Anuire vs. the crushing force of history

[X-SRT (Tallak)]

The title aside, I have a question to pose to you gentlemen (and gentlewomen...). How does Ruins of Empire deal with the relationship between Anuirean culture and real-world history? Or rather, how have you dealt with it in the past?

I've been rummaging around the forum, and I have read some threads on various subjects pertaining to this. Most of them posted by Robert. Noble titles, dowries, etc. This is a discussion I've been having for years in several PBeMs, mostly over at LEBR. Normally, I am the one calling for historical models for Birthright. Yet from what I've read here, I may actually be a "moderate" compared to Robert and his ilk, especially concerning the matter of "right" and "wrong". I have seen the Anuirean setting described as "wrong" in several places. This is a position I fundamentally disagree with, since it is a fantasy setting that does not claim to be a recreation of any historical society. If something is "wrong", it brings up several academically difficult questions as to what is "right". Personally, I much rather favour plugging the holes of the setting (of which there are many) with simplifications of real-world historical examples that serve the purpose of the game.

Anyway, I'm ranting. I don't wish to change anything. What I would appreciate is to hear how the good people of his game have approached this problem in the past, and what solutions you have come up with.

- Tallak

[X-DM Jon]

It hasn't really been that focused... Each player contributed in his way and tried to drag the game somewhere he felt it should be. Whilst the DM just dragged everything down. I'd say we were playing in a variety of the 30 years war, with all Anuire up in arms against each other. The grand civil conflict!

 I personally tried to go UN on everyone and created the Conclave of Temples
 How's that for historicity!

 To get a feel for the old game you can always look at the old webpage & forum www.ruinsofempire.twilightpeaks.net


 Personally I like to see the game develop as it goes along, allowing this game to be pulled both back in a "Roman Empire" style of world and/or forwards into a nationscape of modernity. It can go both ways now, as the "evil monsters out there" have been beaten soundly.
 EDIT: Or any which way the players decide to drag it. Theocracy anyone? Guilder rule? Something completely different? Most likely it'll just limp along like always.

 And since we're playing within a relatively short span of years (a generation or three in total), I think it's fine that research and evolution don't play that large a part.

[X-Roesone/ARR (Robert)]

Yup... I'm an ultra-conservative right wing hawk in this matter, but the good news for gen pop is that I never have enough votes to form a government, so I can rant and rant and hope that the powers that Be(jorn) will listen to a proposal here and there

Those I've sent letters to probably noticed that I pay strict attention to salutations, intitulations etc like I described in the noble guide. Not that Aruvor speaks like that, but his scribes do

Also, these scribes tend to translate "Greetings Aruvor" in a letter coming from a non-family member or a non-close-personal friend as "You commoner pig" so be warned everyone

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

If historical accuracy is fun, then I agree with it.  If it offers story ideas I love it.  If it means a player posting derogatory comments because another player's character is an unmarried women in trousers and thus historically would be considered a whore, then history gets binned in my view...

My view is that in RL history there were no gods, no magic, no monsters, no shadow world.  As such a lot of things will be different - and blindly saying that history should be followed ignoring such differences indicates that the speaker may know 'what' happened but fails to understand 'why' it happened.

[X-Roesone/ARR (Robert)]

If historical accuracy is fun, then I agree with it.  If it offers story ideas I love it.  If it means a player posting derogatory comments because another player's character is an unmarried women in trousers and thus historically would be considered a whore, then history gets binned in my view...

That I'd never do, unless my character is a chauvinist  or the woman happens to be a demihuman and I happen to be a racist at the time etc.

In any case, to put Tallak's concerns at ease a bit, the focus of my posts was to enrich the game, not dictate it. If players don't want to use "by the Grace of Haelyn" or "To his highborn highness" they don't have to. My chracter might react badly to it, or might not, he's a chaotic former mercenary anyway (or I might get a fit of self-roleplaying between scribes and the lawful types in my administration and the baron hehe).

Also with things such as dowry or engagement contracts this is where I try to provide a historical basis. Its perfectly ok for Tristan Bellamie to be a concerned parent and NOT let his daughter marry on account of the husband being too old (when in fact in the middle ages that was hardly ever an issue), for example. But my example provides a basis for those players who might like the idea of sealing alliances with engagement contracts, exchanges of children and who may not have heard of this medieval practice from other sources.

[X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby)]

Technically, it's because you're a sanctimonious bastard who nevertheless manages to be fine with his ally having tried to assassinate me rather than work with me when I was you two's vassal.  But you being an old fart is a more diplomatic excuse.   

I suspect there'll be a lot of adaptation and borrowing going on in the first few turns, as far as communications protocol goes.  Most folks aren't terribly accustomed to such manners of speaking.  Over a few turns, I expect people will adopt a couple different ways of opening and closing their dispatches.  I suggest letting your character be an example and accepting that some people just don't work that way.

[X-SRT (Tallak)]

Let me first say, I didn't actually have any concerns. per se. I'm just interested in hearing how you have approached the "problem".

I'm personally in favour of using historical examples to "fill in the gaps" if you will, or even change things for the better if people agree that it is obviously so. I'm also in favour of having everything on the table - if something will be considered putting your foot in your mouth by an NPC, players whose characters would know, ought to be informed beforehand. I wouldn't like to see a repeat of the infamous "Imperial Bench" incident of Lebr 3 (most of you won't know this, but a player assumed the existence of this judicial body based on its existence in medieval France, and there was a bit of an argument).

[DM B]

Let me first say, I didn't actually have any concerns. per se. I'm just interested in hearing how you have approached the "problem".

I'm personally in favour of using historical examples to "fill in the gaps" if you will, or even change things for the better if people agree that it is obviously so. I'm also in favour of having everything on the table - if something will be considered putting your foot in your mouth by an NPC, players whose characters would know, ought to be informed beforehand. I wouldn't like to see a repeat of the infamous "Imperial Bench" incident of Lebr 3 (most of you won't know this, but a player assumed the existence of this judicial body based on its existence in medieval France, and there was a bit of an argument).

I very much agree to this. This is a FANTASY game, set in a FANTASY world that so happens to RESEMBLE medieval Europe. But it isn't a recreation of Earth...not in history, geography, religion, magic, etc. etc. and if those things are not exact copies, I see no reason to spend endless hours debating Earth medieval law, or if characters should have surnames or not 

But Earth is an excellent source of inspiration for filling in the gaps! The name thread, the feuds, the marriages...all have added to the game as sources of inspiration.

Oh, and being the Dm doesn't just let me make the rules...it also lets me define the setting, so if anything doesn't fit, I can always comment on it.

[X-DM Jon]

Yessss, concerns won't show up until later in the game   
 At the end of RoE I, I was very concerned with the Reformists. They just didn't seem to understand that the orthodoxy was the way of the righteous... Very concerning indeed.

As such the game is very open. Nothing's in the game that hasn't been decided upon by the DM's or players. And the world of RoE is a wartorn place, where the strong hold the reigns and the weak seek protection under their wings.
 Which means you call the shots. There are no convoluted social rules you have to follow, simply because you make them and break them at your leisure (and by the tenets of your alignment obviously).

 This means that RoE so far has seen several vanilla BR iconic ideas fall under the feet of some determined player (or NPC for that matter). The Gorgon was defeated. The Eyeless One cast out. Several of the awnsheglien beaten, killed or converted. Gavin Tael of Ghoere killed in his bed... Diemed ressurrected... Osoerde ruling all eastern Anuire and loosing it again...
 All of Anuire covered in bloody war most of the time...

 All bets are off so to speak. Well... Apart from the four turn grace period obviously