GeeMan wrote:
> Oh, baby, I SOOO agree with that.... but it's a whole 'nother screed
that I
> was kinda hoping not to get us bogged down in. (I am, however, going to
> in the next room after writing this and do a little "Happy Gary Dance" to
> celebrate the fact that someone brought this up.) :-D
Heh 8-)
Maybe we'll get along after all *_+

C. Linebarger wrote:
> Using the model of Anuire: Anuire is a very small place, not even the
size of one of
> the major Eurpoean countries such as France or Germany. In fact I worked
out that
> Anuire is about as wide as as the state of Nevada (my home state.)
Most of the time France was broken down into semi- (or de facto) autonimous
dominions many of which would make Diemed look big by comparision, though.
And frequently (if not the vast majority of the time) these areas were in
the midst of seething conflicts much as Anuire is. To the extent to which
these fiefdoms generally "allied", it was usually under the vassalage of
either the King of England or the King of France (note I said "usually"),
and other arrangements didn't last an eternity, nor were they as
comprehensively extensive as they tend to be in BR games (usuall
arangements were "we'll help each other if so and so attacks," a specific
lord, not the NATO-Like formulation "an attack on one of us is an attack on
all of us" with any agressor activating The Alliance).

C. Linebarger wrote:
> Which brings me to my main point. I believe both war and diplomacy are
tools to be
> used, and I do not believe war nor large allainces give the game a
negative impact.
> Take a look at real life international politics.
My main point, which perhaps I haven't made very clearly, is that there
isn't just two options "War" on one hand and "Peace" (Diplomacy) on the
other hand. A state of total war or peace and negotiation. I've never been
in a war (even with someone I've planned to eliminate utterly) where I
haven't used negotiation as a tool of strategy (if nothing else you get
insights into your oponent's thinking by seeing how he responds to various
offers, threats, blandishments, proposals, etc). Also, and again I've been
guilty of this too, usually players enter war with "Total Victory" in mind
(though they frequently settle for less): what I think I'd like to see more
of is more of a moderated, range of goals and aims (which actually I don't
think would run counter to what GeeMan likes to see) - limited conflicts,
border raids & piracy that don't provoke Ultimate Responses but rather more
graduated responses, etc. With a range of gradations between the two poles
that are presented ("either we have Peace & diplomacy, or we have War &
conflict, and in War & conflict role playing is more limited" seems to be
one argument), there would be a *greater* range for role playing, not a
dimunition of it.

C. Linebarger wrote:
> Marriage for alliance, while rare in a game also came up. There were two
instances in
> the FoN where it was done, even though one of those fell through.
Personally one of my favorite options is the marriage alliance 8-).

GeeMan wrote:

> Now, now. I don't think I have ever once used the word "nice" in a
single one of my
> responses...I'll put up with a lot of flaming around here, but calling me
"nice" is
> uncalled for.
Ok, I was paraphrasing (with one word) rather than quoting at length, and
probably over simplified your position. . .greatly. Bygones.
> That's where the UNmedieval part of my post came from. That sounds like
what I was
> talking about in my message, and it was the main topic of the style of
play you are
> talking about. (Or at least it was a few messages ago....)
Ok. Well I was mainly agreeing with the aim of Solmyr's arguments, not
every specific example he made. As I said later, it doesn't matter to me
quite as much if we are playing with midieval mindsets (though that can be
enjoyable), or in distorted, "faux-Midieval" mindsets (though that too can
be enjoyable), or whatever (though that also can be enjoyable), as long as
enjoyability is maximized. I can argue midieval history with the worst of
'em (I'm a amature Byzantinist myself), and I'm not sure it is accurate to
say that the point Solmyr made was inaccurate with respect to midieval
reality, or that your points were inaccurate. IMO, that is beside the point
because we're arguing gameplay here (which I hope is what the list is
about), disagreeing (sometimes too heatedly - sorry.), and hopefully
learning from each other and thereby improving our games by seeing what
others think.
> I could have sworn that this whole thread started out as a diatribe
against people who
> blast others in PBeMs when they are attacked without provocation and that
First, I wasn't subscribed when the thread started, I only got fwd'd
messages from a friend who was scheming to pull me back into the list
(actually, any list will do) so he could read more of my rants (yes,
Virginia, I do know you had an ulterior motive 8-).), especially since my
characters have, for their own nefarious reasons, left the LotHS message
board "in a huff", so he won't be getting anymore rants from me through
that source for awhile (and he suffers through withdrawl if he doesn't get
his dosage, so this is a mercy mission on my part). Point is I missed "how
this whole thread started" and, in any case, only hold myself responsible
for my own ranting screeds, thank you very much *_+
> I don't see how this really refutes the argument that it is the "old" way
of doing
> things. Really, how is it different?
The division you're trying to promote between "the old bad way of playing"
and your own version of the "new good way of playing" is, IMO, your own. I
don't recall myself saying "what I'm proposing is new and unique". In other
words, once again, you're setting up a sort of straw man argument,
something I don't think anyone has made (asking me to defend not my
position, but whether it is "new" or not as a diversion from the arguments
themselves, or somehow suggesting that any "old" way of playing is by
definition the same as "obsolete and better discarded"). I find some of
what you seem to advocate (DM using his power as DM to punish players who
do not play their characters in ways that the DM approves of, for example)
to be more "restrictive" than "new and inovative" myself. But that's just
> > And as for orogs, gnolls and goblins, well no need to discuss
them in
> > civilized company. They do make nice ballista fodder, though.
> So I think I was pretty close when I described what you were advocating.
> understand that this was an in-character message, but the point is that
it is what you
> were talking about and what I was pointing out.)
You couldn't tell that portion was written tongue in cheek?
Note to self: don't attempt certain types of humor.

> I think you're now tweaking the argument a little bit rather than face
the weaknesses
> of the original,
Assume that I've done that (and assume for a moment that you have not). Is
that nessissarily a wrong and improper thing to do? Is this a set-piece,
Cambridge like debate where the initial proposition must be held at all
costs? Or is this an evolving dialogue where people might learn and change?
Or perhaps correct misimpressions with clearer language without
nessissarily being ruled out of line by Our Debate Masters (such as you
have seemingly declared yourself to be. . .your arguments, apparently, can
be allowed to evolve or be clarified, but your debate opponents must
restrict themselves to their exact original language or be ruled out of
order. If the later is the case, then there is really no need for me or
anyone else to respond directly to any of your posts - perhaps that is your
point - you can then instead simply reuse the originals as-is, without

> So let's assume that some people like playing a military-style game while
others like
> playing a diplomatic version. Let's call these kinds of players
"generals" for the
> sake of identification, and the diplomats as "politicians."
Again we have our broad split into only two catagories. If you'll re-read
even my more earlier several postings, you'll notice that I made reference
to objecting to war being all or nothing, and said even there that I would
like to see different responses to things like raids, etc, rather than
all-out reprisals et al.
Thus I tend to reject your starting premise that there are two kinds of
players (and what about a player who is playing Grabrend in character one
way but that same player would behave quite differently if playing as the
Count of Ilien? You seem to think it is the player, and not nessissarily
the character. What I'm saying is I've been in games where certain types of
play are the norm, where that was suitably enjoyable to me, but I'd like to
be able to behave differently in other games. . .that darn Role Playing
thing some keep pointing to, but seemingly only to justify one-note-wonder
type gaming, rather than a range of experience. . .correct me if I'm wrong,
please. . .without simply saying "yah, that's old school, so I dismiss

> Why would you expect the "politician" to respond in a strictly military
manner? Of
> course he is going to respond politically. What you describe as "the
> denunciation and punative response"
Assuming temporarily that your premise holds, which it does not, the
"ritualized denunciation and punative response" is very. . .one note. As
opposed to a range of responses, it almost invariably comes in the form of
an allied effort to reduce the "agressor" to ash. This isn't really the
"role playing" you claim to be arguing for, either, in that it is repeated
with little change.
Also, as I alluded to above, I think you have a. . .misimpression. . .of
my style of gaming. I've had huge armies in games, but my best successes
have always come from diplomacy (like that time I got Brosengae to nail
themselves to a cross. . .or got Deephole wiped out by colluding with the
realms he operated in and convincing them to replace him with me. . or got
Tuornen to send their best troops to fight on my behalf even though they
were facing a massive invasion themselves. . .to mention just a *few* coups
in *one* game I played in).
The "response" of your "Diplomat" player seems to be invariably the same
irregardless of what the "General" player did (raid for booty, try to sieze
one province, or all-out conquest effort). In my opinion, that isn't
nessissarily role playing. If anything, that kind of "overwhelming destroy
all my enemies" response is the "old" style of "hack" play you accuse me of
representing (and, IMO, saying that is almost as much a distortion as
yours. But notice that neither is really an argument. What if old school is
better? I mean, give me Jim Brown any day. . .)
> So, please, tell me: How would you describe the style that you are
talking about? If
> it isn't hack 'n slash at the domain level then how does it differ?
see all the above.
> anything more sophisticated than a wargame or any other strategy game?
What exactly
> are the role-playing opportunities it opens up that are unavailable to me
and other
> box dwelling "literary" and "historical" gamers?
Are you claiming your method of play is "literary" and "historical" (while
presumably mine is not)? Because I don't recall making such statements
about your method of play. And since you are good at pulling quotes from
memory, I request that you pull the quote where I called your method
"literary". And, if you can't, then you possibly owe me something, since
you are a "literalist" (which is not the same as being "literary," by the
by), as evidenced below:
> Hmmm. Well, if the above text isn't a good enough sample.... You wrote:
> > (Btw, don't mind my agressive polemical writting style. I have to find
> > way to vent my frustrations. And since I can't do it via Actions in a
> > game, I do it via rants *_+ Nothing personal.)
> which hints you wanted to use PBeMs as an outlet....
Oh, come now. That is obviously a "winking eye" emoticon, which should
indicate that this was said tounge in cheek. As for why I have an agressive
polemical style it is just because I have an agressive polemical style. I
write this way whether I had a good day or a bad day (and I'm not saying
this is the best style of communication, I'm just admiting that it's mine).
I mean, c'mon now. . .if we can't leven these posts with a little humor
it'll start to get even more personal than it already is. And if we start
to take that humor as if it were something to pick at, then things will
really get out of hand, and I may have to turn your realm into ash in good
"Diplomatic" player style 8-)
In point of fact (have you ever heard of Frustration-Agression theory?)
most of my current frustration isn't *vented* in Birthright games, it
*comes* from playing Birthright games (and I guess I have to flag this as
being semi-humorous so that you don't take it more seriously than it was
intended). Far from being a way to let off steam, it is a cause of steam

> no one has responded to the original response. The original message was
about how
> there shouldn't really be alliances because there weren't in the medieval
> (untrue)
If you think that alliances of the type that frequently appear in
Birthright were de rigur, then you're sadly mistaken.

> declaring war was viewed in a negative manner unreasonably and
> (again untrue)
If you think that warfare wasn't considered a way of life and the highest
calling of the ruling classes in the midieval world, then you're also sadly
mistaken (the "peace of god" notwithstanding. . .endemic warfare was
lamented by the devout, repeatedly. . .because it was and remained

I got bored reading the rest and decided that responding to it (which was
just some personal exchanges between us better droped at some point rather
than continued anyhow), and went to go finish reading "Corporate Download"
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
with the line