Blood of Dragons

[il-volpe]

So disrespectful!

[SunnyJ]

@DnvnQuinn said in Blood of Dragons:

@Lithium ...are you authorized....

He said snickering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV5QFuWSqVM

[yyrqun]

Hey guys, don't mean to necro but this game's pretty cool. Been playing for almost two years now.

This summer's a really good time for joining the game. The original premise was the fallout of the Dornish wars and that's coming to a head again as the characters of the two zones - King's Landing and Sunspear - meet for the wedding of Daeron Targaryen and Mariah Martell.

There's also a little trip to Lemonwood in Dorne this weekend and an ongoing plot about honey thieves in King's Landing before the big trip down south - and there's been lots going on like the death of the High Septon and the naming of a new Kingsguard.

Come hop on and see if you find a character that suits you

[RizBunz]

Not to dance about everything else being said, I'll toss in a couple thoughts as a former player.

1. The application process wasn't too hard for me, however, I was lucky enough to find someone I could play and mold a bit, to give them a personality all their own. I got to aid in their evolution, of sorts, and that was fun.

2. Con of that, my husband tried making a character, too, that was FAR LESS complicated than mine. It took weeks for an answer, and he was told to change something (a reason for why some skill was as he suggested it being.) I thought he had a good reasoning for it, but they didn't. The wait time killed his mood for it all.

3. Be in a GOOD timezone for this game. Depending on where you are in the world could GREATLY hinder your play time.

4. Some people have alts that drive /everything/, regardless of your plans or what you'd like to do. This, most of the time, leaves one feeling powerless.

5. Given my character, I reached a stage (quickly) where I could do no more with them. That was a bummer, because I came to love my character.

Oh well. Play if you want. Don't if you don't wanna. I'll leave all other personal opinions to myself, and others with theirs.

[Testament]

I admit I'm slightly surprised that people are still playing it, given what's already been said, at length, about it.

[Misadventure]

It does bring up the interesting topic of player agency versus anything that seems to be in the way of successfully expressing that agency, eg

• knowledge of the larger picture (staff knows more than players)
• inflexibility in story (staff can't or won't try to arbitrate results outside a slim range)
• obscured or unstated means (staff know how to do things and how much you need, players don't)
• a desire for a clear outcome (player actions, like RL, will often produce muddled results)
• it is unclear what are acceptable outcomes and tradeoffs for players (would you be willing to have your House destroyed because you didn't commit enough to a goal, or were outmaneuvered, or would you always suspect railroading, favoritism, or players with more time than you, more friends etc)

[Nymeria]

@testament said in Blood of Dragons:

I admit I'm slightly surprised that people are still playing it, given what's already been said, at length, about it.

Strange, isn't it? Or could it be that some things that have been said simply aren't true? And that other things that have been said are things that some players actually like about the game?

It is not for everyone. If you want to be able to destroy or create new Houses, assassinate the king or otherwise change the course of history, it is not the game for you. If you think that everyone should be able to play an unusual concept (female warrior, skinchanger, a character from outside Westeros, etc) to the point where you are likely to encounter one in every scene, then this is also not the game for you. If you want to start playing right away without going through an approval process, then it is only a game for you if you're willing to play a pregen.

But we have been told on many occasions by players that they appreciate that we are strict when it comes to keeping the setting canon and believable and strict when it comes to character approvals.

Though, yes, as @RizBunz said, +jobs sometimes take too long. We always try to give first priority to approvals, but since it is just myself and Balerion doing those, if we're away or busier than usual IRL, lapses happen.

@misadventure said in Blood of Dragons:

It does bring up the interesting topic of player agency versus anything that seems to be in the way of successfully expressing that agency, eg

• knowledge of the larger picture (staff knows more than players)
• inflexibility in story (staff can't or won't try to arbitrate results outside a slim range)
• obscured or unstated means (staff know how to do things and how much you need, players don't)
• a desire for a clear outcome (player actions, like RL, will often produce muddled results)
• it is unclear what are acceptable outcomes and tradeoffs for players (would you be willing to have your House destroyed because you didn't commit enough to a goal, or were outmaneuvered, or would you always suspect railroading, favoritism, or players with more time than you, more friends etc)

Those are some very good points and some of them are tricky to work with. I can readily admit that we have had issues with making it clear to players what they can achieve -- those players who are happy to ask a lot of questions often get a lot of things done, those who are less forward find it harder. The most successful players (in terms of getting plots approved and achieving things for their characters) are those who look at the road map we have (aka the known history for the period) and see how they can work within it.

[Kanye Qwest]

But why can't there be female fighters? Game of Thrones has tons of females who fight.

[SunnyJ]

@kanye-qwest I think she referred to limiting these concepts as opposed to outright prohibiting them. Fact is that in ASOIAF there are not many female warriors, and they are almost exclusively from exotic or bizarre cultures. If I make a Mormont woman, I would be kinda pissed if I was told I can't be a fighter, but a Lannister woman that fights is very bizarre. Limiting these concepts isn't bad, in theory, but... "in theory" is a one hell of an asterisk.

To say nothing of the fact that many of the female fighters are... not on par with their male counterparts. That is just not how the world works, but if you try to explain that to most players (who are not obsessed with the source material) I bet it would go poorly. "Why can't I have Strength 5!?" // "You are a woman, and unless you are some massive ho like Brienne, that ain't happening" usually doesn't end up well.

Now, how do they decide who can or cannot make an exotic concept like Oberyn, for example, or Brienne, that has me curious!

[Nymeria]

@kanye-qwest said in Blood of Dragons:

But why can't there be female fighters? Game of Thrones has tons of females who fight.

To start with, we are strictly based on the books, disregarding the TV show entirely. In the books, they are much rarer within the Seven Kingdoms (which excludes wildlings and female fighters from Essos). Brienne, a few Mormont women and Obara Sand (and we do make some more allowance for women having weapon skills in Dorne).

@sunnyj said in Blood of Dragons:

@kanye-qwest I think she referred to limiting these concepts as opposed to outright prohibiting them. Fact is that in ASOIAF there are not many female warriors, and they are almost exclusively from exotic or bizarre cultures. If I make a Mormont woman, I would be kinda pissed if I was told I can't be a fighter, but a Lannister woman that fights is very bizarre. Limiting these concepts isn't bad, in theory, but... "in theory" is a one hell of an asterisk.

Yes, the concepts are highly limited but not outright forbidden. A Mormont woman who is a fighter could be possible, but since the game takes place exclusively in King's Landing and Sunspear, the trick there is justifying why she is hanging around at court in King's Landing.

Now, how do they decide who can or cannot make an exotic concept like Oberyn, for example, or Brienne, that has me curious!

Essentially, we use character levels. Available characters are either Open, Restricted or Limited (there are additional types as well, but they cannot be applied for, like Features or Closed characters -- the latter are dead, stuck on the Wall or otherwise unplayable) and while anyone can get an Open character, we start asking for a bit more with Restricted and Limited. A certain amount of experience with MU*ing and with the setting, for example, and logs as well. For Limiteds, you need to play on the game for a while as well, as those roles are too major/too unusual to have anyone jump into straight away.

A full-on female fighter, for example, would be a Limited concept. A female character in Dorne who has skill in archery and/or with knives could be an Open character.

[surreality]

@nymeria said in Blood of Dragons:

@testament said in Blood of Dragons:

I admit I'm slightly surprised that people are still playing it, given what's already been said, at length, about it.

Strange, isn't it? Or could it be that some things that have been said simply aren't true? And that other things that have been said are things that some players actually like about the game?

The primary negative re: Blood of Dragons and this community has nothing to do with the game itself. Let's not be disingenuous on that point from any perspective.

The reason much of the portion of the MSB forum that carried over from WORA takes a dim view of the game has everything to do with your behavior in community spaces, and not quibbles about the game itself. Let's not pretend the forum community is running around spreading lies about the game to make you look bad; you accomplished that entirely on your own quite some time ago from the perspective of many here, and that attempt to sling shade is more than just a little shady in itself.

Like many others, you could create the most perfect game to ever exist, and plenty of people here wouldn't go within a mile of it out of distaste for you personally. Same is true of many other game runners here, same's true of me if I ever open a place, etc. You made your bed, do lay in it without the persecution complex and accusations, please.

[Warma Sheen]

As a person who has never played on this particular game my perception is very similar to what @surreality has described. Obviously, people are going to complain from their perspective and slant things to try to get other people to see it their way. In fact, a lot of times when people complain here it has the opposite effect and it only makes people curious to go try the game themselves and hope for a different result. Because everyone here knows that people can and will exaggerate the injustices done to them when they don't get things to go their way on a game. But the responses from staffers who come and try to defend their actions are usually what put the nails in the coffin, especially when done harshly. It is hard to want to play on a game when you don't trust the staff to be fair and level-headed and all your time and creativity can fall victim to someone's bad day.

Separate from that, I've never really understood games like this - while also recognizing some people love it - where the game is based on source material, but you're not allowed to affect the known storyline in any way. It always just feels like I'm making extras in that world. "Here's the story of people who weren't important enough and weren't capable or influential enough to have any effect or even be mentioned in the real story we all love! Aren't you tired of the story of great heroes, masterful villains and cunning scoundrels? Come bask in the apathy of mediocrity instead!" Its basically a collection of stories that were cut for not being good enough or relevant to make it to publication or production.

Again, I know some people love it. I know there are plenty of stories to be told in between everything else going on. I've just never understood the desire for those stories, personally.

[Nymeria]

@surreality said in Blood of Dragons:

@nymeria said in Blood of Dragons:

@testament said in Blood of Dragons:

I admit I'm slightly surprised that people are still playing it, given what's already been said, at length, about it.

Strange, isn't it? Or could it be that some things that have been said simply aren't true? And that other things that have been said are things that some players actually like about the game?

The primary negative re: Blood of Dragons and this community has nothing to do with the game itself. Let's not be disingenuous on that point from any perspective.

But that is not how @Testament phrased it, nor was it what the prior poster brought up.

The reason much of the portion of the MSB forum that carried over from WORA takes a dim view of the game has everything to do with your behavior in community spaces, and not quibbles about the game itself. Let's not pretend the forum community is running around spreading lies about the game to make you look bad; you accomplished that entirely on your own quite some time ago from the perspective of many here, and that attempt to sling shade is more than just a little shady in itself.

Except there's quite a few posts here that are specifically about gripes with the game itself, many of them reported second-hand or exaggerated, whereas others are just as I stated in my previous post: intentional choices on our part which we are well aware do not please everyone.

I am well aware that plenty of people here avoid the game because of me, but considering the amount of times myself or Balerion have commented on game-specific complaints, I would say that it is disingenuous to act as if @Testament couldn't possibly have referred to anything such.

[surreality]

@warma-sheen The issue in this case actually had nothing whatsoever to do with her game or how she's behaved on it. It was purely forum behavior; primarily this involved having boards taken down at various hosts when one of her descriptions was posted on the 'bad descriptions' forum (first round), section on WORA (second round), and so on based on copyright infringement until WORA was eventually hosted somewhere in the land of None Fucks Given for a space of years.

Really, it has absolutely nothing to do with what she has or hasn't done on her game. The game sounds interesting from what I've heard of it, and Nymeria and Balerion are probably the most well-informed people out there, period, in regard to the world itself. Some people probably do want 'this is just a chance to immerse myself in that world to experience it'; that's not the issue at all.

It's just that a whole lot of people from the WORA days that remember her forum antics are still here want nothing to do with it, good or bad. To put it simply, those of us who recall seeing her go into Elsa-grade frothing rants all over the forums, claiming we were all illiterate because we're American, etc. wouldn't be interested if they were handing out winning lottery tickets in chargen because we'd rather not run the risk of encountering similar behavior in pretendy fun time spaces.

@Nymeria In all seriousness, and I say this without snark, if people don't like the choices you made for your game, they can get the hell over it and play somewhere else. (They will still gripe about it in most cases, but that does happen to everyone. It isn't just you.) Really and truly.

People here will complain about anything and everything if it's not how they personally wish it was, and take it to some galling extremes when they do it. In some spaces, that's kosher -- if stupid -- and in others, not so much. Either way, people 'wishlisting' or 'doomsaying' things gets out of hand around here a lot, so try to not take that to heart. Put it this way: if you had made the opposite choices, other people would be complaining about that, too. It's ridiculous, but... <shrug> it's just how things are at this point. You're (hopefully) enjoying the game, and the people staying on the game are (hopefully) enjoying the game, so don't stress it too much.

[Nymeria]

@surreality said in Blood of Dragons:

@warma-sheen The issue in this case actually had nothing whatsoever to do with her game or how she's behaved on it. It was purely forum behavior; primarily this involved having boards taken down at various hosts when one of her descriptions was posted on the 'bad descriptions' forum (first round), section on WORA (second round), and so on based on copyright infringement until WORA was eventually hosted somewhere in the land of None Fucks Given for a space of years.

You know (and this is also without any snark), I am okay with this. It is what it is.

@Nymeria In all seriousness, and I say this without snark, if people don't like the choices you made for your game, they can get the hell over it and play somewhere else. (They will still gripe about it in most cases, but that does happen to everyone. It isn't just you.) Really and truly.

Ultimately, I do agree with you. Its essentially how we view it -- we are comfortable with the choices we've made and if people don't like them, there are other games available.

It only bugs me when people say "stay away from there because of x, y and z" and y is made up and z incorrectly reported. Yes, I should probably just shrug and ignore that too, but I've never been good at that.

[surreality]

@nymeria None of us are especially great at it, truth be told. These projects mean something to the people who've put a ton of time and effort into them; it's hard to not take it personally. There are moments when I've read this forum and thought, "That is literally the opposite of what actually happened/I just wrote/etc.!" and they are legitimately crazy-making.

The only personal stuff there is is... well, what was mentioned. Ideally, it hasn't escaped people's attention that you haven't acted here like you did years ago on WORA. (As much as people like to chow down on popcorn when somebody goes overboard, I know I'm certainly happier when people seem to get more chill and generally mellow over time, no matter who it is.)

Put it this way: your game has been around for ages now. Most don't last more than a year or two. It's still going, things are still happening, people are still there. So somebody is clearly enjoying the place and what you're doing. That's a win, and it counts.

In some respects, I don't envy the position you're in. You and Balerion are pretty much the experts on the subject, and most players aren't necessarily going to know all the details you do, which is probably frustrating. (I can empathize somewhat, being a fan of creating original worlds; I'll know more about it than I will ever think to write down.) Some stuff y'all know that may make something a 'yes' or a 'no' may be correct to the world -- but would be spoilers to the whole planet -- if explained to the level of detail most players expect when told 'no' about something, too. I know I wouldn't want that kind of pressure, that's for sure.

[hamstersonPcP]

I for one would hate to play on a game where every PC is allowed to be special if the player likes. It would be like a Marvel game where everyone is allowed to be super-powered or a vigilante. Hello? There are way more normal people in NYC and you shouldn't have a superhero in most scenes. We have local government and pizza boys on roster, and put forth the effort to make sure events from our continuity source have their progression maintained, because agency would be disrespectful to the stories the author of told (and what staff wrote in reference material!). It's not like those stories are somehow focused on the exceptional characters, and the average norm is shown mostly in passing bit players, what the monologues of the exceptional tell us, and victims of the exceptional and events they drive. If everyone could play a cape, it just makes things less special for everyone. Especially me, who plays one.

Wipes up the pool of sarcasm.

[SunnyJ]

@hamstersonpcp This is so ill conceived. You should give this whole 'being sarcastic at online forums' some more thought.

Having a bunch of superpowered people doesn't dilute the comic book theme (but having 20 Kryptonians in a game for sure makes Superman's emo over losing his planet feel quite less thematic, which would be a more apt comparison. "Why can't I make OC Kryptonians, bro?" Because it makes Superman look stupid. Also they are unfun).

Having an army of supermodels who can fight in ASOIAF would make it feel unlike the books, which is not what some players are interested in. I don't even play this game, but this lazy accusation is just that. Lazy.

[Misadventure]

Hopefully, any long-running game keeps all player commentary and uses it as data to see what players perceive to be true. By example, if no one uses a system past some basic point, it is likely either not understood, not valuable, too complicated, or badly/incorrectly documented.

It is always good to remove anything that is blocking the value of a creation from being experienced.

[hamstersonPcP]

There's no accusation. Just what I consider an apt metaphor illustrating the problems with that approach in a MU* environment. The characters GRRM focuses on to tell his stories are, almost universally unusual, outliers, exceptional. The tone isn't even that different from numerous graphic novels. I'm struggling to think of even one 'average dude' in the SoIaF saga who's a main focus, or many PoV chars who aren't wargs, the cleverest, amongst the most dangerous, or tiny girl assassin badasses. Every time this comes up people fire back with 'While you wouldn't want an army of X or Y would you?!?' as if it's a logical counterpoint to take 'every noteworthy char is frankly exceptional, and most players (not all) want to be exceptional' and assume everyone would app that identical exceptional trait. If that's lazy, it's not meant to be. It IS, however, geared towards 'simple and equated to an experience in the hobby prolific enough to be almost universally understood'.