Talk:Serious Medieval Atmosphere

Perhaps one bullet should include something to the effect of: "Keep it real and reasonable: Badgers do not invade, and doughnuts haven't been invented yet. Things like this are inappropriate." - Filador

Hmm yes. But also other things. Dont start to invent electricity and please avoid making your character a god who can fly. And for sake of god. NO advy loving just because they get you uniques!!! --M2rt 17:41, 6 January 2008 (CET)

Talking about Class IC

Class is one of those quasi-OOC things that's very difficult to get around talking about when you're trying your hardest to RP seriously. We should really try to come up with some standard guidelines for talking about it in purely IC terms...but I haven't been able to come up with anything in the few minutes I've been thinking about it, and this seems like a good forum to discuss it in. Thoughts? --Anaris 18:39, 6 January 2008 (CET)

Class isn't the only thing that falls on this IC/OOC border. Turn change and other such things, as well. Coordinating your military moves is difficult enough without having to give orders like "We attack at dawn, three days hence!" Given that the players are spread around the world, they all have different ideas of what time it is now, let alone dawn will be in three days. I know that some players like to call them "ticks" instead of "turns", but that's just a euphemism, and I dislike it even more than I dislike just calling them turns. But what can you do? BattleMaster is an inherently turn-driven game, and too many things are just too difficult to refer to without using the specific OOC terms.

As far as class goes, I'm not sure how you could refer to it without directly using the OOC terms. Perhaps the ruler would just be to not refer to it at all. After all, it is something that our characters wouldn't be aware of. I think the best idea is to simply ignore character classes altogether. --Indirik 14:09, 7 January 2008 (CET)

There are some things that you can't avoid talking about in OOC terms, like turns, but I'm a fan of using an IC point of view whenever possible. Knights are the standard class, so there is rarely a need to use the term. I consider cavaliers and heroes to be the same as knights from an IC view, but my character will get offended if someone asks him to do civil work. Trader, bureaucrat, and priest are nearly impossible to get around. Infiltrator should probably never be used as the family page says that they are a trader or bureaucrat and I doubt they would be in a great hurry to let everyone know of their true line of work. Just my two cents. Fredrich 16:09, 7 January 2008 (CET)

I consider how class is referred to as purely character driven. While two of my characters refer to bureaucrats as bureaucrats, the other one fondly refers to them as 'quill pushers'. Class isn't necessarily OOC as all (Though a 'Hero' can be a little hazy). As for turns, the IC mechanism for that is already built in: Sunrise and sunset. You could call them dawn and dusk, morning and evening or whatever your character prefers. -Balewind

Hmm. You can always say he has a Hero status or is considered one / claims to be one. I'm sure thats doable. As for Sunrise / Sunset thing: I have to agree. Its already built in and should give a good IC way to talk about turns. Its even listed at the Character Screen what time of the day it is (ie: It is currently Night. Sunrise is in 5 hours, 55 minutes (server time: 0:05)) as reference for those that might get confused - Bart 00:08, 8 January 2008 (CET)

I'd thought there was discussion a while back of getting rid of a couple classes. Traders and bureaucrats as they are now were not things that nobles did. That's pretty much true of the entire Middle Ages and all of Europe. There were nobles that were better stewards than others, but actual surveying or actual caravan buying and food trading would've been done by bourgeois or clerics. I realize this is a significant game change and I'm not current on the d-list, but the 'fun' and 'glorious' parts of being noble more or less exclude a class specifically designed for trading and bureaucratic work. Roll these into the regular 'knight' class. --Aquitaine 14:37, 10 January 2008

Titles

This information is extensively covered in the Roleplaying Primer.

Have found this in the world wide wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styles_and_titles_of_peers could be useful if you need to change/spice your roleplay up if you dont want to say the same thign over and over again. ScottSabin 18:19, 17 January 2008 (CET)

The above link is good, but it should be noted that that is the 'current' style of address and that they have changed some over the years, so neither group is really prescriptive. --Aquitaine 10:14, 18 January EST

No Nonsense

Outer Tilog is a long-standing exception to this rule; should this be officially recognized on this page? I know there are also players who want to recreate the Outer Tilog atmosphere on Dwilight, too. AlexTurner 04:31, 7 January 2008 (CET)

If you want the Outer Tilog atmosphere, then join Outer Tilog, not Dwilight. I see no particular reason to duplicate a realm on another island. As soon as Tom starts handing out exceptions to one realm, then other realms are going to start asking for their own exemptions as well. --Indirik 13:32, 7 January 2008 (CET)

Does this include duplicating religions?

From other islands? It shouldn't. It's SMA-sensible that a noble would carry his religion with him from another island. Atleast as far as I can tell. --Kag 09:22, 6 September 2008 (CEST)

Fear

"# that means being afraid (at least a little) of being wounded or killed " I must disagree with this somewhat, at least that it doesn't have to show. This almost seems like saying its ok for a noble to refuse and order into battle because he is afraid. This is also not to mention that there we a few of those "fearless" people, or barbarians. To say the least, if I were in a midevil society and my leader showed an ounce of fear, I'd no longer have confidence in them.--Athins 05:05, 7 January 2008 (CET)

Having fear doesn't mean you must show it. Good leaders know how to hide their fears, only idiots lack fear. -Chénier 05:23, 7 January 2008 (CET)

I think it means doing completely unreasonable things if the game mechanics were not in place. For example, moving into an occupied region without a unit just to get scout reports because the game makes it impossible for you to be captured, or taunting a judge to the point that he threatens torture, but continuing without concern for your life. Yes, some people might be crazy enough to do these things, but they are more the exception. Fredrich 16:09, 7 January 2008 (CET)

What if we were to enable death for all classes on Dwilight only? Then people might have some *real* fear of bad things happening to their characters, and play accordingly, rather than hero-heading and accepting rampant infiltrators because the only way non-heroes can die is execution. DorianGray 05:46, 8 January 2008 (CET)

Idiots and vikings. Metsamees 14:46, 7 January 2008 (CET)

That's just glorifying the vikings. Idiots and drunks, though, if you preffer. -Chénier 07:21, 8 January 2008 (CET)

Well in viking religion, (which they believed, i think) death isnt the end, if you lead a honorable life and die in battle you go to heaven. (you could get to heaven, just by leading a honorable life, but the death in battle gained alot of plus points). Then again, i suppose you cant override your instincts. (the last message i left here i have no recall, i think i was in a non-optimal state, perhaps drunk or half asleep or something, for even i dont understand what i meant by, "idiots, in what end?" question, sorry about that)Metsamees 10:32, 6 September 2008 (CEST)

Tips for running a hardcore RP realm

Some more Dos and Donts, though particularly for administering an RP-heavy realm. There is already a Do/Dont list that is geared towards personal RP and character development; this is geared more towards your attitude as a player. Add to it.

• 1) Indicate in your realm summary that you expect at least thirty seconds' effort in choosing a medieval name, and that characters obviously named after comic book, movie, video game, or other out-of-context figures will be asked to leave and/or OOC banned. (if this is continent-wide for Dwilight then it wouldn't be necessary for the realm summary - Aq)
• 2) Do not lecture your realm on 'what it was like in the middle ages.' Rely on a concise set of material in the Wiki that answers most common disputes relating to 'how things really were' inasmuch as that is relevant to BM. (also: write that stuff on the Wiki, or revisit what's already there). This will be key. Otherwise we'll be repeating the same arguments over and over in-game.
• 3) The moment someone brings up 'peasants' rights' or 'equality,' have them drawn and quartered.
• 4) In addition to whatever is on the wiki, realize that even professional writers with backgrounds in medieval studies or creative writing do research to figure out how 'nobles' behaved. A serious commitment to a 'real' medieval setting requires at least a mild dedication to dorkdom.
• 5) Refrain from using terms like 'gang bang' or even 'gang up' or any other phrase that suggests a realm is a sports team.
• 6) LOL, ;-), ROFL, and pwned were not part of Henry V's vocabulary, and he could've gotten away with any of them if he'd felt like it. He didn't.
• 7) Acknowledge that part of thinking like a noble 'in character' is to stop thinking like a person in the 21st century.

--Aquitaine, 10 January 14:28

Knights and Last Names

Now, I don't claim to be a medieval expert (though I could probably rustle some up), but my understanding of the etiquette of the period suggests that mere knights—just Sir—should be addressed as "Sir Firstname", or, when being more formal than usual, "Sir Firstname of Region". If you were on friendly enough terms with them to drop the Sir, then, I believe, you would refer to them simply as Lastname. --Anaris 16:34, 14 January 2008 (CET)

Anaris is correct. John Smith would be Sir John as a knight or Lord Smith (or Lord <place>) as a lord. --Aquitaine 16:56, 14 January 2008

Can we get a clarification from Tom as to whether Sir Firstname will get you a warning/ban/deportation? Indirik seems to think you'll get a warning. --Fodder 15:13, 19 January 2008 (CET)

Lords and nobles were almost always known by their first name (look in history, you will find it very hard to even find a last name of this time period.) Nobles were known by their first name, followed by where they are from. eg. Eleanor of Castile, Gersend of Forcalquier, Eleanor of Aquitaine. A lord would commonly be known by first name and title. eg. John, King of England, Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou, Thomas I, Count of Savoy. Centauri 02:29, 18 January 2008 (CET)

Actually, if you look at the Domesday Book (first draft completed in 1086) you can find a good number of land holders with a last name (Robert Gernon), along with some with a name, followed by where they were from (Picot of Cambridge), and even some were known by their vocation (Otto the Goldsmith). --Tinsley 06:01, 18 January 2008 (CET)

Read those names, 90% of them or more are just a first name, followed by their home region. Yes there are a few that would have a last name, and some that would have their profession as their last name, but in general specific last names like we have now just didn't exist on a wide scale basis. Centauri 11:25, 18 January 2008 (CET)

The Domesday Book contains a lot of very minor nobles (ranks below "lord" like Vidame, Chatelain, Seigneur or Sire) and the common practice of "Ser John" versus "Lord Smith" did not come around until later, as there weren't many Orders of Knighthood in 1066, which is really very early in the Middle Ages. They were certainly not "always known by their first name' -- on official documents they would put their full name (e.g. Geoffrey du Plantagenet, Count of Anjou) but as this section was referring to mode of address, that would not be correct. It would be extremely formal to address a lord by his full name and title -- which was sometimes called for, but you wouldn't call your suzerain by his full title all of the time. Again, the Domesday book is not a good indicator of medieval forms of address, largely because it is so early on in the Feudal era that most of these things hadn't developed yet. --Aquitaine 16:25, 18 January 2008 (CET)

I agree that the Domesday Book (DB) is not a good indicator of medieval forms of address, not because it is so early on in the Feudal era, but that it is more of a land census. I was merely pointing out that there are more than just first names for the land holders listed in the DB, which is one of the more accessible documents available to us from that era. Since Tom has indicated that "the timeframe (on Dwilight) can be anything between 700 and 1500 or so", I was just tossing the DB out there as a sort of middle of the era resource. Through this discussion I have become more aware of how my characters address other chars, even though I won't be on Dwilight. Thanks. --Tinsley 17:04, 18 January 2008 (CET)

Names like are seen in BM weren't actually used until very late middle ages. You were named after where you were born, were you lived, your profession, your father, your achievements, your traits, etc. It wasn't passed down from generation to generation, and clans didn't share a common last name, only a common ancestor. -Chénier 18:28, 18 January 2008 (CET)

That is simply not correct. Nobles were not named after professions or achievements. Their style often had something to do with either of those, but that was something that they either chose or was chosen for them by their peers -- they still had proper names, though. Being named for a profession or your father's profession happened with commoners. Nobles might be referred to as "Bohemond son of Robert Guiscard" rather than Bohemond de Hauteville in some primary sources, but since this article is about addressing a noble in a letter or to his face, you would not refer to them that way (nor is the term "clans" even applicable). This is now semantics to the point of hilarity, and in the context of BM's "dark ages all the way through the renaissance" window of acceptable behavior, I doubt it really matters. -Aquitaine 17:10, 19 January 2008 (CET)

I never restricted what I am saying down to nobles only. Clan is applicable in some places, such as Scotland, though I am not sure since when nor where else (other than Ireland, of course). My clan still exists today, though not in the same way it did back then. Most of what you say doesn't even contradict my statements. -Chénier 17:59, 19 January 2008 (CET)

Quite frankly: I couldn't care less whether lastname or firstname is the proper way. As long as people start to use something better than "hey, john", I'm happy. If any realms want to establish conventions, that's fine with me, too. --Tom 18:05, 19 January 2008 (CET)

Equitte, Does it apply in private discussions?

If a discussion proceeds in private between two nobles, my common sense would be that some aspects of SMA can be dropped if desired. This would primarily be using frank and direct language. That is to say, would it be fine to insult or dress a nobles down in private, because you expressing yourself in a private, non-public manner? In this manner dissatisfaction is made clear without harming the reputation of the other noble. -- Soulblighter 19:13, 7 April 2008 (CEST)

Of course you need to be careful when adressing your social superiors in private. If Kammar is a count and a regular knight addresses him as 'Kammar', then he would very much take offense. A regular knight showing less than very formal respect to a /duke/ should expect to suffer seriousconsequences in return. A regular knight being in any way insulting to a duke would need a very close and very powerful friend in court to not have income, social status and any chance of advancement stripped from him. We as democratic people and our 'all are equal' based thinking cannot really understand social status (= the worth of your blood and of your station) of the middle ages - then that was /all/ that mattered.TanSerrai 19:33, 7 April 2008 (CEST)

In case of doubt, you would always be formal, just to be safe. You never know who is listening. --Tom 08:21, 8 April 2008 (CEST)

To clarify myself somewhat: My above post refers to two nobles of different station who are /not/ close friends. If two nobles are close friends and converse in private, I assume that they would be a bit less fixated on using full titles. In public, I very much doubt that a lesser noble could easily omit using full titles without hurting the standing of his superior. For two nobles who dislike each other, if the lesser noble does /not/ want to gravely insult his superior, then he would certainly use all titles. /If/ he wants to insult him, then he'd be free to use whatever he wants. Bottomline: A lesser noble who is not a close friend of one of higher station and omits full titles should certainly not be surprised if the superior is seriously miffed...TanSerrai 14:46, 8 April 2008 (CEST)

Everything must be European - yet some Dwilight region names sound Chinese

Looking at the regions currently held by the realm of Morek:

Donghaiwei

Bohai

Donghai

Linhai

Taishan

Zhongyuan

Caiyun

Cailyn

Apart from the final one, which sounds more Welsh, the rest of those sound very very Chinese, and very very not European. As a result, I believe it makes some sense to name certain things - such as the natives, existing buildings, landmarks or anything which wasn't brought with them by the colonists, in a similar fashion. Naming regions with Chinese names seems rather unkind if you then want us to roleplay that we're in a sort of Europe. A region name of Zhongyuan seems rather inappropriate for something that is meant to be European. Anyway, since the whole place is named in a Chinese way, I'll be finding numerous Chinese-sounding things in the realm, I suspect. Psymann 18:36, 11 April 2008 (CEST)

Monsters, Undead, and Daimons

Various people have expressed the view that monsters, undead, and Daimons violate SMA by their very presence. I think we need to add something to the page refuting this view, and explaining that SMA is meant to apply to how our characters act and react, not how the world behaves. Something along the lines of:

While it is true that real medieval nobles did not have to deal with monsters, undead, and Daimons, all of these were things that they believed existed. Furthermore, the purpose of the Serious Medieval Atmosphere is not to restrict what the game can do or say, but to restrict how our characters act and react to the things that happen to them. Thus, the question is not, "How do monsters and undead fit with SMA?" but rather, "How would my character, with the personality and experiences of a medieval noble, react to monsters and undead, given that they are real in the world of BattleMaster?"

...that general idea, anyway. --Anaris 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)