Talk:The Journal

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/skins/common/images/bm-logo.png The Journal
	Discussion Board

Another aspect of this project is that I would like to generate some discussion and maybe even an exchange of tales and views. These days, it isn't really appropriate to have OOC exchanges in-game. Likewise, whilst the discussion list serves its purpose, it's a little too heated for my tastes. Perhaps this little Oasis of Tranquility can become the place for mature and nuanced debate about BattleMaster? I can dream...

Immortality

Death and Glory	.
Dear writer of the Journal, I've played since 2007 and have experienced the highs and lows of extreme character roleplay; that is, seeing a character develop over a long period of time and assume their own little space in the heads of myself and others. First of all, I can understand why everyone fears the idea of their characters dying -- but that is no reason not to put their character in the way of death. My original character, Aerywyn Haerthorne, had come far and became a major player in both the politics, warfare and general life of Arcaea and the main reason I played Battlemaster. He had advanced so far as a character that he and the King were considered to be inseperable juggernaughts (ok, the juggernaught is a bit much, but you get the idea). He died in a duel defending his people's honour about a week after gaining a city for himself at the prime of his life. Whilst a very good character that I sorely miss was removed so suddenly, the character did not disappear. Whilst I fell into a slump in regards to Battlemaster for a little while, if I had thrown him into dangerous struggle I would not built him up as a character, and if I had not done that then he would have lived a safe life instead of dying in a duel he could not refuse. If you played your character well then people will remember them. Now, I am against the idea of mortality for every island on Battlemaster because obviously some people would not like that and it would go further to persuading some to leave a game that is enhanced by their participation. But in regards to Beluaterra I think it captures the mad urgency of everything on a greater level. For a roleplaying reason you could argue that in normal war there are people holding back, the polity of common nobility stopping fellow knights from striking to kill. In Beluaterra you have numerous non-human factions with a completely different view of war which is in turn affecting the humans to make them more... highly strung, in a way. It comes in the greater context of Beluaterra that you are fighting for your life, not just fighting for your honour. But back on the idea of mortality and what it means for characters. Currently I have on character on Beluaterra; King Celyn of the Dominion of Alluran. One of his motivations is to save the lives of his own people, whom he views have been forsaken by the greater morasse of humanity (he did not have a fun time on Dwilight either) and left to the jaws of an invading force to which his kingdom was the first to fall. Twice during the invasion he came close to death, once even falling to critically wounded from wounded because apparently the surgeons botched the job. So he has a healthy fear of death and scorns those who believe honour is everything. As a result he accepts the offer of the monsters and finds solace in the fact that "at least they don't insult us" and figured that they aren't so bad after all. All of this has fleshed him out immensely, down to the fact that if he survies he will have a claim to being one of the hardest nails in the game. That the chances of death are rather high makes that all the more enjoyable. Here is a poem that came to mind as soon as the invasion began. Gather ye rose-buds while ye may, Old Time is still a-flying; And this same flower that smiles today, Tomorrow will be dying. -Robert Herrick (1591-1673), "Momenti mori", my friends.
--Aerywyn 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Estates

Villains finish last.	.
Dear "The Journal" I have a subject you may like to include in your next article. I have been playing a villain character on Dwilight for some time, you may have heard of him he is the Demon of Dwilight, and I think that we players who choose the dark side have hard luck. The question you will address is "what to do with an old character?", what I am wondering is "what to do with a villain character?" Since BM is a social game, playing a villain character bounds the player to failure. Not to say that my villain character is not my favourite, I have had the best times with him, but there is an inevitable doom. What do you think? P.S. I am a big fan of the show! Heh, since this letter I've actually had the pleasure of playing with Bowie. You're right, it is difficult to play a villain character alone. In perfect circumstances before, I've managed to get a few other players in on the act because it's so much easier to do something fun and exciting with a scoundrel than a paragon. Giblot used to amazing for it back in the day, but I'd argue BM isn't as social as it used to be. That's not to say you can't succeed, there are enough people in the world who will do anything for influence or position no matter how unpalatable they find the person they're working with. But finding people with the confidence and desire to play around with villainous characters these days? It's hard. Perhaps it's not the experience everywhere, but it feels like too often people RP and chatter into complete silence nowadays. People don't appreciate the flavour. --Revan 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Define "villain". My character Jenred is considered to be a villain by many on the Far East. Or, I should say, /was/ considered a villain by many, before he destroyed their realms, and either had them killed or forced them to flee before the executioners. Most of Arcachon no doubt believes he is dastardly. But, he has a strongly devoted following and is undoubtedly the most powerful character on the island right now, with a huge amount of roleplay and many friends. Malcolm Bedwyr was once described by a political ally as a "man who could hide genocide behind his smile" and she is quite correct. Alistaire Bedwyr was a traitorous "mercenary" who sold his services to the highest bidder while raking in gold from the realms he spied on to feed his monstrous appetites. The secret, like with all accomplished villains, is good public relations. I would be happy to share a few tips and such, but not in public...Don't want to give away /too/ many of my secrets. Shwartzring 02:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
D.west.ton

Expansionary Wars...	.
...are not the only kind of war there is. In Dwilight, for example, the Averoth/Astrum war, the Raivan/Morek war, the current Xinhai/Aquilegia wars are not expansionary in any way. That is less so on other continents, but I think it's part of what makes Dwilight different. To be honest, I find Dwilight to be very challenging to enjoy and I don't think normal wars would change that. Either way, at the time I wrote that article there was certainly a lot of avoidance of wars of conquest simply because realms couldn't afford the new regions. Even a couple of months ago in Mesh, folk were looking covetously at the rogue regions on the Enweil border but the truth of the matter is that neither realm was or had been in any position to touch them in a long, long time simply because of estates and Beluaterra's small number of nobles. --Revan 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I am in full agreement with the estates issues. On the Far East I am in the incredibly frustrating position of having a political situation where I could conquer most of the island, the military power to support it, the friends in the right places to make my foes crumble...And not enough nobles to hold what I can take. Half of the problem I have on Atamara convincing one of my realms to get up and do something is that we can barely hold what we have. Estates were good when we were overpopulated...Not so much with the rampant underpopulation. Shwartzring 02:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
vonGenf 09:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

General Comments	.
I look forward to your other articles. Your current one has already sparked some ideas in the bm dev channel on IRC. I've always thought we needed to recruit more players. However, my attempts at this brought in the typical Nighthawk624 player, so I ditched it. If you have ideas(in addition to feature requests to solve this problem/I take it a simple remove estates is what you're proposing?) to aid recruitment, I would be happy to read them. Oh, and good luck bringing the battlemaster discussion from the mailing list to wiki. :P VonGenf, let us think this through carefully. While I'm not saying you are wrong, it could likely be that the reason those wars weren't expansionary is because there weren't estates to hold the lands so they had to go for an alternative style. This is not necessary bad or good. I do think less expansionary wars would be a good thing, but they should still exist. Of course. What I want to say is that it is a good thing that different islands have different estate coverage, since that leads to different dynamics. Part of what I understood from the article is that the reporter thinks the amount of warring is directly proportional to estate coverage, and I disagree with that. It is true for expansionary wars, but lack of possible expansion leads to creativity. I think variations among the islands is a good thing, and a simple removal of estates would remove a lot of that variation. vonGenf 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Remove estates, amalgamate estate functions, allow Knights to set up estates remotely, even allow region lords to set up estates they don't have for increasingly ludicrous and expensive prices. Either way, I think anything that removes/softens structural, OOC obstacles from the BattleMaster equation would be beautiful. Who knows, perhaps something has even changed already that I haven't even noticed >.< --Revan 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Done!	.
I'd just like to say "Well Done" to you on your new paper. I hope that we can see more analyses on other game aspects in the future. Once suggestion: Your articles will probably generate quite a bit of discussion. (At least I hope so!) I would suggest adding a new discussion link to your article that points to a sub-page specifically for discussion of that article. That would separate discussion for issues, and allow your main page discussion to be specifically for general comments on the paper itself. Thanks :-) We'll have to see if I haven't left it too long though or indeed, if I can bring myself to keep going before I get on that though. I think your suggestion will be the way forward however. --Revan 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
--Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)