Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Spirit of a Nation

Expand Messages
  • Rob Robbins
    Hi everyone: I ve been reading a book called, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century , by Barbara Tuchman. I have been struck by one point, again and
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi everyone:

      I've been reading a book called, "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th
      Century", by Barbara Tuchman. I have been struck by one point, again
      and again - it's not always good to be the king. I've read example
      after example of a king's will being denied, of internal events spinning
      beyond their control, and of unintended consequences. It makes for
      interesting reading, and makes me think about the LOTE player as 'the
      spirit of a nation'.

      LOTE players, while adrift in a sea of uncertainty caused by other
      players, are relatively certain of the results of their actions in
      domestic affairs. An extreme example is the migration of nations
      (though it shows in every action on the order sheet). All I can say is
      that, if George W. Bush told me to pack it up - we're moving to
      Argentina, I'd tell him to go shove it up his...well, I'd say no. I
      like my home, and it would take a lot to get me to leave it. Martians
      landing at LAX might do it. The army forcing me out at gun point would
      definitely do it. But in LOTE, a king just commands it, and it is done.

      I believe we could gain more enjoyment from this game if things were not
      so certain. Perhaps if LOTE players represented the leadership of a
      nation instead of it's spirit, this might be accomplished. I propose a
      'Success Roll' for any order that discomforts (or goes against the
      interests of) the status quo of some portion of the population of a
      nation. Success would allow the order to be carried out as written,
      failure would cause some portion of the population to resist the order.
      The more extreme the action, the greater the modifier. Taking some
      action against a hated foe, or an action that promises great reward,
      would give a positive modifier. An action against a beloved ally, or
      likely to incur a great cost, would give a negative modifier. So, if
      Country X decides to attack Country Y, it's long-time friend and trade
      partner, the populace and merchants might resist. If Country X tells
      it's citizens to pack up and move hundreds or thousands of miles away,
      the landed nobilty might say no (or even 'Hell, no!').

      The biggest argument against this idea that I can come up with is added
      complexity (read: work) for the GM. I would suggest a simple framework
      of rules to combat this problem. Perhaps a roll would only be required
      in extreme cases. Perhaps another way to implement this would be with
      random events, an idea discussed before. One of them could be,
      "Populace/Merchants/Nobles resist plans of leadership". Or maybe it
      could be an Intel action, leaving us all to the tender mercies of our
      fellow players.

      Here's a few snippets from "A Distant Mirror", discussing the Papal
      election after the death of Gregory: "Public excitement rose and
      threatening crowds gathered...they could hear the populace howling.
      'Romano lo volemo! [We want a Roman!]". The cardinals faked the
      election of a Roman Pope just to escape the city! "As the bells of St.
      Peter's pealed amid clash and confusion, word of the hoax was learned.
      The crowd's shrieks turned to 'Non le volemo!' and 'Death to the
      cardinals!'. Swords were drawn and drunks who had broken into the papal
      cellars grew rough and uproarious." Ooo, this is good stuff!

      Another argument against it might be raised by players who want to do
      things their populace wouldn't like. To this I would say that a prize
      hard won is sweeter than a gift. I would imagine that the population of
      the LOTE world are every bit as selfish and self-interested as your
      average LOTE player. : ) Gaining some goal after having to win the
      approval of your citizenry would give a player more satisfaction, as
      well as make for more interesting Newsfax entries.

      A balance would have to be struck between the two extremes of letting a
      player do whatever they want and not allowing them to do anything. I
      remember three GMs I played fantasy RPGs with in the Eighties. The
      first was a madman, who killed PCs with glee and abandon. He once sent
      us on a mission with something like the "Holy Hand Grenade" from Monty
      Python. After a long, perilous, journey (and the loss of several
      characters), we set off the HHG only to discover that it came without a
      timer and exploded immediately upon activation. This is the same guy
      who devised the "pit of acid with a greased ramp on the far side leading
      to the whirling blades of death" trap. His games were fun, in a way,
      but one tired of losing characters. We quickly learned to hire lots of
      men-at-arms, because if we didn't give the GM NPCs to kill, he'd start
      in on us. The second GM couldn't bear to kill characters. At first I
      didn't recognize this, and reveled in the grand exploits of my
      character. As I realized that I couldn't die, I began to play more and
      more extremely, deriving less and less enjoyment with every fantastic
      deed. Being able to do heroic things quickly lost it's joy. This was
      the campaign of the dual-katana wielding superhero, the diety-summoning
      cleric, and the economy-shaking treasure hoard. The third GM struck a
      balance between the two. I lost characters, but I could look back each
      time and see where I'd messed up. Actions had consequences, and
      external events had great effect on our characters. This was an AD&D
      game, and the most powerful character I ever had was a fifth-level
      fighter. But this 5th leveler had more stories to tell than any 18th
      level character I ever met, and was deeply involved in the politics of
      his city-state. When he died, it was because I took an action that I
      knew would have fatal results - but it made sense for the character and
      I was proud to do it.

      I think mixing a little dirt in the grease of LOTE mechanics would spice
      up the game. Let's give a voice to the First, Second, and Third
      Estates! What do you all (or, y'all) think about this? Am I a lone
      voice crying in the wilderness, or do these words ring true? Do any of
      you have suggestions for these proposed rules? Or am I just giving all
      of you the opportunity to tell me to shut my yap?

      : )
      --
      Rob Robbins
      L31-Khalifah

      P.S. Another interesting note from, "A Distant Mirror", talking about
      the Great Schism between Urban and Clement: "In disputed regions, double
      bishops might be appointed, each holding mass and proclaiming the ritual
      of the other a sacrilege. The same religious order in different
      countries might have divided allegiance, with it's monasteries under two
      competing priors and it's abbeys torn by strife." Much more interesting
      than the clear-cut battle lines we see in LOTE. How would you like to
      rule a nation where half the population backed one Pope, and the other
      half backed another? Okay, bad question...how would you like to see it
      happen to your enemy?
    • james cochran
      It is a great book.
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        It is a great book.

        > From: Rob Robbins <SmoggyRob@...>
        > Reply-To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:23:32 +0000
        > To: LOTE-L <LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: [LOTE-L] Spirit of a Nation
        >
        > Hi everyone:
        >
        > I've been reading a book called, "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th
        > Century", by Barbara Tuchman. I have been struck by one point, again
        > and again - it's not always good to be the king. I've read example
        > after example of a king's will being denied, of internal events spinning
        > beyond their control, and of unintended consequences. It makes for
        > interesting reading, and makes me think about the LOTE player as 'the
        > spirit of a nation'.
        >
        > LOTE players, while adrift in a sea of uncertainty caused by other
        > players, are relatively certain of the results of their actions in
        > domestic affairs. An extreme example is the migration of nations
        > (though it shows in every action on the order sheet). All I can say is
        > that, if George W. Bush told me to pack it up - we're moving to
        > Argentina, I'd tell him to go shove it up his...well, I'd say no. I
        > like my home, and it would take a lot to get me to leave it. Martians
        > landing at LAX might do it. The army forcing me out at gun point would
        > definitely do it. But in LOTE, a king just commands it, and it is done.
        >
        > I believe we could gain more enjoyment from this game if things were not
        > so certain. Perhaps if LOTE players represented the leadership of a
        > nation instead of it's spirit, this might be accomplished. I propose a
        > 'Success Roll' for any order that discomforts (or goes against the
        > interests of) the status quo of some portion of the population of a
        > nation. Success would allow the order to be carried out as written,
        > failure would cause some portion of the population to resist the order.
        > The more extreme the action, the greater the modifier. Taking some
        > action against a hated foe, or an action that promises great reward,
        > would give a positive modifier. An action against a beloved ally, or
        > likely to incur a great cost, would give a negative modifier. So, if
        > Country X decides to attack Country Y, it's long-time friend and trade
        > partner, the populace and merchants might resist. If Country X tells
        > it's citizens to pack up and move hundreds or thousands of miles away,
        > the landed nobilty might say no (or even 'Hell, no!').
        >
        > The biggest argument against this idea that I can come up with is added
        > complexity (read: work) for the GM. I would suggest a simple framework
        > of rules to combat this problem. Perhaps a roll would only be required
        > in extreme cases. Perhaps another way to implement this would be with
        > random events, an idea discussed before. One of them could be,
        > "Populace/Merchants/Nobles resist plans of leadership". Or maybe it
        > could be an Intel action, leaving us all to the tender mercies of our
        > fellow players.
        >
        > Here's a few snippets from "A Distant Mirror", discussing the Papal
        > election after the death of Gregory: "Public excitement rose and
        > threatening crowds gathered...they could hear the populace howling.
        > 'Romano lo volemo! [We want a Roman!]". The cardinals faked the
        > election of a Roman Pope just to escape the city! "As the bells of St.
        > Peter's pealed amid clash and confusion, word of the hoax was learned.
        > The crowd's shrieks turned to 'Non le volemo!' and 'Death to the
        > cardinals!'. Swords were drawn and drunks who had broken into the papal
        > cellars grew rough and uproarious." Ooo, this is good stuff!
        >
        > Another argument against it might be raised by players who want to do
        > things their populace wouldn't like. To this I would say that a prize
        > hard won is sweeter than a gift. I would imagine that the population of
        > the LOTE world are every bit as selfish and self-interested as your
        > average LOTE player. : ) Gaining some goal after having to win the
        > approval of your citizenry would give a player more satisfaction, as
        > well as make for more interesting Newsfax entries.
        >
        > A balance would have to be struck between the two extremes of letting a
        > player do whatever they want and not allowing them to do anything. I
        > remember three GMs I played fantasy RPGs with in the Eighties. The
        > first was a madman, who killed PCs with glee and abandon. He once sent
        > us on a mission with something like the "Holy Hand Grenade" from Monty
        > Python. After a long, perilous, journey (and the loss of several
        > characters), we set off the HHG only to discover that it came without a
        > timer and exploded immediately upon activation. This is the same guy
        > who devised the "pit of acid with a greased ramp on the far side leading
        > to the whirling blades of death" trap. His games were fun, in a way,
        > but one tired of losing characters. We quickly learned to hire lots of
        > men-at-arms, because if we didn't give the GM NPCs to kill, he'd start
        > in on us. The second GM couldn't bear to kill characters. At first I
        > didn't recognize this, and reveled in the grand exploits of my
        > character. As I realized that I couldn't die, I began to play more and
        > more extremely, deriving less and less enjoyment with every fantastic
        > deed. Being able to do heroic things quickly lost it's joy. This was
        > the campaign of the dual-katana wielding superhero, the diety-summoning
        > cleric, and the economy-shaking treasure hoard. The third GM struck a
        > balance between the two. I lost characters, but I could look back each
        > time and see where I'd messed up. Actions had consequences, and
        > external events had great effect on our characters. This was an AD&D
        > game, and the most powerful character I ever had was a fifth-level
        > fighter. But this 5th leveler had more stories to tell than any 18th
        > level character I ever met, and was deeply involved in the politics of
        > his city-state. When he died, it was because I took an action that I
        > knew would have fatal results - but it made sense for the character and
        > I was proud to do it.
        >
        > I think mixing a little dirt in the grease of LOTE mechanics would spice
        > up the game. Let's give a voice to the First, Second, and Third
        > Estates! What do you all (or, y'all) think about this? Am I a lone
        > voice crying in the wilderness, or do these words ring true? Do any of
        > you have suggestions for these proposed rules? Or am I just giving all
        > of you the opportunity to tell me to shut my yap?
        >
        > : )
        > --
        > Rob Robbins
        > L31-Khalifah
        >
        > P.S. Another interesting note from, "A Distant Mirror", talking about
        > the Great Schism between Urban and Clement: "In disputed regions, double
        > bishops might be appointed, each holding mass and proclaiming the ritual
        > of the other a sacrilege. The same religious order in different
        > countries might have divided allegiance, with it's monasteries under two
        > competing priors and it's abbeys torn by strife." Much more interesting
        > than the clear-cut battle lines we see in LOTE. How would you like to
        > rule a nation where half the population backed one Pope, and the other
        > half backed another? Okay, bad question...how would you like to see it
        > happen to your enemy?
        >
        >
        >
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Matthew S. Taylor
        i won t address everyone of your points, but as way of a general response, it already the way you suggest. Virtually every leader action requires some sort of
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          i won't address everyone of your points, but as way of a general
          response, it already the way you suggest. Virtually every
          leader action requires some sort of success roll. Migration is
          a case in point. Civilized nations do not just pick up and
          leave - there needs to be an in game reason such natural
          disaster of extreme proportion or being forced out by invaders
          such as ravening arctic tribes aided by otherworldly forces
          bringing great climactic change (ok, so that example is unlikely
          . . .).



          --------------------------
          Matthew Taylor
          matthew@...
        • james cochran
          except in Lords One!
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            except in Lords One!

            > From: "Matthew S. Taylor" <matthew@...>
            > Reply-To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:46:21 -0400
            > To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Spirit of a Nation
            >
            > i won't address everyone of your points, but as way of a general
            > response, it already the way you suggest. Virtually every
            > leader action requires some sort of success roll. Migration is
            > a case in point. Civilized nations do not just pick up and
            > leave - there needs to be an in game reason such natural
            > disaster of extreme proportion or being forced out by invaders
            > such as ravening arctic tribes aided by otherworldly forces
            > bringing great climactic change (ok, so that example is unlikely
            > . . .).
            >
            >
            >
            > --------------------------
            > Matthew Taylor
            > matthew@...
            >
            >
            > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • Rob Robbins
            Matthew Taylor wrote: I won t address everyone of your points, but as way of a general response, it already the way you suggest. Virtually every leader action
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Matthew Taylor wrote:
              I won't address everyone of your points, but as way of a general
              response, it already the way you suggest. Virtually every leader action
              requires some sort of success roll. Migration is
              a case in point. Civilized nations do not just pick up and leave -
              there needs to be an in game reason such natural disaster of extreme
              proportion or being forced out by invaders such as ravening arctic
              tribes aided by otherworldly forces bringing great climactic change (ok,
              so that example is unlikely . . .).

              Matthew:
              I would respectfully disagree with you on the migration bit.
              Admittedly I'm biased on the subject and my experience is limited, but
              I'll put up the two Ottoman migrations in L31 as an example I'm familiar
              with. Jeff was certainly in a pinch, but he wasn't facing the Ice. The
              Ottoman king simply said, 'Let's move to Germany!' and the people
              followed. Then he said, 'Let's move to a mythical land you've never
              heard of'!' and the people just said, 'Okey-dokey!' Perhaps I should
              move this discussion away from national migration, it's a bit of a sore
              point with me. I'm not a historian, but I do enjoy reading about
              history, and I can't think of a single example of a civilized nation
              uprooting and moving hundreds or thousands of miles away. Why do we
              have that rule, anyway? Grumblegrumblegrumble...

              Back to my point. I wasn't talking about success rolls in the sense
              of: 'I attack the city and have to make an attack roll', or 'I'm
              attempting an Intel Op and need to roll for that'. I was referring to
              the GM stepping in and playing the role of the various Estates. History
              seems full of examples of a king needing to win the support of the
              nobility, the clergy, the peasantry, and/or the merchants, before being
              able to simply attack a neighbor. I'm proposing taking absolute control
              of internal policy away from players and making them work for it. Want
              to attack your co-religionist whom you've treated with for decades?
              Convince the people it's in their best interest. Convince the clergy
              you're not leading them straight to hell. Convince the merchants they
              won't be financially ruined. I like the idea of a king having to grant
              concessions to the nobility to win their support for his plans. Or of a
              player calling for mass conscription and having only some of the needed
              Nfp show up.

              One of the things I love about LOTE is the uncertainty presented by
              the other players - you never really know what the hell they're going to
              do. I'm suggesting that it would be more enjoyable if one faced that
              same uncertainty when dealing with one's own subjects. Maybe I'm just a
              masochist.
              --
              Rob Robbins
              L31-Khalifah

              Year 1500 Compliant.
            • Rusty Wallace
              ... Yeah, the L31 migration sounds like cheese under the current rules. Dave? Jeff? - any defense? But cheesy and unhistoric as it is, migration has a
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 3, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Rob Robbins wrote:

                > I would respectfully disagree with you on the migration bit.
                > Admittedly I'm biased on the subject and my experience is limited, but
                > I'll put up the two Ottoman migrations in L31 as an example I'm familiar
                > with. Jeff was certainly in a pinch, but he wasn't facing the Ice. The
                > Ottoman king simply said, 'Let's move to Germany!' and the people
                > followed. Then he said, 'Let's move to a mythical land you've never
                > heard of'!' and the people just said, 'Okey-dokey!' Perhaps I should
                > move this discussion away from national migration, it's a bit of a sore
                > point with me. I'm not a historian, but I do enjoy reading about
                > history, and I can't think of a single example of a civilized nation
                > uprooting and moving hundreds or thousands of miles away. Why do we
                > have that rule, anyway? Grumblegrumblegrumble...

                Yeah, the L31 migration sounds like cheese under the current rules.
                Dave? Jeff? - any defense?

                But cheesy and unhistoric as it is, migration has a venerable history in
                Lords that, I think, adds considerably to the fun quotient. One of the
                'problems' with Lords is that wars tend to be to the death. There may
                be a peaceful interlude or two between initial conflict and final death
                match - but it still seems to be true that once a couple of players
                really get into a serious conflict the likely end result is the
                elimination of one of the positions. Migration is a great safety valve
                on that dynamic. Once one player can clearly see the writing on the
                wall he has the option of clearing out for greener pastures and so
                preserving continuity for his much beloved nation - and, incidently,
                preserving the possibility of future conflict between the nations in
                question.

                And given that last element, in a curious sort of way, one might
                consider migrations of civilized nations to add a note of realism to the
                game.

                > Back to my point. I wasn't talking about success rolls in the sense
                > of: 'I attack the city and have to make an attack roll', or 'I'm
                > attempting an Intel Op and need to roll for that'. I was referring to
                > the GM stepping in and playing the role of the various Estates. History
                > seems full of examples of a king needing to win the support of the
                > nobility, the clergy, the peasantry, and/or the merchants, before being
                > able to simply attack a neighbor. I'm proposing taking absolute control
                > of internal policy away from players and making them work for it. Want
                > to attack your co-religionist whom you've treated with for decades?
                > Convince the people it's in their best interest. Convince the clergy
                > you're not leading them straight to hell. Convince the merchants they
                > won't be financially ruined. I like the idea of a king having to grant
                > concessions to the nobility to win their support for his plans. Or of a
                > player calling for mass conscription and having only some of the needed
                > Nfp show up.

                I think this sounds pretty cool in the abstract or in a different venue,
                but would be a disaster for Lords. As it is I get to pay my $5, spend a
                few weeks jawing with my neighbors, cook up some clever schemes, write
                up the orders and send them in. Then (usually) I get to wait, and wait,
                and wait some more for results. My clever schemes may fail for any
                number of reasons - and only one of them is the possibility that my
                opponent may have been more clever than I. I may suffer a random event.
                DF/Civil war may tank my orders. The death of a critical leader may
                throw everything I intended out the window. The GM may misunderstand my
                orders or I may make a dumb error. Someone else who was supposed to do
                something critical may not do it. The dice may have just hated me that
                turn. Whatever the causes - there exists on any given turn the
                substantial risk that important things I wanted to accomplish will not
                happen or will not work out as intended. Very frustrating - but that's
                the nature of the game and part of its appeal. Do I really want to
                contend with the hassles of having my intentions fail with some
                frequency because elements of my nation nominally within my control just
                didn't feel like going along with the plan this turn? So now I have to
                wait another few weeks to a few months to try again? That sounds like a
                prescription for major frustration and the loss of a lot of players.

                I personally think that some of the rules requiring charisma checks to
                do things like colonize regions are already pushing the frustration
                envelope a little further than it needs to be.

                > One of the things I love about LOTE is the uncertainty presented by
                > the other players - you never really know what the hell they're going to
                > do. I'm suggesting that it would be more enjoyable if one faced that
                > same uncertainty when dealing with one's own subjects. Maybe I'm just a
                > masochist.

                Yeah, I think you might just be a masochist.... I would be willing to
                play something like this in a computer game or some other more 'real
                time' environment. I might even deal with it in a Lords game that had a
                regular 2-4 week turnaround. But, man, after crafting orders for a
                month and then waiting two months for results the *last* thing I want to
                see when I break out the latest newsfax is that my big invasion didn't
                go off as planned because the nobility got their noses out of joint at
                the prospect.

                Rusty
              • Jeff Morrison
                No :) I asked Dave, he said yes. I ofcourse told him I wouldnt have allowed it if I was him, but hey it isnt my campaign At this point I wish I had stayed
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  No :)

                  I asked Dave, he said yes. I ofcourse told him I wouldnt have allowed it if
                  I was him, but hey it isnt my campaign <G>

                  At this point I wish I had stayed put anyway, live and learn.

                  Jeff

                  At 10:53 PM 4/3/01 -0500, you wrote:
                  >Rob Robbins wrote:
                  >
                  >> I would respectfully disagree with you on the migration bit.
                  >> Admittedly I'm biased on the subject and my experience is limited, but
                  >> I'll put up the two Ottoman migrations in L31 as an example I'm familiar
                  >> with. Jeff was certainly in a pinch, but he wasn't facing the Ice. The
                  >> Ottoman king simply said, 'Let's move to Germany!' and the people
                  >> followed. Then he said, 'Let's move to a mythical land you've never
                  >> heard of'!' and the people just said, 'Okey-dokey!' Perhaps I should
                  >> move this discussion away from national migration, it's a bit of a sore
                  >> point with me. I'm not a historian, but I do enjoy reading about
                  >> history, and I can't think of a single example of a civilized nation
                  >> uprooting and moving hundreds or thousands of miles away. Why do we
                  >> have that rule, anyway? Grumblegrumblegrumble...
                  >
                  >Yeah, the L31 migration sounds like cheese under the current rules.
                  >Dave? Jeff? - any defense?
                  >
                  >But cheesy and unhistoric as it is, migration has a venerable history in
                  >Lords that, I think, adds considerably to the fun quotient. One of the
                  >'problems' with Lords is that wars tend to be to the death. There may
                  >be a peaceful interlude or two between initial conflict and final death
                  >match - but it still seems to be true that once a couple of players
                  >really get into a serious conflict the likely end result is the
                  >elimination of one of the positions. Migration is a great safety valve
                  >on that dynamic. Once one player can clearly see the writing on the
                  >wall he has the option of clearing out for greener pastures and so
                  >preserving continuity for his much beloved nation - and, incidently,
                  >preserving the possibility of future conflict between the nations in
                  >question.
                  >
                  >And given that last element, in a curious sort of way, one might
                  >consider migrations of civilized nations to add a note of realism to the
                  >game.
                  >
                  >> Back to my point. I wasn't talking about success rolls in the sense
                  >> of: 'I attack the city and have to make an attack roll', or 'I'm
                  >> attempting an Intel Op and need to roll for that'. I was referring to
                  >> the GM stepping in and playing the role of the various Estates. History
                  >> seems full of examples of a king needing to win the support of the
                  >> nobility, the clergy, the peasantry, and/or the merchants, before being
                  >> able to simply attack a neighbor. I'm proposing taking absolute control
                  >> of internal policy away from players and making them work for it. Want
                  >> to attack your co-religionist whom you've treated with for decades?
                  >> Convince the people it's in their best interest. Convince the clergy
                  >> you're not leading them straight to hell. Convince the merchants they
                  >> won't be financially ruined. I like the idea of a king having to grant
                  >> concessions to the nobility to win their support for his plans. Or of a
                  >> player calling for mass conscription and having only some of the needed
                  >> Nfp show up.
                  >
                  >I think this sounds pretty cool in the abstract or in a different venue,
                  >but would be a disaster for Lords. As it is I get to pay my $5, spend a
                  >few weeks jawing with my neighbors, cook up some clever schemes, write
                  >up the orders and send them in. Then (usually) I get to wait, and wait,
                  >and wait some more for results. My clever schemes may fail for any
                  >number of reasons - and only one of them is the possibility that my
                  >opponent may have been more clever than I. I may suffer a random event.
                  >DF/Civil war may tank my orders. The death of a critical leader may
                  >throw everything I intended out the window. The GM may misunderstand my
                  >orders or I may make a dumb error. Someone else who was supposed to do
                  >something critical may not do it. The dice may have just hated me that
                  >turn. Whatever the causes - there exists on any given turn the
                  >substantial risk that important things I wanted to accomplish will not
                  >happen or will not work out as intended. Very frustrating - but that's
                  >the nature of the game and part of its appeal. Do I really want to
                  >contend with the hassles of having my intentions fail with some
                  >frequency because elements of my nation nominally within my control just
                  >didn't feel like going along with the plan this turn? So now I have to
                  >wait another few weeks to a few months to try again? That sounds like a
                  >prescription for major frustration and the loss of a lot of players.
                  >
                  >I personally think that some of the rules requiring charisma checks to
                  >do things like colonize regions are already pushing the frustration
                  >envelope a little further than it needs to be.
                  >
                  >> One of the things I love about LOTE is the uncertainty presented by
                  >> the other players - you never really know what the hell they're going to
                  >> do. I'm suggesting that it would be more enjoyable if one faced that
                  >> same uncertainty when dealing with one's own subjects. Maybe I'm just a
                  >> masochist.
                  >
                  >Yeah, I think you might just be a masochist.... I would be willing to
                  >play something like this in a computer game or some other more 'real
                  >time' environment. I might even deal with it in a Lords game that had a
                  >regular 2-4 week turnaround. But, man, after crafting orders for a
                  >month and then waiting two months for results the *last* thing I want to
                  >see when I break out the latest newsfax is that my big invasion didn't
                  >go off as planned because the nobility got their noses out of joint at
                  >the prospect.
                  >
                  >Rusty
                  >
                  >
                  >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  >Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                  >
                  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • salterdj@aol.com
                  In a message dated 4/3/01 11:06:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I allowed the Ottoman migrations because of their nomadic roots - those roots burned Jeff as
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 4/3/01 11:06:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    SmoggyRob@... writes:


                    >
                    > I would respectfully disagree with you on the migration bit.
                    > Admittedly I'm biased on the subject and my experience is limited, but
                    > I'll put up the two Ottoman migrations in L31 as an example I'm familiar
                    > with. Jeff was certainly in a pinch, but he wasn't facing the Ice. The
                    > Ottoman king simply said, 'Let's move to Germany!' and the people
                    > followed. Then he said, 'Let's move to a mythical land you've never
                    > heard of'!' and the people just said, 'Okey-dokey!' Perhaps I should
                    > move this discussion away from national migration, it's a bit of a sore
                    > point with me. I'm not a historian, but I do enjoy reading about
                    > history, and I can't think of a single example of a civilized nation
                    > uprooting and moving hundreds or thousands of miles away. Why do we
                    > have that rule, anyway? Grumblegrumblegrumble...
                    >

                    I allowed the Ottoman migrations because of their nomadic roots - those roots
                    burned Jeff as much as anyone since I ruled that his population was laid over
                    existing Greeks and thus did not depopulate the regions as he would have
                    desired.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • james gemmill
                    Rob, ... -snip- I agree with Rusty that your system is intriguing, but his criticisms are valid too. I will add that Lords models, or attempts to model, not
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Rob,

                      > Back to my point. I wasn't talking about success rolls in the sense

                      -snip-

                      I agree with Rusty that your system is intriguing, but his criticisms are
                      valid too. I will add that Lords models, or attempts to model, not simply
                      the medieval European experience, but a myriad of different cultures whose
                      structure may require different modelling in a rule system of the type
                      you are proposing. Like say aborigines of Australia, as an extreme
                      example.

                      I think someone was wrote a paragraph very similar to what I am about to
                      say. Hmmm...maybe it was even me? Oh well here goes:

                      I know I am not the only one for whom the Lords rules are generally a
                      mystery. It is not something that interests me, and my attempts to produce
                      elaborate, intricate orders generally produce the same results as far as I
                      can tell as the orders I write in 10 minutes [a side note to allies,
                      I am always careful when my actions will affect another!]. What I have
                      found is that certain actions are reliable. If I order 10 PWB's built in
                      province X, then I can be certain 10 PWB's will be built. If I order my
                      army to invade Russia, then I am not so certain of the results. I can
                      write out a precise month by month itinerary, but in the end it's a leap
                      of faith. Is this how it should be? I don't know. But it is what it is.

                      I think alot of your critique arises not from the Rules themselves, but
                      from something that we will never be able to control, and that is how
                      individual players approach the game. Some are rule-monkeys who will study
                      the system looking to maximize every advantage, no matter how ahistorical
                      or out of character it might be for the position they are playing. They
                      will change religions at the drop of a hat, they will migrate, homeland be
                      damned. Others go to the other extreme and inflexibly roleplay their
                      culture regardless whether it will lead to extinction. Still others pick
                      up a position with the attitude of "how much damage can I do?"

                      Most of us are somewhere in between.

                      I have no idea how to govern this, or even if we do. Zeppelins are fun!

                      -James
                    • Dean Patterson
                      I would much rather LOTE run at 1 year a turn. Nations would have a much greater control over there actions and the actions of those around them. The biggest
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I would much rather LOTE run at 1 year a turn. Nations would have a much
                        greater control over there actions and the actions of those around them.
                        The biggest sticking point to this is that little countries would really
                        stink in a non-fantasy format. JJ's solution works marvelously because it
                        is a fantasy world and so you don't have to sweat tech development, you
                        don't have to concern yourself with people growning way to fast or anything
                        of that nature.

                        The big hitch in my opinion to the shorter span on turns is that the
                        assassination option would bear hideous results. Right now in the 5 year
                        turn around situation it take 3 turns (nearly) to get a child to ruling age,
                        that isn't too bad. An assassin hits you on the third turn after a child
                        has been born they assume the throne most likely unless there is a DF. In a
                        one year turn around.......good lord it will be forever before a child comes
                        of age. Assassination, maybe realistically, becomes a very devastating
                        tool.

                        Dean

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: james gemmill [mailto:jamesgem@...]
                        Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:57 PM
                        To: LOTE-L
                        Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation


                        Rob,

                        > Back to my point. I wasn't talking about success rolls in the sense

                        -snip-

                        I agree with Rusty that your system is intriguing, but his criticisms are
                        valid too. I will add that Lords models, or attempts to model, not simply
                        the medieval European experience, but a myriad of different cultures whose
                        structure may require different modelling in a rule system of the type
                        you are proposing. Like say aborigines of Australia, as an extreme
                        example.

                        I think someone was wrote a paragraph very similar to what I am about to
                        say. Hmmm...maybe it was even me? Oh well here goes:

                        I know I am not the only one for whom the Lords rules are generally a
                        mystery. It is not something that interests me, and my attempts to produce
                        elaborate, intricate orders generally produce the same results as far as I
                        can tell as the orders I write in 10 minutes [a side note to allies,
                        I am always careful when my actions will affect another!]. What I have
                        found is that certain actions are reliable. If I order 10 PWB's built in
                        province X, then I can be certain 10 PWB's will be built. If I order my
                        army to invade Russia, then I am not so certain of the results. I can
                        write out a precise month by month itinerary, but in the end it's a leap
                        of faith. Is this how it should be? I don't know. But it is what it is.

                        I think alot of your critique arises not from the Rules themselves, but
                        from something that we will never be able to control, and that is how
                        individual players approach the game. Some are rule-monkeys who will study
                        the system looking to maximize every advantage, no matter how ahistorical
                        or out of character it might be for the position they are playing. They
                        will change religions at the drop of a hat, they will migrate, homeland be
                        damned. Others go to the other extreme and inflexibly roleplay their
                        culture regardless whether it will lead to extinction. Still others pick
                        up a position with the attitude of "how much damage can I do?"

                        Most of us are somewhere in between.

                        I have no idea how to govern this, or even if we do. Zeppelins are fun!

                        -James




                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • Rob Robbins
                        Oh, great! Now I ve pissed off L31-Allah (Dave Salter). I apologize to the L31 Islamic players for the coming rain of frogs - my bad. Seriously, I wasn t
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Oh, great! Now I've pissed off L31-Allah (Dave Salter). I apologize to
                          the L31 Islamic players for the coming rain of frogs - my bad.
                          Seriously, I wasn't grousing about that specific incident, I just don't
                          like the rule and that's the only one I've experienced. Hell, having
                          the Ottomans take off was actually a benefit to Syria and Rum. And
                          Dave, you never have to defend yourself to me. GMs can do whatever they
                          want - the rules are just suggestions as far as I'm concerned.

                          Rusty DID bring up some good points. I may not like national migration,
                          but there's something about an Aztec Catholic Church that tickles my
                          funny bone. And the last thing I'd want to do is cause players to drop
                          from frustration. Matter of fact, if there's any players out there who
                          want to join the L31 Islamic family (very non-frustrating), drop me a
                          line. Good positions are always available.

                          Rusty's comments on the 'fight to the death' tendency in LOTE were
                          right on the money, but I can't think of a way to stop it. Most of the
                          time I'm willing to treat with just about anyone, but I've had a player
                          get under my skin before and I wasn't about to stop until he was dead,
                          Dead, DEAD. I've tried to think up a solution to this unrealistic
                          problem, but I can't. I don't like national migration as an
                          answer...well, really I just don't like national migration. Have I
                          mentioned that? : ) Maybe a GM somehow rewarding players (trade
                          multiple of 1.1?) who DON'T finish off their enemies might alleviate it,
                          but maybe not. It wouldn't have stopped me. A +1 on Diplomacy for five
                          turns? Maybe. +1 to Religious Strength? Okay, you've got a deal!

                          The matter of player frustration due to long turn-arounds and my
                          proposed Estates rule is a serious problem that I hadn't considered.
                          Perhaps it could be compensated for by the various Estates doing
                          something nice for their country once in a while. Or having them cough
                          up a little extra gold or Nfp or 'Estate Influence' might be the answer
                          to balance that problem. And there's nothing to be done about long
                          turn-arounds - whadda' ya' want for five bucks? And besides, I LIKE
                          long turn-arounds. When L31 was speeding through it's early turns my
                          efficiency ratings at work PLUMMETED. <insert sound of bomb falling> I
                          was real close to dropping out (of L31, not work). My complaint with
                          turn-around is that I'd like MORE time between getting my statsheet and
                          having to turn in orders - that's my favorite part of the game. The
                          planning, the promises, the give-and-take, the wheeling, the dealing,
                          the threats....I love it!

                          Speaking of 'Estate Influence', that might be another way to implement
                          my idea. Each nation gets an Influence rating with their nobility,
                          clergy, merchants, and peasantry. High Influence with a group would
                          make actions affecting that group easier and low Influence would make it
                          harder. Someone with a high 'Nobility Influence' could go attack anyone
                          he wanted to. Someone with a low 'Nobility Influence' is courting a
                          DF. Someone with a low 'Merchant Influence' would get less money from
                          trade (those rat-bastard smugglers!). Infiltrating someone's populace
                          would be easy if they had a low 'Peasant Influence', but if the people
                          LOVE their rulers it would be almost impossible. Hostile Intel Ops
                          could be pointed at at a nation's Influence with the various Estates.

                          James, you may be right - I probably wouldn't mind some of the things I
                          kick about so much if all of you were more like ME. <G> And I hate
                          that my pettiness is so transparent to you. <BG> But really, in the
                          end, my suggestions are intended to increase the Fun Quotient for
                          everyone, not to make everyone do things MY way. I get to do THAT at
                          work...it's good to be the Government. In LOTE, you aggravating players
                          out there are what make the game so interesting. Please, continue
                          poking me with your sticks. Hey! What do you know?! I AM a
                          masochist! And James...one question...'Zeppelins are fun!'? Where did
                          THAT come from?!
                          --
                          Rob Robbins
                          L31-Khalifah

                          Year 1500 Compliant.
                        • Stephen Hogie
                          I ve known Salter for years and he s still a jerk. Stephen Hogie ... From: Rusty Wallace To: Sent:
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I've known Salter for years and he's still a jerk.

                            Stephen Hogie

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Rusty Wallace" <jrustyw@...>
                            To: <LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:55 PM
                            Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation


                            > Rob Robbins wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Oh, great! Now I've pissed off L31-Allah (Dave Salter). I
                            apologize to
                            > > the L31 Islamic players for the coming rain of frogs - my bad.
                            > > Seriously, I wasn't grousing about that specific incident, I just
                            don't
                            > > like the rule and that's the only one I've experienced. Hell,
                            having
                            > > the Ottomans take off was actually a benefit to Syria and Rum.
                            And
                            > > Dave, you never have to defend yourself to me. GMs can do
                            whatever they
                            > > want - the rules are just suggestions as far as I'm concerned.
                            >
                            > Oh, don't butter him up like that! It'll go straight to his head.
                            You
                            > have to heap a little abuse on these GM critters every now and again
                            to
                            > keep them honest. The more the better. I espcially advocate loud
                            > tirades made by phone at 1AM.
                            >
                            > (snip)
                            >
                            > > Rusty's comments on the 'fight to the death' tendency in LOTE
                            were
                            > > right on the money, but I can't think of a way to stop it. Most
                            of the
                            > > time I'm willing to treat with just about anyone, but I've had a
                            player
                            > > get under my skin before and I wasn't about to stop until he was
                            dead,
                            > > Dead, DEAD. I've tried to think up a solution to this unrealistic
                            > > problem, but I can't.
                            >
                            > Rules changes through the years have applied alot of pressure to
                            this
                            > problem. Over time it has become harder and harder to take and hold
                            > large chunks of territory (ie obliterate the opposition). But I
                            think
                            > that in practice the effect has been to encourage the formation of
                            > larger alliances and a group approach to dealing with those you want
                            > dead, dead, dead. I don't think you can do away with this aspect of
                            the
                            > game without changing things to the point that you really have a
                            > different sort-of-like-Lords game that may or may not appeal to the
                            same
                            > group of players. I know one of the fun aspects of the game for me
                            is
                            > crushing the opposition - and you can forget about leaving the poor
                            > victim around so I can properly gloat. That only leads to trouble
                            later
                            > on - probably at the worst possible time.
                            >
                            > (snip)
                            > > The matter of player frustration due to long turn-arounds and my
                            > > proposed Estates rule is a serious problem that I hadn't
                            considered.
                            > > Perhaps it could be compensated for by the various Estates doing
                            > > something nice for their country once in a while. Or having them
                            cough
                            > > up a little extra gold or Nfp or 'Estate Influence' might be the
                            answer
                            > > to balance that problem.
                            >
                            > This sort of thing has come up a few times before. I think it is a
                            > pretty cool idea to have a couple of axis's (how the hell do you
                            write
                            > the plural of axis?) that affect what you can do with your nation.
                            It
                            > gives the players some more fiddly bits on their stat sheets to play
                            > around with without increasing the complexity of the game too much.
                            I
                            > do think it should be somewhat under the control of the player and
                            that
                            > it should be a visible input to the planning process and not the
                            sort of
                            > after the fact 'maybe your orders will work and maybe they wont'
                            thing
                            > you are talking about. Maybe an axis for each of military,
                            religious,
                            > mercantile, economic factor in your nation with a rating of 1 to 10
                            or
                            > something. High and low ratings in each affect what you can build,
                            how
                            > much it costs, chances for QR increases, intel success, etc, etc.
                            > Basically another mechanism for players to differentiate the
                            character
                            > of their nations in a way that had definite game effects.
                            >
                            > > And there's nothing to be done about long
                            > > turn-arounds - whadda' ya' want for five bucks? And besides, I
                            LIKE
                            > > long turn-arounds. When L31 was speeding through it's early turns
                            my
                            > > efficiency ratings at work PLUMMETED. <insert sound of bomb
                            falling> I
                            > > was real close to dropping out (of L31, not work). My complaint
                            with
                            > > turn-around is that I'd like MORE time between getting my
                            statsheet and
                            > > having to turn in orders - that's my favorite part of the game.
                            The
                            > > planning, the promises, the give-and-take, the wheeling, the
                            dealing,
                            > > the threats....I love it!
                            >
                            > In my experience, if you have the due date more than a month or so
                            out
                            > people just put the game on the back burner until a few weeks before
                            the
                            > due date and then start planning. So I don't think there is alot to
                            be
                            > gained by giving more than 2-4 weeks for plotting, planning and
                            order
                            > writing. Clearly an element to the game is how much L0 time you
                            have to
                            > allocate. Victory by driving your opponent crazy with email volume?
                            > Hmmm - that has promise. I'll confess to schmoozing for an
                            inordinate
                            > amount of time with a few people in email with the specific intent
                            of
                            > impairing their ability to plan adequately with their allies. Now
                            I
                            > just need to figure out how to inflict 100 hour work weeks on Gary
                            > (Persia L27) for a month or so and victory will be mine!
                            > Bwahahahahahahaha!
                            >
                            > (snip)
                            > >And James...one question...'Zeppelins are fun!'? Where did
                            > > THAT come from?!
                            >
                            > He's talking Lords One where we have these cool high tech zeppelins
                            in
                            > the early 1700's. Well, other people have them. The Ming are
                            deprived
                            > because Tom is being mean to me. On purpose.
                            >
                            > Rusty
                            >
                            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                            Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
                            > Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
                            > in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
                            > high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
                            > http://us.click.yahoo.com/03IJGA/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/AANVlB/TM
                            > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                            -_->
                            >
                            > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                          • Dean Patterson
                            LOL damn that is harsh ... From: Stephen Hogie [mailto:shogie@deltanet.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:50 PM To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              LOL damn that is harsh

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Stephen Hogie [mailto:shogie@...]
                              Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:50 PM
                              To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation


                              I've known Salter for years and he's still a jerk.

                              Stephen Hogie

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Rusty Wallace" <jrustyw@...>
                              To: <LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:55 PM
                              Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation


                              > Rob Robbins wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Oh, great! Now I've pissed off L31-Allah (Dave Salter). I
                              apologize to
                              > > the L31 Islamic players for the coming rain of frogs - my bad.
                              > > Seriously, I wasn't grousing about that specific incident, I just
                              don't
                              > > like the rule and that's the only one I've experienced. Hell,
                              having
                              > > the Ottomans take off was actually a benefit to Syria and Rum.
                              And
                              > > Dave, you never have to defend yourself to me. GMs can do
                              whatever they
                              > > want - the rules are just suggestions as far as I'm concerned.
                              >
                              > Oh, don't butter him up like that! It'll go straight to his head.
                              You
                              > have to heap a little abuse on these GM critters every now and again
                              to
                              > keep them honest. The more the better. I espcially advocate loud
                              > tirades made by phone at 1AM.
                              >
                              > (snip)
                              >
                              > > Rusty's comments on the 'fight to the death' tendency in LOTE
                              were
                              > > right on the money, but I can't think of a way to stop it. Most
                              of the
                              > > time I'm willing to treat with just about anyone, but I've had a
                              player
                              > > get under my skin before and I wasn't about to stop until he was
                              dead,
                              > > Dead, DEAD. I've tried to think up a solution to this unrealistic
                              > > problem, but I can't.
                              >
                              > Rules changes through the years have applied alot of pressure to
                              this
                              > problem. Over time it has become harder and harder to take and hold
                              > large chunks of territory (ie obliterate the opposition). But I
                              think
                              > that in practice the effect has been to encourage the formation of
                              > larger alliances and a group approach to dealing with those you want
                              > dead, dead, dead. I don't think you can do away with this aspect of
                              the
                              > game without changing things to the point that you really have a
                              > different sort-of-like-Lords game that may or may not appeal to the
                              same
                              > group of players. I know one of the fun aspects of the game for me
                              is
                              > crushing the opposition - and you can forget about leaving the poor
                              > victim around so I can properly gloat. That only leads to trouble
                              later
                              > on - probably at the worst possible time.
                              >
                              > (snip)
                              > > The matter of player frustration due to long turn-arounds and my
                              > > proposed Estates rule is a serious problem that I hadn't
                              considered.
                              > > Perhaps it could be compensated for by the various Estates doing
                              > > something nice for their country once in a while. Or having them
                              cough
                              > > up a little extra gold or Nfp or 'Estate Influence' might be the
                              answer
                              > > to balance that problem.
                              >
                              > This sort of thing has come up a few times before. I think it is a
                              > pretty cool idea to have a couple of axis's (how the hell do you
                              write
                              > the plural of axis?) that affect what you can do with your nation.
                              It
                              > gives the players some more fiddly bits on their stat sheets to play
                              > around with without increasing the complexity of the game too much.
                              I
                              > do think it should be somewhat under the control of the player and
                              that
                              > it should be a visible input to the planning process and not the
                              sort of
                              > after the fact 'maybe your orders will work and maybe they wont'
                              thing
                              > you are talking about. Maybe an axis for each of military,
                              religious,
                              > mercantile, economic factor in your nation with a rating of 1 to 10
                              or
                              > something. High and low ratings in each affect what you can build,
                              how
                              > much it costs, chances for QR increases, intel success, etc, etc.
                              > Basically another mechanism for players to differentiate the
                              character
                              > of their nations in a way that had definite game effects.
                              >
                              > > And there's nothing to be done about long
                              > > turn-arounds - whadda' ya' want for five bucks? And besides, I
                              LIKE
                              > > long turn-arounds. When L31 was speeding through it's early turns
                              my
                              > > efficiency ratings at work PLUMMETED. <insert sound of bomb
                              falling> I
                              > > was real close to dropping out (of L31, not work). My complaint
                              with
                              > > turn-around is that I'd like MORE time between getting my
                              statsheet and
                              > > having to turn in orders - that's my favorite part of the game.
                              The
                              > > planning, the promises, the give-and-take, the wheeling, the
                              dealing,
                              > > the threats....I love it!
                              >
                              > In my experience, if you have the due date more than a month or so
                              out
                              > people just put the game on the back burner until a few weeks before
                              the
                              > due date and then start planning. So I don't think there is alot to
                              be
                              > gained by giving more than 2-4 weeks for plotting, planning and
                              order
                              > writing. Clearly an element to the game is how much L0 time you
                              have to
                              > allocate. Victory by driving your opponent crazy with email volume?
                              > Hmmm - that has promise. I'll confess to schmoozing for an
                              inordinate
                              > amount of time with a few people in email with the specific intent
                              of
                              > impairing their ability to plan adequately with their allies. Now
                              I
                              > just need to figure out how to inflict 100 hour work weeks on Gary
                              > (Persia L27) for a month or so and victory will be mine!
                              > Bwahahahahahahaha!
                              >
                              > (snip)
                              > >And James...one question...'Zeppelins are fun!'? Where did
                              > > THAT come from?!
                              >
                              > He's talking Lords One where we have these cool high tech zeppelins
                              in
                              > the early 1700's. Well, other people have them. The Ming are
                              deprived
                              > because Tom is being mean to me. On purpose.
                              >
                              > Rusty
                              >
                              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                              Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
                              > Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
                              > in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
                              > high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
                              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/03IJGA/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/AANVlB/TM
                              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                              -_->
                              >
                              > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >



                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/

                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            • Rusty Wallace
                              ... Oh, don t butter him up like that! It ll go straight to his head. You have to heap a little abuse on these GM critters every now and again to keep them
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Rob Robbins wrote:
                                >
                                > Oh, great! Now I've pissed off L31-Allah (Dave Salter). I apologize to
                                > the L31 Islamic players for the coming rain of frogs - my bad.
                                > Seriously, I wasn't grousing about that specific incident, I just don't
                                > like the rule and that's the only one I've experienced. Hell, having
                                > the Ottomans take off was actually a benefit to Syria and Rum. And
                                > Dave, you never have to defend yourself to me. GMs can do whatever they
                                > want - the rules are just suggestions as far as I'm concerned.

                                Oh, don't butter him up like that! It'll go straight to his head. You
                                have to heap a little abuse on these GM critters every now and again to
                                keep them honest. The more the better. I espcially advocate loud
                                tirades made by phone at 1AM.

                                (snip)

                                > Rusty's comments on the 'fight to the death' tendency in LOTE were
                                > right on the money, but I can't think of a way to stop it. Most of the
                                > time I'm willing to treat with just about anyone, but I've had a player
                                > get under my skin before and I wasn't about to stop until he was dead,
                                > Dead, DEAD. I've tried to think up a solution to this unrealistic
                                > problem, but I can't.

                                Rules changes through the years have applied alot of pressure to this
                                problem. Over time it has become harder and harder to take and hold
                                large chunks of territory (ie obliterate the opposition). But I think
                                that in practice the effect has been to encourage the formation of
                                larger alliances and a group approach to dealing with those you want
                                dead, dead, dead. I don't think you can do away with this aspect of the
                                game without changing things to the point that you really have a
                                different sort-of-like-Lords game that may or may not appeal to the same
                                group of players. I know one of the fun aspects of the game for me is
                                crushing the opposition - and you can forget about leaving the poor
                                victim around so I can properly gloat. That only leads to trouble later
                                on - probably at the worst possible time.

                                (snip)
                                > The matter of player frustration due to long turn-arounds and my
                                > proposed Estates rule is a serious problem that I hadn't considered.
                                > Perhaps it could be compensated for by the various Estates doing
                                > something nice for their country once in a while. Or having them cough
                                > up a little extra gold or Nfp or 'Estate Influence' might be the answer
                                > to balance that problem.

                                This sort of thing has come up a few times before. I think it is a
                                pretty cool idea to have a couple of axis's (how the hell do you write
                                the plural of axis?) that affect what you can do with your nation. It
                                gives the players some more fiddly bits on their stat sheets to play
                                around with without increasing the complexity of the game too much. I
                                do think it should be somewhat under the control of the player and that
                                it should be a visible input to the planning process and not the sort of
                                after the fact 'maybe your orders will work and maybe they wont' thing
                                you are talking about. Maybe an axis for each of military, religious,
                                mercantile, economic factor in your nation with a rating of 1 to 10 or
                                something. High and low ratings in each affect what you can build, how
                                much it costs, chances for QR increases, intel success, etc, etc.
                                Basically another mechanism for players to differentiate the character
                                of their nations in a way that had definite game effects.

                                > And there's nothing to be done about long
                                > turn-arounds - whadda' ya' want for five bucks? And besides, I LIKE
                                > long turn-arounds. When L31 was speeding through it's early turns my
                                > efficiency ratings at work PLUMMETED. <insert sound of bomb falling> I
                                > was real close to dropping out (of L31, not work). My complaint with
                                > turn-around is that I'd like MORE time between getting my statsheet and
                                > having to turn in orders - that's my favorite part of the game. The
                                > planning, the promises, the give-and-take, the wheeling, the dealing,
                                > the threats....I love it!

                                In my experience, if you have the due date more than a month or so out
                                people just put the game on the back burner until a few weeks before the
                                due date and then start planning. So I don't think there is alot to be
                                gained by giving more than 2-4 weeks for plotting, planning and order
                                writing. Clearly an element to the game is how much L0 time you have to
                                allocate. Victory by driving your opponent crazy with email volume?
                                Hmmm - that has promise. I'll confess to schmoozing for an inordinate
                                amount of time with a few people in email with the specific intent of
                                impairing their ability to plan adequately with their allies. Now I
                                just need to figure out how to inflict 100 hour work weeks on Gary
                                (Persia L27) for a month or so and victory will be mine!
                                Bwahahahahahahaha!

                                (snip)
                                >And James...one question...'Zeppelins are fun!'? Where did
                                > THAT come from?!

                                He's talking Lords One where we have these cool high tech zeppelins in
                                the early 1700's. Well, other people have them. The Ming are deprived
                                because Tom is being mean to me. On purpose.

                                Rusty
                              • Edward Allen
                                I ve met him ... From: Dean Patterson To: Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: RE:
                                Message 15 of 21 , Apr 4, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I've met him
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Dean Patterson" <dpatterson@...>
                                  To: <LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:55 PM
                                  Subject: RE: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation


                                  > LOL damn that is harsh
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: Stephen Hogie [mailto:shogie@...]
                                  > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:50 PM
                                  > To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I've known Salter for years and he's still a jerk.
                                  >
                                  > Stephen Hogie
                                  >
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: "Rusty Wallace" <jrustyw@...>
                                  > To: <LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:55 PM
                                  > Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Rob Robbins wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Oh, great! Now I've pissed off L31-Allah (Dave Salter). I
                                  > apologize to
                                  > > > the L31 Islamic players for the coming rain of frogs - my bad.
                                  > > > Seriously, I wasn't grousing about that specific incident, I just
                                  > don't
                                  > > > like the rule and that's the only one I've experienced. Hell,
                                  > having
                                  > > > the Ottomans take off was actually a benefit to Syria and Rum.
                                  > And
                                  > > > Dave, you never have to defend yourself to me. GMs can do
                                  > whatever they
                                  > > > want - the rules are just suggestions as far as I'm concerned.
                                  > >
                                  > > Oh, don't butter him up like that! It'll go straight to his head.
                                  > You
                                  > > have to heap a little abuse on these GM critters every now and again
                                  > to
                                  > > keep them honest. The more the better. I espcially advocate loud
                                  > > tirades made by phone at 1AM.
                                  > >
                                  > > (snip)
                                  > >
                                  > > > Rusty's comments on the 'fight to the death' tendency in LOTE
                                  > were
                                  > > > right on the money, but I can't think of a way to stop it. Most
                                  > of the
                                  > > > time I'm willing to treat with just about anyone, but I've had a
                                  > player
                                  > > > get under my skin before and I wasn't about to stop until he was
                                  > dead,
                                  > > > Dead, DEAD. I've tried to think up a solution to this unrealistic
                                  > > > problem, but I can't.
                                  > >
                                  > > Rules changes through the years have applied alot of pressure to
                                  > this
                                  > > problem. Over time it has become harder and harder to take and hold
                                  > > large chunks of territory (ie obliterate the opposition). But I
                                  > think
                                  > > that in practice the effect has been to encourage the formation of
                                  > > larger alliances and a group approach to dealing with those you want
                                  > > dead, dead, dead. I don't think you can do away with this aspect of
                                  > the
                                  > > game without changing things to the point that you really have a
                                  > > different sort-of-like-Lords game that may or may not appeal to the
                                  > same
                                  > > group of players. I know one of the fun aspects of the game for me
                                  > is
                                  > > crushing the opposition - and you can forget about leaving the poor
                                  > > victim around so I can properly gloat. That only leads to trouble
                                  > later
                                  > > on - probably at the worst possible time.
                                  > >
                                  > > (snip)
                                  > > > The matter of player frustration due to long turn-arounds and my
                                  > > > proposed Estates rule is a serious problem that I hadn't
                                  > considered.
                                  > > > Perhaps it could be compensated for by the various Estates doing
                                  > > > something nice for their country once in a while. Or having them
                                  > cough
                                  > > > up a little extra gold or Nfp or 'Estate Influence' might be the
                                  > answer
                                  > > > to balance that problem.
                                  > >
                                  > > This sort of thing has come up a few times before. I think it is a
                                  > > pretty cool idea to have a couple of axis's (how the hell do you
                                  > write
                                  > > the plural of axis?) that affect what you can do with your nation.
                                  > It
                                  > > gives the players some more fiddly bits on their stat sheets to play
                                  > > around with without increasing the complexity of the game too much.
                                  > I
                                  > > do think it should be somewhat under the control of the player and
                                  > that
                                  > > it should be a visible input to the planning process and not the
                                  > sort of
                                  > > after the fact 'maybe your orders will work and maybe they wont'
                                  > thing
                                  > > you are talking about. Maybe an axis for each of military,
                                  > religious,
                                  > > mercantile, economic factor in your nation with a rating of 1 to 10
                                  > or
                                  > > something. High and low ratings in each affect what you can build,
                                  > how
                                  > > much it costs, chances for QR increases, intel success, etc, etc.
                                  > > Basically another mechanism for players to differentiate the
                                  > character
                                  > > of their nations in a way that had definite game effects.
                                  > >
                                  > > > And there's nothing to be done about long
                                  > > > turn-arounds - whadda' ya' want for five bucks? And besides, I
                                  > LIKE
                                  > > > long turn-arounds. When L31 was speeding through it's early turns
                                  > my
                                  > > > efficiency ratings at work PLUMMETED. <insert sound of bomb
                                  > falling> I
                                  > > > was real close to dropping out (of L31, not work). My complaint
                                  > with
                                  > > > turn-around is that I'd like MORE time between getting my
                                  > statsheet and
                                  > > > having to turn in orders - that's my favorite part of the game.
                                  > The
                                  > > > planning, the promises, the give-and-take, the wheeling, the
                                  > dealing,
                                  > > > the threats....I love it!
                                  > >
                                  > > In my experience, if you have the due date more than a month or so
                                  > out
                                  > > people just put the game on the back burner until a few weeks before
                                  > the
                                  > > due date and then start planning. So I don't think there is alot to
                                  > be
                                  > > gained by giving more than 2-4 weeks for plotting, planning and
                                  > order
                                  > > writing. Clearly an element to the game is how much L0 time you
                                  > have to
                                  > > allocate. Victory by driving your opponent crazy with email volume?
                                  > > Hmmm - that has promise. I'll confess to schmoozing for an
                                  > inordinate
                                  > > amount of time with a few people in email with the specific intent
                                  > of
                                  > > impairing their ability to plan adequately with their allies. Now
                                  > I
                                  > > just need to figure out how to inflict 100 hour work weeks on Gary
                                  > > (Persia L27) for a month or so and victory will be mine!
                                  > > Bwahahahahahahaha!
                                  > >
                                  > > (snip)
                                  > > >And James...one question...'Zeppelins are fun!'? Where did
                                  > > > THAT come from?!
                                  > >
                                  > > He's talking Lords One where we have these cool high tech zeppelins
                                  > in
                                  > > the early 1700's. Well, other people have them. The Ming are
                                  > deprived
                                  > > because Tom is being mean to me. On purpose.
                                  > >
                                  > > Rusty
                                  > >
                                  > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                                  > Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
                                  > > Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
                                  > > in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
                                  > > high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
                                  > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/03IJGA/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/AANVlB/TM
                                  > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  > -_->
                                  > >
                                  > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                  > > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                                  > >
                                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                  > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                  > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  >
                                  >
                                • salterdj@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 4/4/01 11:58:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... You re just saying that because you were impotent for a week after I busted you in Fire in the
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Apr 5, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 4/4/01 11:58:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                    dpatterson@... writes:


                                    >
                                    > I've known Salter for years and he's still a jerk.
                                    >
                                    > Stephen Hogie
                                    >

                                    You're just saying that because you were impotent for a week after I busted
                                    you in Fire in the East.

                                    Wargaming buddies from a long forgotten era,

                                    Dave Salter


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • james gemmill
                                    ... Huh? No I wasn t. Am I the only one who owns his own zeppelin?
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Apr 5, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > (snip)
                                      > >And James...one question...'Zeppelins are fun!'? Where did
                                      > > THAT come from?!
                                      >
                                      > He's talking Lords One where we have these cool high tech zeppelins in

                                      Huh? No I wasn't. Am I the only one who owns his own zeppelin?
                                    • james cochran
                                      must be, wow! Invite us all for a party James.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Apr 5, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        must be, wow! Invite us all for a party James.

                                        > From: james gemmill <jamesgem@...>
                                        > Reply-To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
                                        > To: LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subject: Re: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >> (snip)
                                        >>> And James...one question...'Zeppelins are fun!'? Where did
                                        >>> THAT come from?!
                                        >>
                                        >> He's talking Lords One where we have these cool high tech zeppelins in
                                        >
                                        > Huh? No I wasn't. Am I the only one who owns his own zeppelin?
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                        > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                                        >
                                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Kuo, John
                                        For all you who fear Canadian World Domination... http://www.standonguard.com at James... John
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Apr 5, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          For all you who fear Canadian World Domination...

                                          http://www.standonguard.com

                                          <BG> at James...

                                          John
                                        • Edward Allen
                                          Be Afraid. Be very afraid. ... From: Kuo, John To: Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:05 PM Subject: RE: [LOTE-L] Re:
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Apr 5, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Be Afraid. Be very afraid.
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Kuo, John" <jkuo@...>
                                            To: <LOTE-L@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:05 PM
                                            Subject: RE: [LOTE-L] Re: Spirit of a Nation


                                            > For all you who fear Canadian World Domination...
                                            >
                                            > http://www.standonguard.com
                                            >
                                            > <BG> at James...
                                            >
                                            > John
                                            >
                                            > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                            > Lords of the Earth On-Line: http://www.throneworld.com/lords/
                                            >
                                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • jamesgem@vpl.vancouver.bc.ca
                                            Dear John, Being the good boy that I am, I will respond to this on lote-p It will be a good rant, dripping with the kind of vitriole reserved only for Fridays,
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Apr 6, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear John,

                                              Being the good boy that I am, I will respond to this on lote-p

                                              It will be a good rant, dripping with the kind of vitriole reserved
                                              only for Fridays, in which I will blame the United States for
                                              everything bad in the world, from the cult of mass market consumerism
                                              to Pauley Shore. Yes....especially....Pauley...Shore.... :P

                                              I will go brood now.

                                              --- In LOTE-L@y..., "Kuo, John" <jkuo@s...> wrote:
                                              > For all you who fear Canadian World Domination...
                                              >
                                              > http://www.standonguard.com
                                              >
                                              > <BG> at James...
                                              >
                                              > John
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.