[DGD] Feudalism

[Schmidt, Stephen]

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?
>