How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?


  • Pitcrew

    Any time you put paganism into a Mu you get trouble I've found. There is a not insubstational number of actual pagans that MU and they want things done right as opposed to pretendy fun times. Real world religion and politics.. don't discuss them with friends or play them on a MU.

    As a side note for Realms Adventerous.. has anyone heard from who took it over after Sir Kay? I can't remember her staff bit name there.. but last I heard from her her state was flooding, the MU went down, and nothing since. Hope she's all right.


  • Pitcrew

    @WildBaboons I think her staff bit was Nimue? Haven't heard anything from her since then. But I have seen her disappear for some time before, elseMU. They never got the server up again after it went down.


  • TV & Movies

    @TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    Its some of these pedantics and discussion of castles and manors that's part of the larger bickering issues that showed up at Realms.

    Last August on the Historicla Mu's thread, there was discussion about folks discussing the finer points of detail vs the majority of players that just show up for pretend fun time and while to those who enjoy history, the semantics of a building that consists of a few rooms, maybe a wing, down to the invention of the chimney is what drives players away from wanting to wade into historical games. Low stakes seems to border into historical and inconsistency at a smaller level will be noted.

    I take blame for misunderstanding and misrepresentation of theme at Realm, as repeatedly said. But as you can see how it mildly turns to disagreement here, this is foreshadowing what could potentially be expected.

    I'll be the first to point out that being overly anal about history isn't going to get you anywhere (and I have, I pointed this out to you when you were floating your Reconquista game). That's not the issue here. By all means, if you want to not be strictly historical, don't be strictly historical. Tell people they can wear whatever they want.

    You didn't do that on Realms. The issue is you're drawing an equivalency between people who were following the guidelines set for them (wood or weak stone halls, various fashion items on the wiki) and people who said 'fuck your theme, I do what I want,' and calling both sides extremists. You're acting like there's no fault to be found, which is ridiculous. You're also pretty obviously misremembering or outright misrepresenting how a lot of the problems played out.... while sock puppetting multiple accounts, so it comes off as pretty bizarre and suspicious.

    @WildBaboons said in [How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?](/topic/1759/how-low-can-low-stakes-be-

    Real world religion and politics.. don't discuss them with friends or play them on a MU.

    You're not wrong, though hilariously the medieval Christianity didn't give people trouble. A big issue was, indeed, the really zealous RL types not only being able to understand that it was a game, but also admit that their religion isn't the same thing. Wicca is a modern invention, and we know very little about Brittonic druidism and other similar things, in large part because the only period sources are Roman (people who wanted to vilify them). But they'd hear none of that :D



  • @bored said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    You didn't do that on Realms. The issue is you're drawing an equivalency between people who were following the guidelines set for them (wood or weak stone halls, various fashion items on the wiki) and people who said 'fuck your theme, I do what I want,' and calling both sides extremists. You're acting like there's no fault to be found, which is ridiculous.

    As has been pointed out by others, castles vs hovels was not a deal breaker to most of the players, by other players. As for fault, I present from the majority of my posts so far:

    @Lotherio said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    Lack of theme understanding is entirely my fault.

    @Lotherio said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    @kitteh Read all I wrote, that nitpicking as you call it ends with 'I am to blame for lack of theme understanding'.

    @TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    I'm only offering the goal of realms was not dirt groveling land holders. Again blame me for theme misunderstsndings.

    @TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    And I'll say again, lack of theme consistency is my fault, entirely. But know that dirt groveling landholders was not part of the theme.

    @TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    You started with this ^ none of which is entirely accurate. I explained why we stopped Realms, player bickering (ie we're dirty grovelers vs we're glittering nobles; neither of which is accurate). I concur it's my fault. And you keep making jabs, such as the fae char which actually never was far, and even now against that house.

    @TimmyZ said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    I take blame for misunderstanding and misrepresentation of theme at Realm, as repeatedly said. But as you can see how it mildly turns to disagreement here, this is foreshadowing what could potentially be expected.

    I'm being accused of being a nitpicky anal historian who was not anal enough in enforcing my theme. Which shall I be for you? I am not a nitpicky anal historian nor I was not anal in enforcing them at the expense of pretendy fun time. This continually assault on my lack of tacking fault over dirt groveling or castles illustrates the points, pick your theme stick to it, damned those that disagree. Which is what I am doing now.



  • PS: Pendragon was aimed at knightly adventures, chivalry and, dare I say, romance. But I'm wrong on everything else.


  • Pitcrew

    The people who were nitpicky probably did not include Sir Kay. Players mostly wanted to enforce this or that, and yes, we had to put our foot down in regards to the marvelous castle some people wanted their manors to have, which was fucking ridiculous.

    I mean, look at The Last Kingdom, for instance. Uhtred is given a manor in disrepair and a lot of debt by Alfred. Does it look like a castle to you? He owned a castle, sure, Bebbanburg -- but it was taken from him by his uncle in a most despicable manner after the Vikings attacked.

    Of course, he was a kid, yadda yadda... Hell, not even the wealthiest Eaoldorman had a castle or keep. He had a fucking manor.

    Nevertheless, it's water under the bridge. I'm just wondering if you're ever going to be interested in sharing the Pendragon codebase, @TimmyZ. For all its faults in applying to a MUSH, I did love that system. It's a change from what usually goes in lords and ladies.



  • @WildBaboons said in How low can "low stakes" be and still be compelling for RP?:

    Any time you put paganism into a Mu you get trouble I've found. There is a not insubstational number of actual pagans that MU and they want things done right as opposed to pretendy fun times.

    Except that "pagans" (neopagans) are doing pretendy fun times for all practical purposes. (And there's nothing wrong with that, I hasten to add.) At issue is their insistence that their practices are the same as historical ones, a claim that rarely passes even a giggle test.



  • Whether or not the game focuses exclusively on goat preservation, there seems to be enough interest that I'll consider more fully what might be doable in terms of RPG-ish infrastructure to support RPing Icelandic settlers' frontier-survival travails.


  • Pitcrew

    I'd suggest setting it on Newfoundland and doing that whole Norse settlers vs Beothuk conflict as well as goat preservation, 'cause that shit was pretty hilarious, but I can't see players keeping the right mindset (the Beothuk build some sort of hot air balloon out of animal stomachs and send it sailing over the Norse village, the Norse freak the fuck out. Some Norse woman comes rushing out of her hut when the Beothuk attack, tears open her dress and starts cutting her own breasts with a sword and screaming and the Beothuk are all, "Holy balls!" and run away) and it might be sort of tasteless.

    As for how low can low stakes be? Protecting your goats is totally high stakes, you could die horribly or you could be sorta-rich and comfy and socially powerful. I speculate that nobody'd think it too low stakes if you were talking about a 'Walking Dead' MU where the PCs have founded a village on an island and have to protect the few goats they've got from washed-up waterlogged zombies and weather instead of predators and weather. People can be weirdly hidebound about what they can see as exciting. (I prefer the Icelandic Settlers to the Zombie Apocalypse Survivors, myself.)



  • @il-volpe I had not considered an Icelandic settlers vs. zombies scenario, either, I will confess.


  • Pitcrew

    Commenting more in general than about saving goats in particular, for me it is more about making the stakes matter personally to the PC.
    I have played character living in a van where basic survival was everything and had great fun, I have also been in literal save the world plots that were boring because my PC had no skin in the game.
    For example the table top D+D game I am in is about saving the world, but my characters stake in it is that the big bad's underlings killed his best friend back when we were level 3 (current level is 17) my characters motivation is still on getting vengeance for his friend while saving the world is a nice bonus.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MU Soapbox was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.