[Discuss] Is Fun Dead? End of RP

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 4 Feb 2007 at 14:54, Ourania Papasozomenou wrote:

> Thanks for replying. 
> There are some things I'd like to point out, so bare with me
> 
> 1. Someone said "Basically it boils  down to your ruler sucking at diplomacy" 

> Well, I don't think that at least when 5 different characters, played
> by atleast 5 different individuals, that held the Ruler's Position at
> some point or another, ALL said "Diplomacy is impossible", all sucked
> at diplomacy. Especially when nobody recieved a proper answer. 

Honestly, most of them were *very* bad at diplomacy. I saw a lot of the 
messages passed on the ruler's channel. There was *one* ruler that almost had 
a few people start to question the legitimacy of the war. But then that ruler got 
removed by an election, I think it was, and the next ruler was a complete fool, 
and that was the end. Your own rulers did more to seal your fate than anything 
else.

> And RP is necessary when you declare war, peace, alliance etc. Because
> there's always the need for justification. Or else it will be
> powergaming, like Lyman said. 

RP doesn't require the sending of long messages to a continuous string of 
constantly changing rulers. It doesn't even require that the person on the other 
end of the war declaration RP with you. You can't ever really know the full 
story. Just because you only see half (or in this case 20%) of the story doesn't 
mean that there is no story.

> And another thing. When you RP, for example, your diplomacy, due to
> fair-play, or at least respect to other players,  you have to include
> in a certain extent  your enemies as well. Because if you RP the
> Diplomacy ONLY in your Realm, then it's like playing alone, and not
> caring for what other players in other realms think. 

Not true at all. Just because you personally aren't included in an RP about 
something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I have no idea who you play, or in 
what realm (but I can guess that it's either KI or AS), and I have no idea if you 
were specifically 

> 2. And about the change of Rulers. In realms that have monthly rulers'
> elections, that's easily done. But what happens when a realm is a
> Theocracy or a Monarchy?

Then the players in those realms can enjoy some consistency of leadership and 
diplomcay? Maybe we like it that way, too. The diplomacy of a realm shouldn't 
change on a month-to-month basis, regardless of who's in power. If it does, 
then that realm will rapidly find itself without friends.

> Or when there's one ruler elected month after
> month, until he/she volunteerly refuses rulership? How can the Nobles
> there change the ruler?

If a ruler keeps getting re-elected, then they obviously have popular support. 
And so why would you believe that they *should* change? Is it because a 
foreign realm doesn't espouse a point of view that you want them to adopt?

If a ruler has no popular support, then will quickly be removed. This could be 
through a protest campaign (such as removed One Rogala from power in AS), 
or through constant badgering and disapproval (as forced Clarissa to step down 
from power in Perdan). Or someone could even assassinate the ruler and force 
a new election.

There are ways to remove a ruler, even a ruler in a foreign realm. But if the 
realm still supports the policies that the old ruler espoused, then nothing 
substantial will change.

> Rebellions don't work, they never do.

Really? Since you are a member of a realm that was founded in a rebellion, I 
can't believe that you would think that.

> And
> seccesions are almost impossible, because everyone appoints Dukes they
> can trust. 

Way off base here. As the King of a seceded realm, (I didn't secede the realm 
myself, but took over afterward) I would have to disagree. And let's not forget 
Light of Fountain on EC. Lycastus seceded Fontan ciuty from Fontan, and 
managed to keep the realm, and even make it grow into a mid-level power on 
the continent. It is *hard* to make a secession survive, and it *should* be 
hard.

> And when cities are bought, then there are OOC complaints.... 
> The EC is way too stable... 

Not from where I'm sitting. In fact, the EC is a powder keg just waiting to 
explode. The big treaty that ended the most recent series of major wars runs 
out in about three weeks. The major players are already jockeying for position 
and trying to line up support for which way things will go.

> 3. Losing is (not) fun.

> Losing is a lot fun! It's the best that can happen to your character.
> And I have no problem with losing. In fact, i don't remember any of my
> characters being in a winning realm. 

So, maybe it's you! :p

> But, there should be a solid reason for a realm being destroyed.
> Honestly now, would any of you like to be in my realm's shoes? "Hi, we
> don't want to make war. Can we surrender?" "Go to hell" "But, we want
> to surrender" "We will crash you" "But...." "Don't talk, just go to
> hell. And if I can't send you to hell alone, I will bring my friends
> and my ex enemies along to bully you" "Helloooo! We are surrendering!" 

> ..You can't even lose with some dignity!:))) 

I don't imagine thepeople that were kicked out of the islands, tortured, 
assassinated, and executed were allowed to leave with much dignity.

> 4. Forgetting and remembering
> 
> Someone also mentioned that historical events shouldn't be forgotten.
> And I agree with that. But then, how can it be that 2 realms that were
> fighting each fanaticaly until 2 months ago, now are allies and
> friends? They forgot their old war, and good for them. But then why do
> they remember what an already weak and heavily attacked (by 3 huge
> enemies) realm, did a year ago? 

> Is this selective memory and powerplay? Or just my imagination? 

It's all your imagination. Really, it is.

I am assuming you are referring to Perdan being part of the assault on the 
islands, along with their former enemies Sirion, Fontan, and Itorunt. Really, 
things are not so friendly and chummy as you believe. You're probably missing 
a few pieces of information, and have some misconceptions.

1. Perdan is not good friends with Sirion and Fontan. Many people from Perdan 
and Fontan would happily start swinging swords at each other if the opportunity 
presented itself. However, there's this whole treaty thing going on that keeps us 
from actually doing it.

2. Perdan and Itorunt have patched up their differences. There is a lot of 
respect between the characters of these realms for the other realm. Isn't this 
just an indicator that what you were complaining never happens in game, is 
actually happening? Realms changing their stances toward each other? You 
can't complain that realms are too entrenched and never change, and then turn 
around an complain when they do change.

3. All of the rhetoric and propaganda being thrown around on the EC is 
completely clouding the issue beyond comprehension for the people that 
weren't there. A lot of people who weren't there to watch the whole thing 
unfold actually believe that Perdan is invading the islands just because they're 
trying to compensate for losing the war against the NA. For the people who do 
not know what is really going on, then this conflict may make very little sense. 
But if they take the time to do the research and learn the history of the past 
year on EC, then it makes perfect sense why five realms are invading the 
Islands.

I've had several prisoners in my dungeons in Perdan, and the level of 
understanding of what is going on is pretty bad. I've even seen outright lies 
being passed. Not just different interpretations of events, but flat out lies. So 
now there are people getting out of my dungeons and going back to the islands 
and falt out lying about what was said, and making things up claiming that I 
said them.

> 5. Someone said about Game and RL correlations. And someone told me
> the example of Portugal. How Portugal was as influential as it was,
> despite having a much smaller landmass and population than Spain,
> France, or England. 

> BUT, my argument is that Spain, France and England were never united
> against Portugal.... 

> And Portugal could adjust its diplomacy accordingly. 
> 
> But even if there is such a RL example ...my point is this... This is
> a game, and it's supposed not to be a 100% copy of reality. Because
> it's a game. 
> 
> When I am out with my friends, we always discuss RL politics and ways
> to figure things out. But what I never want to do, is stay up all
> night in MSN, with other players trying to figure out a way to
> overthrow the enemy, as politics (diplomacy) is out of the
> question.... 
> 
> Again, thank you for your time, and for your replies, 
> 
> Rania




-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss