A small whine...

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

I have been in a few PBEM of the Birthright game, and I am currently
Gamemastering One, and as I see it there is something gone ary in the minds
of players. Name Anuire players who blab about peace... Peace this or peace
that... blah blah blah... Anuire is in CIVIL WAR... battles are a way of
life. People trade provinces all the time as power grows and power falls. War
is not seen as bad but as a tool. I never encountered this love of peace in
the tabletop games of Birthright. If you are going to play an Anuire lord
peace is not a way of life, Sans maybe Ilien. Also this compulsion to take
all in one war... what is this? You widdle away at your enemy, taking a
province as they sue for peace. I know I am not the best BR player even in
the few PBEM I have been in, but I at least try to expell the demons of
modern thought when I play the game. I also hate this us against them
mentality. As in PCs vs awnshegh... I think players form alliances too easily
with these "all-knowing" I know everything attitudes and I really hate that.

Anyone else have simular thoughts?To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Olesens]

I totally agree with you. In one game Boeruine and Avan were both PCs and they
were talking about peace with each other. I was a Wizard (militant wizard kit)
and count of Taeghas. I tried my utmost to generate some hostility. In the end
all I got was a bunch of peacelovers yelling at me. The thing is, it isn't
practical to be the normal Anuirean when everyone else is too idealistic (for the
time). Technically, it is more advantageous to be peaceful like that and so
players quickly forget that this is a ROLE-PLAYING game not a strategy computer
game where the only object is to win.

As for the all in one: It is more effective (no attacked and angry neighbor) yes,
but most offsensive wars that I've seen in PBEMs have been lost by the victor.
One big problem is that people don't use enough espionage to plan. But even so,
you could win one province even if you can't take all.

Not sure what you mean on the last point.

I'd like to add a quick whine of my own (on the first theme). Players don't do
enough diplomacy actions. It's all letters: "Will you become my vassal in return
for my protection?" Response "Sure!" Uhhhh, no. Only in the most rare
circumstances will kings agree like that. More often, it takes weeks of careful
negotiation to get whatever is mutually acceptable.

> I have been in a few PBEM of the Birthright game, and I am currently
> Gamemastering One, and as I see it there is something gone ary in the minds
> of players. Name Anuire players who blab about peace... Peace this or peace
> that... blah blah blah... Anuire is in CIVIL WAR... battles are a way of
> life. People trade provinces all the time as power grows and power falls. War
> is not seen as bad but as a tool. I never encountered this love of peace in
> the tabletop games of Birthright. If you are going to play an Anuire lord
> peace is not a way of life, Sans maybe Ilien. Also this compulsion to take
> all in one war... what is this? You widdle away at your enemy, taking a
> province as they sue for peace. I know I am not the best BR player even in
> the few PBEM I have been in, but I at least try to expell the demons of
> modern thought when I play the game. I also hate this us against them
> mentality. As in PCs vs awnshegh... I think players form alliances too easily
> with these "all-knowing" I know everything attitudes and I really hate that.
>
> Anyone else have simular thoughts?
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Soviet]

Yeah!!! War for War's sake!!!!!
Blood and Souls for my lord Arioch....uhm wrong setting...I mean Cuiracean!!!

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> I have been in a few PBEM of the Birthright game, and I am currently
> Gamemastering One, and as I see it there is something gone ary in the minds
> of players. Name Anuire players who blab about peace... Peace this or peace
> that... blah blah blah... Anuire is in CIVIL WAR... battles are a way of
> life. People trade provinces all the time as power grows and power falls. War
> is not seen as bad but as a tool. I never encountered this love of peace in
> the tabletop games of Birthright. If you are going to play an Anuire lord
> peace is not a way of life, Sans maybe Ilien. Also this compulsion to take
> all in one war... what is this? You widdle away at your enemy, taking a
> province as they sue for peace. I know I am not the best BR player even in
> the few PBEM I have been in, but I at least try to expell the demons of
> modern thought when I play the game. I also hate this us against them
> mentality. As in PCs vs awnshegh... I think players form alliances too easily
> with these "all-knowing" I know everything attitudes and I really hate that.
>
> Anyone else have simular thoughts?
> ************************************************** *************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
> with the line 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Solmyr]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:
>
> I have been in a few PBEM of the Birthright game, and I am currently
> Gamemastering One, and as I see it there is something gone ary in the minds
> of players. Name Anuire players who blab about peace... Peace this or peace
> that... blah blah blah... Anuire is in CIVIL WAR... battles are a way of
> life. People trade provinces all the time as power grows and power falls. War
> is not seen as bad but as a tool. I never encountered this love of peace in
> the tabletop games of Birthright. If you are going to play an Anuire lord
> peace is not a way of life, Sans maybe Ilien. Also this compulsion to take
> all in one war... what is this? You widdle away at your enemy, taking a
> province as they sue for peace. I know I am not the best BR player even in
> the few PBEM I have been in, but I at least try to expell the demons of
> modern thought when I play the game. I also hate this us against them
> mentality. As in PCs vs awnshegh... I think players form alliances too easily
> with these "all-knowing" I know everything attitudes and I really hate that.
>
> Anyone else have simular thoughts?

I agree. There are often several things happening in PBEMs that I think
are decidedly unmedieval. I will address them below.

1.Alliances. Too often we see huge alliances/power blocs being formed.
This is way too modern. In medieval times, the standard agreement
between two rulers was VASSALAGE (i.e. you swear loyalty to me and I
will protect your lands). People forget (or don't realize) that
vassalage brings honor not only to the liege, but to the vassal as well.
Alliances were almost unheard of, and were usually only short-term
treaties of convenience, broken immediately by one of the participants
when their usefulness expired. Yet most PBEM players seem to fear
vassalage like the plague.

2.People accusing each other of racism/religious intolerance. Huh? While
I'm sure medieval regents did both those things, accusing them of it
sounds extremely stupid. Those things were almost the standard way of
life, even espoused by the religion. Those other guys, they are infidels
and foreign devils, so they aren't worthy to live anyway. Everyone knows
that!

3.War. As Jules mentioned, many PBEM players seem to see war as somehow
"bad" or "evil" (unless it's done by them, but that is another story).
Too often when a war erupts we see huge amounts of bitching and whining
and "urging people to make peace". Duh? This is medieval world we are
talking about here! War, especially successful war, is a mark of your
skill and ability as a ruler and a general. If you conquer new
territories, you should be congratulated as a successful commander, not
ostracized as an oppressive tyrant (well, except by your victim and his
friends, of course; also depends on what exactly you do to the conquered
populace). Of course, that doesn't mean that people won't seek to
relieve you of your "ill-gotten" (in their opinion) gains, just that
accusing you of being a successful ruler is silly.

Well, those are my thoughts.

- --
******************
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

[Chrys murphy]

Your words have merit but most of the wars I have been involved in as a player
and as a DM in PBeM's have not ended in the desired results. The best war is a
short one that is over before it can escalate with other groups joining the
cause of either side or before setbacks can occur to reverse the war.
Take Darkstar's defunct Anuire/Khinasi PBeM. I played Zikala and, Turn 1 Ariya
invaded. I sat back and defended ceding province by province to the attacker
until he was spread so thin I could attack wherever I wanted. I counterattacked,
crossed his border and sacked a province, warded most of his army into another
province and Aftane invaded Ariya with a huge army (after months of diplomatic
talks between me & the Red Kings whilst Ariya rampaged). Result ? Ariya was
forced to hand my provinces back, pay me a sum of GB and pay Afgtane an
astronomical sum of GB's to pull their troops out - and half of Ariya's
Provinces were pillaged.

Wars are a good tool, but should only be used when you can be relatively assured
of a quick, decisive victory. Peace is a cover for the political wars of
Diplomacy which are at least as important to a realm's survival. Without all
those pacts and agreements a realm would be seen as vulnerable - having no
friends to come to it's aid and thus ripe for conquest.

Memnoch wrote:

> Oh, yes, I have the same thoughts... However, I have won the wars that I
> start... I do use planning and espionage, and underhanded but effective
> tactics...
>
> Although, I have only declared war three times in the entire time that I have
> played PBEMs... I won all three times...or at least achieved my objective.
>
> Memnoch
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-birthright@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-birthright@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of
> JulesMrshn@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 4:40 PM
> To: birthright@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - A small whine...
>
> I have been in a few PBEM of the Birthright game, and I am currently
> Gamemastering One, and as I see it there is something gone ary in the minds of
> players. Name Anuire players who blab about peace... Peace this or peace
> that... blah blah blah... Anuire is in CIVIL WAR... battles are a way of life.
> People trade provinces all the time as power grows and power falls.
> War is not seen as bad but as a tool. I never encountered this love of peace
> in the tabletop games of Birthright. If you are going to play an Anuire lord
> peace is not a way of life, Sans maybe Ilien. Also this compulsion to take
> all in one war... what is this? You widdle away at your enemy, taking a
> province as they sue for peace. I know I am not the best BR player even in the
> few PBEM I have been in, but I at least try to expell the demons of modern
> thought when I play the game. I also hate this us against them mentality. As
> in PCs vs awnshegh... I think players form alliances too easily with these
> "all-knowing" I know everything attitudes and I really hate that.
>
> Anyone else have simular thoughts?
> ************************************************** *************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
> with the line 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
> with the line 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Olesens wrote:


> I'd like to add a quick whine of my own (on the first theme). Players
> don't do enough diplomacy actions. It's all letters: "Will you become
> my vassal in return for my protection?" Response "Sure!" Uhhhh, no.
> Only in the most rare circumstances will kings agree like that. More
> often, it takes weeks of careful negotiation to get whatever is
> mutually acceptable.
>

That is something that is the task of the DM! I personally don't allow
the formation of any alliance without a proper diplomacy action, even if
both parties immediatly agree with each other. I agree though that not
many players start with unreasonable demands (and I would be the first
to admit I tend to forget that as well). In case of mutual cooperation
in a war, I should do the same, if only to argue about who will take the
lead. In RL this seems to be quite a big issue... It is just something
that I recently realised. If they don't do it all sorts of problems can
arise ::wicked grin::

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

[Pieter Sleijpen]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:



> Anyone else have simular thoughts?

Not really. Sure there are people who do things that has got nothing to
with the description given in the books. For instance, all those elven
nations that grow and prosper like wild fire and then get so strong that
they can easily conquer their neighbors. Makes you wonder how they have
been defeated in the first place... On the other hand there are players
who play their characters as they should be played. That is what you get
when you play with international games. Besides, we are just persons. I
am most certainly not a wizard, a king or guilder and placing oneself
into that aspect is very difficult. I take those discrapancies for
granted, even some of them can be very irritating. There is no point to
"whine" about it and as long as I and the other players have got fun,
then the goal is reached :-)

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

[geeman]

Solmyr of the Azure Star wrote:

> There are often several things happening in PBEMs that I think
> are decidedly unmedieval.

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?
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.

> 1.Alliances. Too often we see huge alliances/power blocs being formed.
> This is way too modern. In medieval times, the standard agreement
> between two rulers was VASSALAGE (i.e. you swear loyalty to me and I
> will protect your lands). People forget (or don't realize) that
> vassalage brings honor not only to the liege, but to the vassal as well.
> Alliances were almost unheard of, and were usually only short-term
> treaties of convenience, broken immediately by one of the participants
> when their usefulness expired. Yet most PBEM players seem to fear
> vassalage like the plague.

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.

> 2.People accusing each other of racism/religious intolerance. Huh? While
> I'm sure medieval regents did both those things, accusing them of it
> sounds extremely stupid. Those things were almost the standard way of
> life, even espoused by the religion. Those other guys, they are infidels
> and foreign devils, so they aren't worthy to live anyway. Everyone knows
> that!

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?

I've spent the week rereading old Conan the X novels. Does anyone out there
actually think Conan is an archetype of anything other than the fantasy fiction
version of a barbarian? Well, he's not. Steroid use is a modern invention, as is
the concept of the noble savage. That's why this is a FANTASY role playing game.
We apply modern concepts to a medieval setting and play (emphasis on play) within
that context. It's a lark, done for our amusement. Now, if you enjoy recreating
the bleak "reality" of the medieval period in your games then, hey, go to it. I'm
certainly not going to tell you no. I don't think, however, that anyone should
look down on other hobbyists for playing in a game that they have personally
decided is "unrealistic" when

A. They aren't applying the same "realism" standard to their own method of play.
B. They are confusing the thematic basis of a fantasy RPG. That is, that it ISN'T
realistic.
C. They try to enforce their own gaming style (which is completely subjective) to
people who are just trying to do their own thing.

> 3.War. As Jules mentioned, many PBEM players seem to see war as somehow
> "bad" or "evil" (unless it's done by them, but that is another story).
> Too often when a war erupts we see huge amounts of bitching and whining
> and "urging people to make peace". Duh? This is medieval world we are
> talking about here! War, especially successful war, is a mark of your
> skill and ability as a ruler and a general. If you conquer new
> territories, you should be congratulated as a successful commander, not
> ostracized as an oppressive tyrant (well, except by your victim and his
> friends, of course; also depends on what exactly you do to the conquered
> populace). Of course, that doesn't mean that people won't seek to
> relieve you of your "ill-gotten" (in their opinion) gains, just that
> accusing you of being a successful ruler is silly.

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.

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.
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
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.

Oh, well. That's enough for one rant.

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

[Muaadeeb@aol.co]

In a message dated 7/17/99 7:06:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
chrys@fastlink.com.au writes:

>


hehe..

As Queen of the Seilwode.....I was not about to let the Federations walk all
over the elves....thus the formation of the Sidhelien Empire......it was a
good game.....



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

[Chrys murphy]

Yeah I remember the Basarj federation in that game : )
I was a member "under secret protest" my land had been devastated by Ariya's
invasion as had my army. Next thing I know there was this big power bloc forming
all around me (Ariya, Binsada -hmmm seems familiar somehow..... ah Solmyr's
current game) asking me to join with a thinly veied threat that if I did not I
would be classed as one of the "Threats" they planned to eliminate and, indeed,
would be first on their list. Not being silly, I joined.
The subsequent war with Aftane was a lot of fun - I managed to keep my troops
and ships out of the fighting for the entire war - using them as 2nd line
Garrisoning Troops in the few cases where they had to actually leave Zikala -
where they were held as an "Emergency Relief Column" that never saw action.
I loved reading about all the Binsadans and Ariyans killed in the fighting
whilst my people were nice and safe. Hell, once when it looked like my troops
would get involved I warded the province they were in so they couldn't and
blamed Bedoureg.
If the game hadn't ended when it did, there would have been a violent
dissolution to that Federation when I turned on my "Allies" and gave them their
comeuppance.....

Camruth of the Empty Hand

Memnoch wrote:

> Well, I don't consider darkstar's PBEM one of the ones in which I declared
> war in. I was Caelcorwynn, and I supported Isaelie's war, which was
> basically a war of attrition. Although I did declare war once in that game
> (under Dragon3125), I was prevented from my objective by the DM allowing the
> Basarji Federation to change their actions and redo basically what amounted
> to their entire turn. James Ruhland can attest to this little fact. Had
> the game been played by the rules (i.e. initiative), I would have been
> successful at that point as well. At least, everything was looking up at
> that point.
>
> Memnoch
>
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Kenneth Gauck]

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

[Solmyr]

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

[Solmyr]

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

[Kenneth Gauck]

>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

[RocksHope@aol.co]

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

[Kenneth Gauck]

- -----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