How To Have a War

[RogueGunslinger]

People asking for another war are funny. Get in there and join the militia. What do you think the city-states have been doing this entire time?

Not feeling enough impact from the last war? Stop playing characters that are unconnected, unmotivated, and uninspiring. It is not enough to make a patriotic "I hate Allanak" character. You have to LIVE and BREATH it. Every think, feel, and emote around those heathen bastards should excrete your loathing, and every moment spent away from them should be in planning their demise.

I'm sick of people wanting things spoon-fed to them. We had that already, and it takes all of you to REACT to that knuckle-sandwich you just ate in order to make things feel relevant to your character.

[BadSkeelz]

React to what? It's not as simple as not enough people joining the militia. There's vritually nothing to actually fight over. A crew of ten PCs isn't going to be able to attack a village or fortress with dozens, if not hundreds of soldiers inside.

Much as I'm generally against wanting Staff to carry the burden of what happens in the game, as the game world is currently set up the War can't actually happen without massive staff investment.

[Delirium]

Precisely.

PCs can stir up all the minor plots and create all the conflict they want, but reflecting an ongoing war requires staff support.

[RogueGunslinger]

Staff aren't going to support what the players aren't doing. That was my point about joining the militia, or making a Templar. Instead of people asking themselves what the next step should be, and trying to do it, they're asking for hand-outs.

The staff assistance comes after someone tries to do something, not beforehand. If there are no PC's in the gameworld banding together and trying to get shit done I'm not exactly sure what you expect staff to do.

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

[Delirium]

I...

... nevermind.

[Bushranger]

That's what I get for making a war games response to Nyr's blatant opening?

Relax RGS. I can assure you I am not asking staff to create a war without being active in game!

[RogueGunslinger]

That's what I get for making a war games response to Nyr's blatant opening?

Relax RGS. I can assure you I am not asking staff to create a war without being active in game!

Your post is not the one I was responding to.

WE NEED A WAR

Agreed, or at least more effects from that battle.

[BadSkeelz]

I think you're grossly over-estimating just how much authority PCs actually have. There's nothing any PC role can do that meaningfully propels the war without massive staff assistance before hand. Asking PC Templars of either City State to fight the war on their own is like asking Is Friday to take his platoon of marines and invade Iran.

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

[RogueGunslinger]

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

I hear a lot of talk about the copper war, and the rebellion. People seemed to love those plot-lines. How did -that- work? What is a sensible way to conduct a war?

[KankWhisperer]

I think you're grossly over-estimating just how much authority PCs actually have. There's nothing any PC role can do that meaningfully propels the war without massive staff assistance before hand. Asking PC Templars of either City State to fight the war on their own is like asking Is Friday to take his platoon of marines and invade Iran.

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

Yup. When you get some rank there's a lot of reminders that you are still nothing in the grand scheme of things and don't matter. Also there is a lot of pressure to keep the status quo in my opinion.

[Gimfalisette]

I hear a lot of talk about the copper war, and the rebellion. People seemed to love those plot-lines. How did -that- work? What is a sensible way to conduct a war?

The Copper War really only lasted a few weeks...like 3, I think. There was quite a bit of build-up to it, with people doing scouting and stuff, but the war itself was short. Then there weren't really any aftereffects other than posturing within the city states.

I wasn't around for the Rebellion. My impression is that it was an extended time period where there was...an occupation, and a rebellion. And plot stuff happened within that. But the beginning and the end of the rebellion were staff-led.

[RogueGunslinger]

I guess I just don't understand what people want out of staff. They seem to think it's up to staff to get shit going, well, what do we need to ask them to do?

[KankWhisperer]

The rebellion had staff supported hideouts well within striking distance of their enemy.  Fighting across the known is tedious.

[Barsook]

Maybe we need more player ran plots that deal with this war, whatever it is called?

[KankWhisperer]

I guess I just don't understand what people want out of staff. They seem to think it's up to staff to get shit going, well, what do we need to ask them to do?

They can stop telling me to chill.

[Gimfalisette]

RGS: I was just trying to clarify. I'm on the "start your own plots" side of things, largely. I love staff support when I get it, but I try to organize my play so that it's not necessary. Yes, I too love wars and all that (though to be honest my characters have pretty much always missed out on the action in every HRPT), but I'm fairly content with the clan or regional level of conflict.

[Molten Heart]

I guess I just don't understand what people want out of staff. They seem to think it's up to staff to get shit going, well, what do we need to ask them to do?

I think they want the world to act rather than react.  They want a war (or something exciting) that they can take a part in, not architect it all themselves, because frankly, they just don't have the tools for that.

[BadSkeelz]

Make another PC vs PC skirmish? Okay but how does that actually add anything sustainable? How does that add anything more to the game than the last HRPT?

This is the real rub, though: the very notion of a war between the two city-states is NOT sustainable. They have no conflicting interests aside from figuring out which Sorcerer King has a bigger dick. Their economies are sustained by autonomous merchant houses with inviolate neutrality. Both cities have very good local reasons to not want to march large portions of their armies off to get annihilated.

Drafting all the local idiots in to the militia and then crashing them against the opposing number of idiots as a form of population control actually is the most sensible conduct for the War.

I hear a lot of talk about the copper war, and the rebellion. People seemed to love those plot-lines. How did -that- work? What is a sensible way to conduct a war?

Re: Copper War: There was a resource to be fought over. Once the resource was suitably exploited/exhausted, the war ended.

For carrying on a long-term state of war, I think you need to rework what the concept of War between city states means in Zalanthas. The big battles and complete subjugation of one city or another are arguably anachronistic. Certainly they'd be the exception, not the rule. Small unit actions, possibly mutually arranged between Templars as a means for garnishing their own honor, make a lot more sense and are a lot more achievable in game than what we typically think of as a "War" RPT.

ofcourse nyr retconned honor of the warrior docs so this'll never happen *single tear*

[Narf]

If you want to have a PC driven war, you need to think small.

Get a gang war going. You can have player driven sortes whenever you want, you don't have to travel across the known to find the people you're fighting, players can make significant differences in the outcome.

Make the pond smaller, and you get to eventually be a big fish.

[FreeRangeVestric]

I'll put a huge disclaimer on this and say I've never been involved in PVP that much. But knowing what I know about the code, it's hard for me to imagine a situation where the side that gets the upper hand doesn't just go in and vindictively slaughter the side that's losing. I have no idea how it would be done, but if there was a way to stage an encounter so that it would end with more injuries than deaths, I think that would go a long way to more realistic, sustainable conflict between the cities.

Maybe if there was some set-up where there would be something like 1-3 PCs from each side per room? Again, I don't really see a way that could be enforced without some painfully un-zalanthan "Warrior Code," but I think it would be more manageable than what I can only imagine the ungodly text-wall that 20+ PCs fighting in a single room must be like.

[Is Friday]

RGS: Without giving much away of "behind the curtain" in Armageddon, I'll state a few problems with your idea of war being possible with just PCs.

1.) PC leadership exists on a low/middle tier. Even Blue Robe Templar PCs aren't making big-wig decisions. Let's say a Templar is in charge of 100 soldiers. Hypothetically there's 5,000 soldiers in the "Naki Loyalists". That means there's 50 Templars, give or take. Let's say there's one Red Robe per 10-15 Blue Robes. That means your PC Templars are basically Joe Schmoe in a sea of other Schmoes. Keep in mind that Templars, while educated and given a great deal of authority, would abide by the will of their superiors for fear of lightning bolts.
2.) PC Leadership that isn't nobility is even further down on this list of importance.
3.) Objectives that are worthwhile are likely guarded by 500+ soldiers.
4.) Good luck capturing anything with a 1/5 ratio. You'd need staff support to bring together more resources to accomplish much of anything.

Part of the game is being the tall, muscular man. You're not a super hero. You're just a dude in the cog. These sorts of events can be inspired by or nurtured by PCs, but in the scheme of things... you definitely need staff to enact change.

[Patuk]

I have this nagging urge to pull the ultimate gdb douchebag move and tell you to be the change, rgs, but I won't. That saying was and is useless.

I will instead ask for your advice.

What can people do in the first place to make the war more exciting?

You've told us how nobody is 'entitled' to staff support etc etc despite this being a staff-started war and so forth and so forth but what I've failed to hear is any concrete advice.

What would you do if you juuuust so happened to be playing a sergeant, and wanted to make the war more exciting?

I'm rather excited to hear, because if any of our sergeant players read this and agree, shit might actually get real.

[KankWhisperer]

RGS: Without giving much away of "behind the curtain" in Armageddon, I'll state a few problems with your idea of war being possible with just PCs.

1.) PC leadership exists on a low/middle tier. Even Blue Robe Templar PCs aren't making big-wig decisions. Let's say a Templar is in charge of 100 soldiers. Hypothetically there's 5,000 soldiers in the "Naki Loyalists". That means there's 50 Templars, give or take. Let's say there's one Red Robe per 10-15 Blue Robes. That means your PC Templars are basically Joe Schmoe in a sea of other Schmoes. Keep in mind that Templars, while educated and given a great deal of authority, would abide by the will of their superiors for fear of lightning bolts.
2.) PC Leadership that isn't nobility is even further down on this list of importance.
3.) Objectives that are worthwhile are likely guarded by 500+ soldiers.
4.) Good luck capturing anything with a 1/5 ratio. You'd need staff support to bring together more resources to accomplish much of anything.

Part of the game is being the tall, muscular man. You're not a super hero. You're just a dude in the cog. These sorts of events can be inspired by or nurtured by PCs, but in the scheme of things... you definitely need staff to enact change.

The problem is these usually very conservative NPCS that don't let anyone advance up in rank. Since they are immortal and all. You're in the organization for twenty IC years, you'd move up just by chance and people dying. They'd have to advance you because someone needs to do it. So people start gaining real power and doing stuff. People start over reaching and causing problems and getting in over their head? Good. I think that's what usually causes wars. Somehow this idiot got to the top.

[BadSkeelz]

I'll put a huge disclaimer on this and say I've never been involved in PVP that much. But knowing what I know about the code, it's hard for me to imagine a situation where the side that gets the upper hand doesn't just go in and vindictively slaughter the side that's losing. I have no idea how it would be done, but if there was a way to stage an encounter so that it would end with more injuries than deaths, I think that would go a long way to more realistic, sustainable conflict between the cities.

Maybe if there was some set-up where there would be something like 1-3 PC' from each side per room? Again, I don't really see a way that could be enforced without some painfully un-zalanthan "Warrior Code," but I think it would be more manageable than what I can only imagine the ungodly text-wall that 20+ PCs fighting in a single room must be like.

For the "10 PCs on 1" combat zerg problem:

Everyone else should just roleplay samurais like I do, walking around shouting your name and lineage until you receive an honorable challenge.

Swirdsnabsuo is the solution. Change the culture, not the code.

[MeTekillot]

There's nothing stopping you from advancing in rank except hard work. Well, I mean, you become virtual/an NPC once you get so high, but you're not being stopped.

Maybe let stored players quasi-play their stored characters by occasionally submitting reports with how they would react to world situations?


Or uh, don't store high rank players but that requires a lot of staff work and I've noticed a pattern with things that have that.