[DGD] Feudalism

[Schmidt, Stephen]

seems to me the upper levels are the fun ones and should go to players

I can see a case for having the King be staff-run, if you want to use that
as a way of maintaining stability. But it also means the players cannot
aspire to be King - and if not, what's the point?   :)

Steve


On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The side topic about feudalism was a little off topic, but only because it
> could mostly be googled.  I was looking more for a brief summary and
> confirm/refute of if I got it right.
>
> As far as gameplay goes, yeah.
>
> This might well be why on ICO, the "king" (aka Don) is played by a staff
> run NPC.
>
> Come to think of it, most of the roles you suggested NPCing were at the
> bottom end of the totem pole, but I completely forgot to ask about the
> upper levels.
>
> Any thought about having some of the ones at the top end treated
> similiarly?
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Schmidt, Stephen <schmidsj at union.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > This is getting a bit off the topic of this list. I'll make this reply to
> > the list, but suggest that it go to private email if it continues further
> > (unless other list members think it should be here).
> >
> > The feudal system operated for 500 to 1000 years, depending on your
> > definition of "feudal", over most of Europe. Given that range of time and
> > place, it operated in a lot of different variations. At some risk of
> > reputation, let me quote Wikipedia's article on feudalism: "There is no
> > commonly accepted modern definition of feudalism, at least among
> scholars."
> > But with that caveat, I think the essence of feudalism is that there is a
> > noble class which controls the agricultural working class (and artisans
> and
> > merchants to a rather lesser degree) and within that noble class, there
> is
> > a hierarchical relationship of lords and vassals, with the king at the
> top
> > of the pyramid and the minor nobility at the bottom, with each (male
> adult)
> > member of the noble class controlling a defined portion of the land and
> > workers more or less unconditionally. There is also the question of how
> the
> > clerical class fits into the system, but I think the concept of feudalism
> > is relatively independent of that part of the social arrangements.
> >
> > In some places the king is very strong and controls the lords firmly
> (17th
> > century France) and in others the king is very weak and the lords very
> > powerful (15th century England). Which version you get depends on the
> exact
> > nature of the obligations between the king and the lords, and between the
> > lords and the vassals under them.
> >
> > For the purpose of a game (trying desperately to bring this back to
> topic,
> > and probably not succeeding ;)  I think a strong-king concept is not
> good;
> > it leads to one player telling everyone else what to do. The weak-king,
> > strong-lords version leaves a lot more room for game play.
> >
> > For a game, assuming there'll be maybe 50 or so regular players, probably
> > having about three levels makes sense. An upper level of experienced and
> > connected players who have reasonable chances of being at the top of the
> > pyramid; a middle level of players who have some experience and are
> working
> > their way up towards the upper level; and a lower level of newbies and
> > casual players. Anything below that level is NPCs. Serfs NPCs, knights
> PCs.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So I'm still a bit curious here.
> > >
> > > How much detail should be here?
> > >
> > > I know that knights with serfs under them swear fealty to barons who in
> > > turn supply them as soldiers for the king...at least according to the
> > > multiple sources I've researched.
> > >
> > > Stephen...is that pretty much accurate?
> > >
> > > And on the side, what's a good level of detail to present?
> > >
> > > And relatedly, how much of those lower roles should be NPCed or PCed?
> > > Maybe it would be a good idea to allow players to act as the serfs, and
> > > maybe not.
> > >
> > > How much detail should go into a lord's management of his lackeys?
> > should
> > > the knights be NPCs?  Should the serfs be NPCs?
> > >
> > > At least on ICO, PCs act as "representatives", and the jobs people work
> > for
> > > their guilds generate tokens that represent resources and influence
> with
> > > NPCs in the same trade as the PC.
> > >
> > > Do you think it would be a good idea for PCs to act as "delegates" of a
> > > sort for the various pools of NPCs that surely exist in the world along
> > > side the characters?
> > >
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd