    In a message dated 7/18/99 10:24:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
    c558382@earthlink.net writes:

    >

    What was the point of the agreement again, if even those that claim to be
    lawful good view it merely as an inconvience??To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

  6. #16
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    A small whine...

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: RocksHope@aol.com
    Date: Sunday, July 18, 1999 9:29 PM
    >
    >
    >What was the point of the agreement again, if even those that claim to be
    >lawful good view it merely as an inconvience??

    Sometimes, after the fact, you find out you were never in agreement in the
    first place. You thought it was a defensive alliance, he wants to invoke
    the treaty for a war of aquisition. The more complicated the issues at
    stake, the more this is bound to happen.

    Breech of Contract happens all the time, even where you have both parties of
    good faith and desire to uphold the contract as they understand it.

    In diplomacy this often involves neutrals which one side regards as friendly
    and another side regards as hostile.

    Lawful can very much have a legalistic componant. A Lawful player might
    break a treaty he thinks is invalid, unlawful, or non-binding. He will
    respect a treaty that he regards as valid, lawful, and binding.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
    with the line

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Air Elemental, Small
    By Arjan in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
  2. Shield, small
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 10:14 AM
  3. Vos-small.jpg
    By Sorontar in forum Image
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2009, 04:06 AM
  4. Vos-amblem-small.jpg
    By Sorontar in forum Image
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2009, 04:04 AM
  5. Very small parties in BR
    By simong@mech.uwa.edu.au in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-09-1998, 03:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.