Chris Linebarger (geocit
07-21-1999, 07:04 AM
I haven't posted to the list in a while.... so maybe this message will get
through........
Anyways, I was reading through the mail from the list recently with a bit of interest on
certain DMing styles and methods of play in a PBEM. So, I thought I would contribute to
the discussion.
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.)
Taking Germany as an example, for hudreds of years Germany was no more that a collection
of duchies and principalities about the same size (if not smaller) than those in
Anuire. While it might be unreasonable for a massive alliance to form spanning the
entire continant, I do think that it is entirely possible for a large alliance, or
several of them to form in Anuire. While I am no big history buff, I would wager that
such alliances were common in old Germany. The BR book "War" by Simon Hawk demonstrates
this well I believe. In the end both Avanil and Boeruine ended up allying for the
purpose of siezing the Iron Throne.
I also believe war is a valid tool of regency. In fact, I think that war and diplomacy
go hand in hand. All to often I see people who fail to recognize the value of
diplomacy. In my mind diplomacy is a weapon and a means to an end. Used properly,
along with war and other actions one could quickly become a very powerful player on the
field.
To the question of vassalage; For a time I ran a PBEM (The Fate of Nations), and in
that game vassalage was actually taking place. The only problem I had with it is that
it was gravitating only to one power; Avanil. Diemed had declared it's vassalage to
Avanil as a means to gaining support against Medoere. Later on, Roesone was considering
vassalage to Avanil even though it was a member of an allaince of Southern Coast
nations. (Roesone had many enemies and most of the members of the Southern Coast
Alliance were unwilling to become involved in a war).
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.
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. When ever a nation commits an act of
agression, every one else condemns them, and then they go off and start their own wars.
So, when I DM a BR game, I do have a set goal in mind, but I also allow the PCs a lot of
breadth to manuver. And if one of them takes actions that disrupts the general idea I
have.... oh well.... it can be redesigned. So in my mind it does not do any good for a
DM to be overly taken with one of his own plots. He must adapt and change. Perhaps
guiding the players here and there... but ever so subtly.
Using the FoN example again, since that is what I have experience with, I did not have a
huge story arc planned, but merely a list of events that I would like to see happen.
And a list of goals for the various NPCs. In one way or another most of the events that
I would liked to have happen- did.
And now to repond to something Solmyr said on the list a few days ago:
Yes. However, as said, such diplomacy in BR PBEMs too often takes the
form of huge, NATO-like alliances that are not medieval at all. How are
those allies going to communicate and coordinate their plans across the
continent (they don't have e-mail, you know)?
If you take a step back and look, NATO no longer has a common enemy and has taken upon
themselves the mission of securing peace in Europe. A mission rife with controversy.
The Kosovo debacle showed that.
The Alliance is fractured and reverting to the normality of international realations.
"The Great Game," as it is called. So, NATO will collapse without the presence of a
common enemy.... Which is an important tool in diplomacy as well. Bismark used the
common enemy (France) to unify Germany.
Using this model, one could say that the Basarji Federation in your own game is doomed
to extiction as it seems to lack a common, unifying goal.
Well, there's my big ramble.... maybe it made some sence..... maybe.
Chris
aka Fearless Leader
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line
through........
Anyways, I was reading through the mail from the list recently with a bit of interest on
certain DMing styles and methods of play in a PBEM. So, I thought I would contribute to
the discussion.
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.)
Taking Germany as an example, for hudreds of years Germany was no more that a collection
of duchies and principalities about the same size (if not smaller) than those in
Anuire. While it might be unreasonable for a massive alliance to form spanning the
entire continant, I do think that it is entirely possible for a large alliance, or
several of them to form in Anuire. While I am no big history buff, I would wager that
such alliances were common in old Germany. The BR book "War" by Simon Hawk demonstrates
this well I believe. In the end both Avanil and Boeruine ended up allying for the
purpose of siezing the Iron Throne.
I also believe war is a valid tool of regency. In fact, I think that war and diplomacy
go hand in hand. All to often I see people who fail to recognize the value of
diplomacy. In my mind diplomacy is a weapon and a means to an end. Used properly,
along with war and other actions one could quickly become a very powerful player on the
field.
To the question of vassalage; For a time I ran a PBEM (The Fate of Nations), and in
that game vassalage was actually taking place. The only problem I had with it is that
it was gravitating only to one power; Avanil. Diemed had declared it's vassalage to
Avanil as a means to gaining support against Medoere. Later on, Roesone was considering
vassalage to Avanil even though it was a member of an allaince of Southern Coast
nations. (Roesone had many enemies and most of the members of the Southern Coast
Alliance were unwilling to become involved in a war).
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.
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. When ever a nation commits an act of
agression, every one else condemns them, and then they go off and start their own wars.
So, when I DM a BR game, I do have a set goal in mind, but I also allow the PCs a lot of
breadth to manuver. And if one of them takes actions that disrupts the general idea I
have.... oh well.... it can be redesigned. So in my mind it does not do any good for a
DM to be overly taken with one of his own plots. He must adapt and change. Perhaps
guiding the players here and there... but ever so subtly.
Using the FoN example again, since that is what I have experience with, I did not have a
huge story arc planned, but merely a list of events that I would like to see happen.
And a list of goals for the various NPCs. In one way or another most of the events that
I would liked to have happen- did.
And now to repond to something Solmyr said on the list a few days ago:
Yes. However, as said, such diplomacy in BR PBEMs too often takes the
form of huge, NATO-like alliances that are not medieval at all. How are
those allies going to communicate and coordinate their plans across the
continent (they don't have e-mail, you know)?
If you take a step back and look, NATO no longer has a common enemy and has taken upon
themselves the mission of securing peace in Europe. A mission rife with controversy.
The Kosovo debacle showed that.
The Alliance is fractured and reverting to the normality of international realations.
"The Great Game," as it is called. So, NATO will collapse without the presence of a
common enemy.... Which is an important tool in diplomacy as well. Bismark used the
common enemy (France) to unify Germany.
Using this model, one could say that the Basarji Federation in your own game is doomed
to extiction as it seems to lack a common, unifying goal.
Well, there's my big ramble.... maybe it made some sence..... maybe.
Chris
aka Fearless Leader
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line