@Surasanji said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
I'd be interested in playing any such themed game. I'd be glad to offer a sounding board, as well- but would prefer not to be any kind of staffer.
Sounding boards certainly welcome, anyone interested in contributing even as a sounding board is just as welcome. I'll send the addie and wiki stuff to those interesting in contributing constructively.
@tragedyjones said in What would you want in a Shadowrun game?:
Double Post: Would people be willing to play on a game that used the Wiki for their character sheet and CG process, rather than the game client itself?
Myself, I am fine with this.
From my experience on Realms, which had coded sheets and some coded dice, and was slowly going to auto rolls and such in the code itself, to work with the sheets. A lot of folks seemed to want it to be all in the code.
What times and days can you run? Might help others know if they could join you. I'm daytime, most likely not, but good for others to know of they could make time for your schedule.
Sorry to duplicate, didn't see the first reply.
@tek said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Hold up. Historian here.
The art of studying history isn't about empiricism. It's about interpretation and being able to draw from the sources to support your interpretation.
I stand corrected. Just meant I never implied history was all opinion or all made up. Sorry @tek.
@BetterJudgment said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
All right, real quick
Christ. I spend weeks trying to pound this block-headed antiquarianism out of my students. They, too, think that because no golden tablets and spectacles are presented to them, then everything is just opinion. So be it.
Guilt by association. This inadvertently implies I am a blockhead. So lets look at the claim you believe I have made to see where you think I agree with your students:
@BetterJudgment said:
If you think that all historians offer is opinion
Emphasis mine. Argument from fallacy.
I never said all historians offer opinion, I never said all history is opinion. Never. Did I say historians are opinionated, yes. Do they deal in a lot of empirical evidence and fact as well, yes.
What did I say in response:
@Lotherio said:
They all have access to the same empirical evidence and they can't always agree on the truth of the mater from 1300 years ago.
I presented a historical period, beginning of Reconquista, others state this is charged with religious tension, I counter saying historically religious evolvement as any sort of cause doesn't enter doctrine until centuries later and can be viewed as propaganda by some historians; never an assertion all historians on in agreement. Likewise there is just as much evidence to suggest that tolerance was practiced, including Christians incorporated into Umayyad administration, members of the Caliphs family marrying Christians, and doctrine of treaty signed between both faiths to allow multiple faiths to coexist (never an assertion that everyone in the entirety of the societies we're talking about actually practiced this).
I agree there is a lot of empirical evidence to support history, the area of modern Spain is invaded by multiple groups, including Arians, Visigoths, Berbers and then the Umayyad Caliphate. They did not get along, primarily as conquering forces vs native. Not unlike any other conquering force in history. Did part of the division exist because difference of faith, yes. Was it much different than other faiths, no. More evidence of the 8th century suggests the 'faiths' did not get along internally. Northern Spain is occupied with succession from Visigoth kingdoms and a number rise and fall in this period, from Galicia, Asturias, Leon, Basqua, Cantabri, and Vascones. Souther Spain is more embroiled in internal struggles as well, coupled with failed conquest north towards Gaul and the Franks. But they are more focused on the Berber Revolt and the Second Civil war of the Umayyad Caliphate.
The only thing I am saying in this thread, which was the discussion or disagreement to begin with, was that it wasn't as Religious at this point as some folks are being lead to believe. And I am agreeing, OOCly because of modern misconceptions and opinions on religion, there is likely to be inappropriate, wrongful, and hurtful things said on the pub channel, not unlike some comments hinted at in this thread. I have countered for everyone who suggests the 8th Century begins as some religious conflict that religion doesn't become a part of this until later centuries and is possibly (not is, but possibly - that is reason or opinion, take your pick) more related to propaganda. Even the concept of reconquest as a term or ideal doesn't come into play until the middle of the 9th Century.
I know that, over time, I have come to realize that I have no desire to dedicate my playtime to practicing history, but more power to you if you do. I hope you're not too disappointed when, assuming your L&L game opens, you realize that all anybody wants from your game's backstory is that it's not painfully inconsistent and that they get to be special in it. The rest of it likely will be cheerfully ignored, which is what most history deserves, anyway.
I am not disappointed if it turns out this way, we are specifically aiming an L&L game where everyone thinks they are special. Realms offered a truer look at the enfeoffed experience, and many people did not like this, playing dirt toiling lords/ladies at the bottom of the nobility ladder, the entry rung, who would have to climb up to become something more special.
And the last statement is any game really, not only the one I am looking to make (and why I stared this thread) It is not relative to whether it is historically based or not. A lot of people cheerfully ignore theme, regardless if its historical, modern, alt-earth, original fantasy, space, etc.
@BetterJudgment said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lithium said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Doing a 'historical' game based only on information one can get from Wikipedia is... not a good idea imho.
Basing it on opinionated historians, when one can find historians that support the extreme opposites as well, is just as not good of an idea either.
If you think that all historians offer is opinion rather than inference based on evidence and reason, then another problem with this idea may be that you don't really understand history, either.
Here's a proposal: set it later, make the PCs all Muslims, Jews, or Mozarabs, and have any forces of the Reconquista be mooks. That will give you a setting with lots of "exotic color" (exotic, at least, for many of the players), opportunity for intra- and inter-group conflict, and the religious-based conflict people will expect without PC-driven religious conflict that is going to spill over into OOC arguments on channels, etc. I'd think that, if no one can play a Christian crusader and any Christians in the game are going to be culturally Arabic, then anyone arguing Christian vs. Muslim on a channel would be clearly outside of what the game is about and easier to identify as an asshat picking a fight.
I say opinion, you say reason. A slight view that took hold is La Convivencia, do I believe this is in part more ideological myth, yes, but it offered some sound reason. Modern historians offer a challenge to this. Do I believe in part it was less coexistence and there were honest travesties and atrocities, yes, but not to the extreme. I imagine it is somewhere in the middle. There are historians that are on either side of this coin, they do not agree. So in a matter, yes, it is the opinions of historians on whether it was coexistence or not. I believe no one really understands history, none of us were there truthfully. And reason can lead us to easily say opine one way or the other and there are historians arguing both sides of this coin. Everyone is going with it was major religious conflict, I lean middle ground were it was less religion. I also believe in part propaganda was much larger in influence how history was written and yes, there are historians that make this very point.
We can find scholarly articles and contemporary historians that make case for either side. I do think their reasoning is opinionated, to support their take on history. They all have access to the same empirical evidence and they can't always agree on the truth of the mater from 1300 years ago.
That said, your idea sounds interesting. I would be worried at one point, would it come down to me trying to 'teach' some other viewpoint or educate in some way? I'm not trying too. I'm looking at the forming of the northern kingdoms and the various alliances that are made and broke and the infighting amongst themselves between the likes of Asturias, Galicia, Basque, Vascones. Evidence points to alliances across or beyond faith. Even the Battle of Covadonga where Pelagius starts the Asturias movement, the Qadi was supported by the Bishop of Seville to broker with Pelagius (example of interfaith for one cause, the Umayyad Caliphate).
We've pulled in a few individuals from this thread already as staff, some with ungergrad and grad work in history. We are looking at adapting some of La Convivencia with the faiths working towards tolerance, and as mentioned, intolerances may abound idly (just not justified rape/murder/genocide in the name of a religion), but the faith reaction on either side to radical ideals could be in the name of heresy and quelling this internally too.
Auto success is good, but rolling dice. its more than the chance for failure, its failing to accomplish a task and finding some other way to try and progress in the intended direction despite failure.
In a fight, it sucks, missing, getting hit, etc. Its the rolls beyond this that make the RP more dynamic. Failing to open the lock, but knowing something is beyond the door. Failing to get the librarian to let you check out the super special book and finding a way to get it (sneak in, convince someone with authority, find a new way). The people who like dice like the dice to fall where they will with no one altering them what so ever. A win is a win, conducive to progress, a fail is the chance for more development to turn things around towards the goal by some other means that usually involves some creative solution.
I'll say it, some of my best RP sessions on-line (and TT for the matter) came about from rolling a failure. If I get the win, its not memorable so much as fun to go forward. The failure and trying to find a new solution means more time spend on the problem or task.
On 5W, I ran science stuff with my char for a couple other chars. Our last thing involved accidental fire, leaping from trees during the fire and failing, getting hurt, an arm was broken by someone. It created more story dealing with failure than going to the encounter, succeeding, and going home.
@Ghost said in Leadership, Spotlight, and PCs of Staffers:
I don't think there's a always whole lot of malevolence to this. I think a lot of this staff putting their chars in the drivers seat and railroading everything chalks up to a difference in viewpoint in GM styles:
GM runs games like games. Lets the dice decide, will let characters die, will let characters decide their own fate. Is okay with this. Enjoys rping all of the NPCs and is comfortable letting the game be its own monster.
GM has a story they wrote, with beginning, middle, and end written up. They're running the game to tell a story and don't logically associate the players as people who want to make their own decisions, but as players that want to play the GMs story.
Agreed, as a GM, I've always ran my TT as games, the dice decide, the character decide to take a plot hook or go in a random direction. I don't prepare episodic events that happen no matter what, instead I have some NPCs that could be interesting (either prepared for a campaign or drawn from past NPCs from years of being a GM), I have some other groups (leaders, hidden groups, etc) that have their own agendas going on, if they run into them or mess with something to get attention, the groups respond.
I've had to go to the game store in the past, play a few games to invite others in with natural player attrition (moving out of city/state) and I have seen the playing the story GMs doing just that, even some completely diceless where the GM would decide if the action succeeds or fails, I assume based on it meshing with the story they are telling or not. The players that found this campaign, even if I viewed it as unfun or railroading, had a good time. If they enjoyed it, more power to them.
But I am in the boat, you open a Mu* to the public, the players want some say in what happens or what direction things go at some point. If its going to be a GM story, or detailed metaplot they want to get out in sequential order, they need to know it up front, otherwise more players seem to assume its #1, they can affect things and make change in the game.
Thinking over the suggestion put forth by @Autumn about avoiding overuse of the word Reconquista (as technically, the Reconquista is backdated to Pelayo/Pelagius in later centuries), and doing minor changes to the concept.
Instead of doing something like just calling it Reconquista, it would be named Rotensian Chronicles (a referenced chronicle from Alfonso III, a 9th century king of Asturias) and there would be more to point out the neighbors and necessity for politics and alliances. Including highlighting the Cantabri, Vascones and Galicians. All who do the same and the north becomes a muddle of various kingdoms/states over the next century or two.
Same time period, same focus; nobles of the Astures and whether they ally with neighbors to secure freedom from the jizya taxation or work with neighbors to side with the Caliphate or carve out something else entirely different as its a deviation from the timeline dependent on player choices and actions. All choices still leaving the nobles open for autonomous control of their lands. Its more on the struggle of who rises to power and how (which has always been implied, a shift in terminology is the only difference).
@Lithium I respect your opinion, and it has a high value. I've done plenty of fantasy based on real world in Mu*s, helped form/make/contribute to a few along the way. I'm just looking more at history as I'm over the expectance of magic in any fantasy setting. I don't know, just me. Fantasy based on real world anything is just seeming more and more bland. Some folks realize the reference and try to go that way (oh hey, the Northmen of the Trinitate Church are like Crusaders and the extra long named Dynasty of the south is so close to Caliphates and Muslim Dynasties ... I'm going to recreate plot based on something that happened in the real world based on this new knowledge). Others miss the mark and play what they want regardless of theme (people misreprestining ethnic cultures/religions isn't specific to history, just it is more recognizably offensive I believe).
@Cadi said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Nah, it can definitely be done I think. However, it works better for eras where there is a lot of visual/written information (movies, shows, books, cartoons, comics, whichever.) And with a culture that people are partially aware of without needing to research much. It also helps to have clear ideas of how every day life was lived back then.
This I agree with. Only feeling regularly recognizable stuff is a bit overdone to me is all.
If you listen to most of the post, the argument isn't with the fact that it's a history MU*, its with the which era you've picked. Its a contentious era, not very well known except for real history buffs who like Spanish or Moor history, during a time not many are interested in (although to Middle Easterners we love this era due to it being the big expansion of Islam and Arab culture.)
This I strongly agree with, I am interested in the culture due to the expansion, the broadening of knowledge that spreads from this expansion and the look by historians that the expansion comes with tolerance and acceptance of the cultures and ethnic groups where these dynasties expand. Literally its a continuation of many cultures of the region from before this, from the Khanate system and those administrations that came after it. Including Alexander the Great borrowing from those models for his expansion. The conquered were not subjugated so much as included and indoctrinated into the system, allowing them to continue with a way of life they already new and even encouraging some to join with them. This is a very strong interest of mine.
@Lithium said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Doing a 'historical' game based only on information one can get from Wikipedia is... not a good idea imho.
Basing it on opinionated historians, when one can find historians that support the extreme opposites as well, is just as not good of an idea either. Are we concluding historical mu*'s are just not a good idea?
@Kanye-Qwest said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
This is hilarious to watch, by the way. Can't even decide on an alt-history period without the exhaustive history arguments.
I propose a game be opened where the purported purpose of the game is to settle on a theme and setting for a historical MU*. It would never die.
Sort of feel like it supports the very discussion in the last historical mu thread?
Its history, lots of people have stake in in, its a shared history, lots of opinions on it, more so than original theme. But if it was pure fantasy or original theme, less interest as only those willing to read the hundred wiki pages on the theme will play it out. Hard to say, lets just meet in the middle and call it square it seems.
@lordbelh said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio History is full of examples of occupation and conquest. You're specifically picking a time and place in history in which religion is at the very forefront. Well, I suppose since you've gone to the alt-world version, it is more accurate to say you setting is inspired by it. Anyway, the point is, why pick this obscure place if you're not going to embrace the things that makes it stand out?
If you're gonna bland things, you might as well bland up something more familiar. Like Norman occupations, or whatever.
No, Religion is not at the forefront of this time period. Evidence points to tolerance between faith, evidence suggest entities of the period where just as likely to ally across faith to gain what they were after, evidence suggest that making it religious doesn't truly start for centuries and probably as propaganda.
Quick edit: Heck, there is some evidence to suggest that the Christian locals/commoners took to quick support of the Muslims for freedoms and to be free of the yoke of the Visigoths, as they were viewed as invaders/conquestors just the same.
@WTFE said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
I have never figured out what motivates MU*ers (beyond sheer bloody-mindedness, I mean). I think, however, part of the problem in motivating MU*ers is the same thing that demotivates employees so often: a lack of immediacy. We are hardwired to seek IMMEDIATE reward. Most of the +vote systems (and other such things) I've seen in games defer rewards to points in time convenient to the staff. The result is a psychological disconnection from the act(s) that generated the rewards and the actual rewards. This is at best suboptimal and at worst can be counterproductive (because the human brain is bloody-minded).
True, and on systems that allow immediate rewards, +kudos and the player sees immediately one someone sends it. After some time, people seem to forget to do it, or devalue it as just being overdone. I think its a hard balance, but I am interested in an honest motivator that works beyond drive to achieve some fluff goal, like a title, an alliance, a friendship, a gain of any sort (ie, we are hungry, Farmor Maggot has mushrooms, we have an adventure (he finds us, chases us to the stream, we hide in the hallow), reward, we get to be lazy and eat mushrooms). The later is just fine for me, I can do these all day long, and this is one of the things I believe in: allowing players access and understanding of what they can do in PrPs without having to ask staff for approval or coordinate events or plan ahead of time. Opening doors, removing blockades, to have fun.
Just a quick summary after a flurry of responses.
All great suggestions, but most of what I'm seeing is, that looks wrong. I am seeing no true offer of a possible solution that is better, other than change theme. On changing time period, honestly, history, alt-history, alt-earth, the religion thing is going to happen. Its happened for years in this hobby. Its actually been at a lull lately, but it is there, it still shows up sporadically on pub channel and someone usually has to point out what is inappropriate to whoever is saying it. It happens on places that have nothing to do with religion. I believe more pub channels at present are lighter than they have been because most sensible people that know trolls troll them gag the pub, or ignore it mostly in favor of RP. And it has been a slow decline, early to mid 90s, I don't remember many days of getting on when someone had to be warned or told to stop trolling for debate, or instigating hurt feeling just to be funny. I'm glad most places don't see this regularly contemporarily, it could be that we as a whole are more sensitive to what we're saying, but they still crop up from time to time.
The two topics to avoid OOCly and on chan, religion and politics. They're still not eradicated from rearing their heads though and I am fairly certain most of us have seen these crop up on channels or the dreaded OOCly which seems to be where most of the trolls have gone, off pub, into ooc lounges.
@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.
You make a good point, and I see most of what I said as soft wins and kudos more than something tangible. Aside from XP, nothing is tangible. Your motivational psychology, would you recommend doing away with the in game potential gains (just fluff in the end), for a kudos system. I've seen games that ditched XP all together, and used Kudos. Awarded by staff for good scenes, +voted by players (a couple to distribute a week), as an psychological reward only. Most times people ignore kudos systems.
@lordbelh said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@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.
The tension at the time is being gorged by taxes and wanting freedom to control your own resources. Same thing we argue in politics now, same thing Crispus Attucks took the first bullet for, freedom. Any painting on what Crispus did about religions freedoms and beyond is done by historians, but the colonies wanted economic freedoms and their autonomy to be true autonomy.
Saying Asturias rose because of religion and religious tension is about the same as saying the American Revolution is about religious tension cause some folks wanted religion freedom. Did religious differences abound at the time, certainly, but between those fighting for American Freedom, not as a result of the King of England wanting to bank off the colonies. I personally see more religious difference in early America between settlers and moving to other areas to have those freedoms rather than wanting to fend off the people collecting the taxes in the end because the other side practiced a different religion.
We are not saying there is no intolerance, we are saying there is no interest in the worst of the worst. There is a difference.
Edit on history:
Much as @bored has pointed out, pedantics will come up between folks insisting on actual history (subjective to their favorite historians take, and they debate these things themselves) and those wanting Hollywood version. Religious pedantics will just crop up because some people just have to go there and can't just play nice.
I can only suggest folks actually take a look at this time period. The Reconqiusta is 700+ years of Spain and Portugal taking shape, carved as it is by Romans, early other conquering forces (Goths/Visigoths). The religious bend doesn't really become a thing until 9th century (just in reference) and more prominent later in the developments in the area, probably in conjunction with the cruscades and just as likely a propaganda tool to paint 'differences' and others as 'in human' or different.
Wikipedia, like it or lump it, is probably closest to the neutral view of history. Versus suggesting the conquest and the early 'reconquest' were huge religious undertakings or heavily influenced by religions at all; or the opposite, that it was all peace between the various groups (evidence suggests they lived in the towns together, but no different than any country, US included, where ethnic groups tend to have their own neighborhoods).
The write up under Kingdom of Asutias and the write up under the Umayyad Conquest of Hispania (check the invasion and the administration section here).
Everything thing else suggestion religious intolerance and that this was a time of religious debacle and debate has been other users suggesting it based on the works of a historian or two (not the entirety of works of numerous historians). It is history, like it or lump it, just the neutral ground points more to politics, alliances and other divisions that do not equate to 'we are Christians, we most remove Muslims' or 'we are Muslims, we most conquer them because they are Christians'.
@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.
@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.
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.