Oct 11, 2016, 8:58 PM
Ooh nice, it does seem nifty. Thanks for the heads up too!
Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff
-
Ooh nice, it does seem nifty. Thanks for the heads up too!
-
Am I understanding correctly that it will be against the rules to have anything more negative than mild intolerance as IC thoughts and opinions? Or did I misunderstand?
-
@Sunny said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Am I understanding correctly that it will be against the rules to have anything more negative than mild intolerance as IC thoughts and opinions? Or did I misunderstand?
Specifically, using religion as a springboard for say mass murder, rape, or genocide will not be tolerated.
Intolerance will come up in RP, we are only asking if there is a target to this and it makes them uncomfortable that it not be played out or remain a focus of RP. We are not after the 'they are not us, we must eradicate them!' We don't want any 'you dirty RELGION' or 'because you are x you are unclean'.
We are suggesting such is not the norm, both sides have doctrine for tolerance (love your neighbors, Muhammad treaty with Abrahamic Religions such as his treaty with Judaism); that should be the norm, any intolerance should be the minority. The focus of individuals of either side should be establishing bloodlines and control in the area through politics, alliances, the courts on either side. One staff brought up the idea of an Iberian Richelieu which could be interesting (but again, could just as easily step on toes, or just rankle depending on the player), but the idea of political dominance would have to come from their heritage to say Visigoth lineage and familial obligations and not the church itself.
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
-
*nip in the bud.
It's flower talk, not butt play.
-
Cool, that's the clarification I was looking for. I look forward to this, and will probably even come back to actively playing for it. Redemption ties with another game for me, in terms of best mushing times I've ever had, so with further info on how you're planning on addressing this...yeah, I'm in.
-
So... real history with all the real world links and the potential pitfalls that come with it, but pretending said real history is all daisies and roses with vague, highly subjective and yet harshly-enforced rules about players not taking their religious war too far and being mean to each other? It sounds like you've basically taken the worst possible sides of both of this in your compromise.
As ever, I'll still probably check it out, just because there's not much L&L these days.
-
The reconquista didn't become religious until 9th century Christian documents labelled it and while some talk of murder, rape, and genocide in the 8th century, other historians argue that the religious inference by Christians was propoganda by the church and church States to incur sympathy and support (financial and military) for the efforts. Similar to British celts and human sacrifice, which may have existed but is considered by some to be Roman propoganda to paint pagans as non human and thus easy to call an enemy more than common practice.
Wikipedia on the early medieval Spain situation:
Nevertheless, the difference between Christian and Muslim kingdoms in early medieval Spain was not seen at the time as anything like the clear-cut opposition that later emerged. Both Christian and Muslim rulers fought amongst themselves. Alliances between Muslims and Christians were not uncommon.<ref name=CambridgeMedieval/> Blurring distinctions even further were the mercenaries from both sides who simply fought for whoever paid the most. The period is looked back upon today as one of relative religious tolerance.<ref>María Rosa Menocal, ''The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain'', Back Bay Books, 2003, ISBN 0316168718, and see [[Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain]].</ref>
Nothing here about hatred and intolerance being key to the start of the Reconquista, or the birth of the Kingdom of Asturias, and this is a basis of our game. Groups squabbling among themselves, allying across religious borders ( or lack thereof), even fighting their own faith as mercenary units for prize. Certainly other historians can disagree.
If religion is the only excuse one can find to squabble, it's a sad day. If using the above reference, from cited sources, ruins ones fun of the third decade of the seventh cebtury because it's less about religious differences and more about fighting for resources and opposing taxes (the taking of resources) and personal agendas, then yes, it is all flowers and daisies.
As noted in the other history thread, pedantic once again paints the picture for why many avoid historical mu*s.
-
You're really missing the point, pulling out nuanced, detailed RL history to try and make a case. Players won't get nuance or detail, or they will disagree on the nuance and detail (see RA, and frankly, see actual historians) and ultimately people will RP what they want to RP (again see RA). To any degree that you have Christians and Muslims, you're going to get friction and if the overall point of the game is (re)conquest, that religious line is going to be a thing. Again, see RA with Pagans vs Christians there, and that was a theme that was encouraging 0 conflict between them. Your theme will be encouraging conflict >0.
So whether or not this was the core essence of conflict in the period, it's going to be hard to tell people they can't incorporate intolerance into their RP without it becoming very RP police-y, and where the line of 'OK' will be drawn seems like it will be hopelessly subjective.
-
@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
This was actually suggested by another poster in another thread.
@sthanheykel said in Historical MU*s:
- Firenze during the Italian Wars - Political Strife during Renaissance, families battle for the control of the Repubic of Firenze whilst Italy itself is engulfed in a war for the control of the peninsula, with foreign powers like the growing militaristic France or even the Germans from some of the HRE states prey for more land and vassals. PCs could be literally anyone from commonfolk, who would be experiencing the Renaissance and they still would have something to do as Savonarola would eventually come in play, changing the life of the common people or trying to rise through the ranks of society; richer/more influential people would be able to fight directly for control of the city or just enjoy the good life that their money can buy.
I do not want to leap on or steal this ideal, but I would absolutely play this game, time permitting.
Heh, I can probably do it as I gain more experience with coding and server tweaking, those are my biggest issues so far. I've got plenty material already from some books and I campaign I've run for some friends.
-
@Thenomain, or someone, has previously said that all World of Darkness games eventually become Generic City by Night. (Not an exact quote. Feel free to correct me.) But this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to World of Darkness games -- all games gradually become a generic version of their original concept, to one degree or another. So, if you want to avoid having this genericization take your game in a direction you don't want to go, make sure the high concept pitch is something that doesn't lend itself to going in that direction when stripped of nuance and detail. In this particular instance, if you don't want people to take "Christianity vs Islam" and run with it, then the less you talk about the Reconquista, the better.
-
@Autumn said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Generic City by Night
Bland By Night, but that's the idea.
The complaint is that players and staff don't hold onto the theme and setting. While it's my issue with a Historical game, I'm not going to complain about someone who wants to run its theme to the hilt, where just as much discussion occurs about the setting as playing in it. This would be a good thing. Staff should always be involved with the setting, forming it, supporting it, maintaining it, treating it as if it was real.
Players will follow.
-
Harping again on my favourite hobby horse: how, precisely, with details, do you plan to reward those who play other lines of conflict than the religious ones? Talks of banning X and forbidding Y are counter-productive. Punishment is a terrible motivator. What do you plan to do to reward those who keep to the theme you want to establish? Show your work.
-
@WTFE said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Harping again on my favourite hobby horse: how, precisely, with details, do you plan to reward those who play other lines of conflict than the religious ones? Talks of banning X and forbidding Y are counter-productive. Punishment is a terrible motivator. What do you plan to do to reward those who keep to the theme you want to establish? Show your work.
Aside from XP ,,, the ones making the effort to play the game, the ones politicking, the ones making alliances, the ones conflicting over the resources will make gains by affecting the direction of the story and meta. They will shape the story of the mush itself. They will contribute to its growth and direction.
In real history Pelagius unites a few other nobles, they do a bunch of alliances, a lot sealed by marriages to form coalitions with neighbors and nearby nobles in other kingdoms nearby and forge out the Kingdom of Asturias.
That direction is not set in stone. The movers and shakers that play the game will have that reward of shaping that direction. Sure, it will come with things like titles and land resources and growth of their houses, all in-game thematic stuff. While there is an NPC Visigoth Prince, one of the players may rise to this position, to form the new kingdom on their court for all I know. They may forgo this direction and instead side with the Qadi in Gijon, make the Haji, form new alliances and strengthen the position of the Umayyad instead, gaining favor of the Caliph.
I can't say for certain, I do not set in stone the course of meta for any Mu* I staff on, I take cues from the direction the players are deciding to go in and offer the meta round what is transpiring. Sure, I might have challenges arise; the early rise of Basque nobility to the east to compete for best rebels in the north, squabbling instead for the seat of power amongst visigoth nobility. Maybe they will piss of Aquitaine enough that they join with the Umayyad to squash out the nuisance between the realms? Maybe the houses will be scattered and the nobles will form as some renegade mercenary group traveling the lands of Europe or Northern Africa taking the best price to fight for/against the Umayyad?
I really don't know other than there is potential.
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
-
@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Aside from XP ,,, the ones making the effort to play the game, the ones politicking, the ones making alliances, the ones conflicting over the resources will make gains by affecting the direction of the story and meta. They will shape the story of the mush itself. They will contribute to its growth and direction.
I guess my concerns are:
-
In these type of power dynamics, there's only so many people who can be at the top tier. The whole reason nobles exist is they have vast resource bases and every one below them trickles down. By that system, the number of people at this level of authority has to be small or the whole system supporting it collapses. So, how do you propose to reward players who will not be in the highest seats of authority in the game - which is going to be most of them?
-
This sounds like a time sink, which is great if you have it but there are a lot of good players that between jobs, spouses, kids, and all the obligations therein can't necessarily be on every night or every weekend. Is the game going to structure so these folks will have something to do or will focus mainly on the people who can be on a lot? I ask because there's a lot of good players out there that I think get overlooked and left behind because of the time demands a lot of games put on people. I would appreciate a game that makes the time factors less of a high bar for entry and participation.
-
-
@Lotherio If you want everybody to be tolerant, why the hell have two separate religions in the first place? Part of the tension of that period of time, in that place, was the fear that one side was on the brink of being utterly wiped out, that god was forsaking them, etc, etc. If you take the religion out of the equation, there's actually nothing particularly special about your setting.
-
@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@WTFE said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Harping again on my favourite hobby horse: how, precisely, with details, do you plan to reward those who play other lines of conflict than the religious ones? Talks of banning X and forbidding Y are counter-productive. Punishment is a terrible motivator. What do you plan to do to reward those who keep to the theme you want to establish? Show your work.
Aside from XP ,,, the ones making the effort to play the game, the ones politicking, the ones making alliances, the ones conflicting over the resources will make gains by affecting the direction of the story and meta. They will shape the story of the mush itself. They will contribute to its growth and direction.
You really, really, really, really, really need to read my little rant on this topic. What you are proposing as "rewards" is setting yourself up for disappointment and failure. Motivational psychology: not just a pair of polysyllabic words.
-
@WTFE said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@WTFE said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Harping again on my favourite hobby horse: how, precisely, with details, do you plan to reward those who play other lines of conflict than the religious ones? Talks of banning X and forbidding Y are counter-productive. Punishment is a terrible motivator. What do you plan to do to reward those who keep to the theme you want to establish? Show your work.
Aside from XP ,,, the ones making the effort to play the game, the ones politicking, the ones making alliances, the ones conflicting over the resources will make gains by affecting the direction of the story and meta. They will shape the story of the mush itself. They will contribute to its growth and direction.
You really, really, really, really, really need to read my little rant on this topic. What you are proposing as "rewards" is setting yourself up for disappointment and failure. Motivational psychology: not just a pair of polysyllabic words.
Not sure if its just me but it says 'access denied' when I try to click on your link.
-
@Cadi It's in the Hog Pit. You have to be in the Pit Crew to see it.
-
You have to be among the glorious chosen ones to access it. By glorious chosen one, I mean you chose to apply the Pitcrew tag to your account so you can access the Hog Pit and wallow in the fifth like the rest of us. The option should be in your profile.
-
@GangOfDolls said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Aside from XP ,,, the ones making the effort to play the game, the ones politicking, the ones making alliances, the ones conflicting over the resources will make gains by affecting the direction of the story and meta. They will shape the story of the mush itself. They will contribute to its growth and direction.
I guess my concerns are:
-
In these type of power dynamics, there's only so many people who can be at the top tier. The whole reason nobles exist is they have vast resource bases and every one below them trickles down. By that system, the number of people at this level of authority has to be small or the whole system supporting it collapses. So, how do you propose to reward players who will not be in the highest seats of authority in the game - which is going to be most of them?
-
This sounds like a time sink, which is great if you have it but there are a lot of good players that between jobs, spouses, kids, and all the obligations therein can't necessarily be on every night or every weekend. Is the game going to structure so these folks will have something to do or will focus mainly on the people who can be on a lot? I ask because there's a lot of good players out there that I think get overlooked and left behind because of the time demands a lot of games put on people. I would appreciate a game that makes the time factors less of a high bar for entry and participation.
A player knows the amount of time they can comment to playing in such a game. As a daytime player myself, when I go to another mu*, I do not get into any position that will affect others. Not just FC or faction heads, I don't become anything that others will need in some instance. I can't do WoD politics ever because most players play evenings, most staff do plots in evenings. When I go to any game, I set up an interesting character and focus on my own development and reaction of the development of people around me. If I encounter an FC/FH/HoH level character that offers me something to do, kudos to them and I try to do it in my limited context.
This being said, I do believe in trying to have things to do for everyone. There should be plenty of missions/side missions/encounters/PrP worth things to do. I am a proponent of the plot idea boxes. A number of things to go off and do that can be handled in a one-shot or by a few willing players in a couple of sessions at tops. Not quite TP, maybe some do consider it PrP, but plots and things for people to do. I offer out such things on bboard, I offer people to page me if they ever need something to do. I did this on Realms.
The problem with it is that no one takes up the offers. On Realms, the two people that took actual missions to help Salisbury were also in the most active group only, then I was accused of favoritism. The offer was out there, I can't force people into doing things.
I completely understand the time commitment thing, a part of Coral Springs presently is you log on when ever and have the fun you want short of global catastrophe (a lot of wiggle room, its OC supers).
I don't want folks to feel like its a time sink. I don't want to have court every week as a staffer either. I'd like to see weekly folks come one, do there RP and come out feeling something was accomplished. Whether its saving the hostage, dealing with local merchants complaints, intercepting the messenger, dealing with crop failure, wolves, the fallout from a recent bad brush fire, some complaining commoners, unrest because a particular group of unruly mercs have set up camp in the area. I'm pitching out its sort of boundless on possibilities and I'm willing to work with folks to come up with plot ideas as I have mentioned in Historical MU*s, there is literally lots to do.
And if someone can only be on once a week or so, and they want to eek into some high level position and they don't mind using their limited time to dole out things for others to do, I fully support this. I'm more than willing to work off-site in e-mail or forum or anything to assist even with having things to do, missions to hand out, things to check on, things to repair in the realms, etc. etc.
I have a full time job, kids, etc. etc. I'm willing to work with folks looking for fun. I'm not the sort to say staff must run something daily, to make sure the sporadic people have something to do, but I'm totally willing to work with staff/players to make sure there are things to do.
-