[DGD] Feudalism

[Raymond Jennings]

Mostly there were two reasons I figured the highest levels might need staff
run

1.  Game balance, as a check to make sure the person who leads the group
isn't breaking theme or otherwise abusing their IC position in ways that
are OOCly inappropriate.

2.  Continuity.

Do you agree with either of these, and can you think of anything for or
against?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Schmidt, Stephen <schmidsj at union.edu>
wrote:

> 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
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>