L&L Options?
-
@Pacha said in L&L Options?:
I tried Marsilikos and found it hard to get into, though everyone I met was super nice. I might need to try again with a different character at some point.
Honestly, I think it's a matter of timing. There are a lot of GMT folks, so business hours EST have some activity. Evening EST and later is a little rarer.
-
Unfortunately it does look like Marsilikos doesn't really work for my availability and goals. It has some nice people and the RP is solid so I am officially vouching for it in that regard though.
-
I think L&L games are kind of a dying breed except for the three games mentioned in this thread.
-
I mean, any game with Changeling has Lords and Ladies..
-
What are your goals with Lords and Ladies?
I played on the Mar game very briefly when it first opened and never really got what the L&L theme was meant to accomplish when it seemed counter intuitive to the actual plot being thrown around
-
@WildBaboons said in L&L Options?:
What are your goals with Lords and Ladies?
A semi-simulation involving political maneuvering, resource management, investment/trade, R&D, battle management/strategy to increase the prestige and power of my house while RPing with folks who are trying to do the same.
-
Political stuff is my main draw to it too. It never actually turns out to work that way but I keep trying.
-
Obviously someone needs to work on a new option for a L&L game.
-
Steampunk L&L please.
Hating haters and their hate since a year that neither rhymes nor alliterates
-
@Lisse24 said in L&L Options?:
Obviously someone needs to work on a new option for a L&L game.
Most people on L&L games in my experience do not really want to deal with the unpleasantness that comes with statecraft. They would rather play with their titles rather than take the steps to earn or keep them.
I’ve had more political fun in the average Vampire sphere.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in L&L Options?:
@Lisse24 said in L&L Options?:
Obviously someone needs to work on a new option for a L&L game.
Most people on L&L games in my experience do not really want to deal with the unpleasantness that comes with statecraft. They would rather play with their titles rather than take the steps to earn or keep them.
I’ve had more political fun in the average Vampire sphere.
There isn't anything wrong with that, though. Sometimes it's because the game isn't setting up the pieces and that is wrong; politics is the art of getting shit done, and oftentimes MU* neglect to provide said shit.
For example some folks will bring nothing else to the table but a title which can be worked with if they at least have a goal. Yes, yes, you are the Lady of Rahrah. No, I won't do the thing you want done. So where do we go from here?
The key is in wanting - needing - that thing done in the first place.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
Of course there’s nothing wrong with that, unless you are looking at the term “Lords and Ladies” and think of Game of Thrones.
It goes back to expectations, that’s all.
-
For me it's the potential for the combination of high adventure with high romance with a gloss of formality and ritual, and the (admittedly slim, usually) potential for actual political maneuvering to better one's position. Does it usually work out that way? Not so much. But the hope remains.
-
I ran the Daes dae'mar (great game, political stuff) for a WoT game for a few years and mostly what I found was that people are just terrible at political maneuvering but think they're awesome. hamfisted maneuvers are thought to be great sweeps of intrigues and people get really upset when people point out that what they did was actually really dumb with negative consequences.
For me that I don't see the connection between L&L and high adventure. In my concept for L&L those tend to be opposite, unless you're looking for the idle rich who can use their copious downtime to adventure.
-
I'm not sure this is a non-sequitor or not, but when it comes to L&L games, I feel like a lot of people want to be the functional equivalent of Lara Croft: higher society, but gets out and about and Gets Stuff Done(tm), even if it's not practical to do so because of a variety of reasons (expectations by that society, for one, as well as keeping the House afloat).
In other words, I feel like it all boils down to "I want to have my cake and eat it too."
-
@WildBaboons That's because the universe doesn't conspire to provide the exact right circumstances and showcase how brilliant a politician is on games like it does in books.
-
Have you ever read anything by Lindsay Bourker? I think her Emperor's Edge books would make a lovely world.
-
@Ganymede Most L&L games don't exactly encourage medieval/Renaissance realpolitik, either, because, rightly, it is detrimental to keeping a playerbase.
-
ALL I'M SAYING IS, with the Battletech Clan expansion, there is a new... shall we say, more narrative version of the Mechwarrior RPG. Go forth, be a space L&L game, and instead of riding into battle on a horse, go in a giant stompy robot.
-
@WildBaboons said in L&L Options?:
I ran the Daes dae'mar (great game, political stuff) for a WoT game for a few years and mostly what I found was that people are just terrible at political maneuvering but think they're awesome. hamfisted maneuvers are thought to be great sweeps of intrigues and people get really upset when people point out that what they did was actually really dumb with negative consequences.
For me that I don't see the connection between L&L and high adventure. In my concept for L&L those tend to be opposite, unless you're looking for the idle rich who can use their copious downtime to adventure.
This is actually a peeve of mine on political games. You sometimes see where someone puts in a political action, and the ST goes, 'well, that's stupid politically' and the person gets dinged for it (or the converse, where the ST thinks it was a good move and it works out well for the person).
The thing is, we don't run combat by fiat. The ST doesn't get to say, "Yes, throwing a punch here is better than a kick, so you win," and I'm of the opinion that political RP should be the same way.
There should 1) be systems that players can manipulate and then 2) How well they manipulate it should come down to their sheet and their rolls and 3) When a player is way off base, but is playing a character that is supposed to be savvy, then the ST might want to step in and let them know that they're not going to succeed at Task A until they've done some more ground work to prep for it.
