[Poll] Give Us Grit

[Silrie]

I can't agree that Charali and Hillman should have their rites to not be murdered or assaulted removed. They are difficult enough to play as it is sometimes when it comes to the social scene. Being allowed to just pkill a character because they're Charali and they looked at you a bit too long for your liking is not cool. If Lithmore is supposed to be all benevolent in the sense that they wish to educate the heathen races and tolerate them, how is turning around and allowing them to be indiscriminately murdered do anything but reflect badly on Lithmore itself? Why would Lithmore ever, if it's brought into play again, want to colonize a land, and how do they think that would not break out in war when the plainspeople learn that Lithmore, the city that would want to "guide" them, allows their kind to be murdered on whims?

[Zeita]

I think that the theme as written is mostly gritty enough (except for a few pressure points such as the aforementioned education) as played... it rarely matches up to those expectations. People are benevolent, friendly, helpful, moderate and carry a too-modern mindset. Everyone wants to be the special person that can rise above it, which works until everyone is doing it and those hewing closer to the theme are the exceptions rather than the rules and people get the awkward treatment for carrying out actions that are perfectly in theme.

Silrie: I'd agree that laws on maltreatment of Charali and Hillmen shouldn't be removed. (although perhaps a different set of laws?) However, the benevolence that you reference is one of the things that I'd personally like to move around from, but not to a murderous extent. Further, Hillmen and Charali technically aren't Freemen even now from my take on things- they're non-citizens and would be about on par with peasants in terms of rights.

Why would Lithmore want to colonise a land? For the memory of Dav, for the glory of the Lord of the Springs and in the name of the Queen. Lithmore is an expansionistic, zealous nation that would see the natural order of things as a Lithmorran banner fluttering over the world and everyone supping from the Chalice. Also, much as real life colonisation, to exploit the local resources, whether human, natural or what have you and for noble titles to be carved out of the lands. The Charali and Hillman populations, being tribal, are too small, too disorganised and with too many intertribal disputes to put up much resistance to a concerted effort on a macro level.

Gritty rumors- meh, not super engaging but I can't see it hurting, so sure, why not? A bigger issue to my mind is judiciously and proactively culling the unthematic and modern mindset rumors if they remain as representative of the 'voice of the community'.

I'm in line with Pixie's stance on condensing down law of Caring and Charity and adding in some grey area.

Lithmorran slavery - I'm okay with not having slavery (peasantry is close enough as it is), although I wouldn't mind a shift in perspective on it.

Removing silver purchase - yes please. I've long had a 'no silver purchasing' house rule on my characters as it makes money meaningful to my characters and a potential pressure point.

GL Guide - Sure, that would be handy.

GL Tests - No thanks.

Overall, I think I'm more inclined to a darker theme than most- so take the above with as many grains of salt as are needed for taste.

[Annalesa]

Editted:

My blunt opinion is this:

I feel like real life is hard and gritty enough without having to worry about stuff like that on a game that we come to play for fun and to tell interactive stories.

We burn people at the stake, have a magical terrorist organization on the loose currently from what I've seen and heard, and other things. I had to RP out treating severe burn wounds for weeks, had to RP amputating somebody's foot less than a month ago, I've had to RP being beheaded twice, I've had to RP being interrogated by the Order multiple times, etc.

If this game isn't gritty enough for you, then play an ex-slave that works in the Peacock or a heretic/mage that is blunt about it. I promise that the game will get gritty *reallly* quick.

P.S. Disclaimer: this is MY view on things. YMMV. And it's essentially that if you like things a bit grittier like I do, then actively work to make it grittier for yourself. It's pretty easy on this mud.

[BattleJenkins]

So, first up, I'm going to say that I'm generally not a fan of grittiness myself. I definitely think that grittiness is definitely over-represented in terms of the settings available in RP MUDs.

That being said, as always, I think it's always best to try and go direct to the 'why' of the problem here. Which is to say, there seems to be a perception that the game isn't "gritty" enough. Why is this a problem? Is this even the problem? Will a grittier setting necessitate more conflict and engaging RP naturally? I would argue not - I played on a game that was so bleak and gritty there was no conflict at all because there was no point in even trying. So, then, what even is the appeal of a gritty setting? I would argue that the idea at the heart of the want for a gritty setting is a fairly optimistic one. People want to be able to fight against and rise above oppressive systems, to be able to engage with the feeling of perseverance and hope that goes with it. But too often, we ask our players not to try to prevail against a corrupt and inhumane order, but to willfully and gleefully participate in it, the primary reason given being for it to be to the benefit of the theme - and, indeed, for there to be a significant antagonist presence to fight against, as the game's design necessitates that everything in the game be player-driven.

Usually when I go on a little spiel like this, I end it by presenting a path to a solution. But do I have a solution to this problem? No, I do not. I can't think of a way this problem can be solved without the game becoming fundamentally different than what it is at its core - all I can do is ask that, when presenting solutions and new ideas, please try to keep in mind the many reasons why people might play games like this, what sort of game TI:Legacy aims to be, and what cost is willing to be paid to bring the game closer to its vision and potentially narrow its appeal.

[Misstery]

With respect to the law of caring and charity, I'd like to see people singled out for not abiding by it. Shaming people for not tithing or not donating to charity.

Also, pvents are a great way to inject theme, grit and a variety of things. They could use an update and this might be a good avenue. If there is a way to target them based on class that might be good too. A freeman might get a: today a gentry spat at you for being in their way -or- a noble might get, farmers in your domain are complaining about wheat prices... (Bad examples but hopeful my point comes across).

I dislike staff started rumors for lots of reasons unless it's a major public event. They should not target characters but give people something to add to.

Gritty and thematic STs could come with a QP bonus to encourage people to run them, perhaps?

[Pixie]

Also, pvents are a great way to inject theme, grit and a variety of things. They could use an update and this might be a good avenue. If there is a way to target them based on class that might be good too. A freeman might get a: today a gentry spat at you for being in their way -or- a noble might get, farmers in your domain are complaining about wheat prices... (Bad examples but hopeful my point comes across).

... I love this.

[Zeita]

+1 on Misstery's idea of class (and even extend it to race, faith, gender and guild...) targetting in pvents.

[chronodbu]

I'm in agreeance with the ideas of eliminating universal education. It doesn't really feel right to the setting for Freemen.

Also really like the idea of tweaking the Laws of Caring and Giving in the way Pixie described. Wouldn't do away with them entirely because that really kind of does shape the theme of the religion and Lithmorran society, but removing Caring and grouping it into Charity -does- sound rather enticing as an idea.

[Dice]

I'm seeing this disconnect where people are saying "I don't want more grit", but also supporting a lot of the policies listed in the post (if not all of them). I think that grit is a fuzzy and imprecise term, and it may be doing more harm than good.

Me, I don't want a crueler, nastier theme, which is one way to look at grit - I want a theme that is 1) more internally coherent and consistent, and 2) that is designed to empower and create small-scale, non-lethal conflict with both the environment and other PCs so that we can be more easily and naturally entertained without having to rely on large-scale plots and mayhem all the time.

So that's why I support a lack of universal education, for point 1, and why I support the idea of an environmental threat, for point 2, but I personally don't feel adding slavery to Lithmore would do much to create conflict - it'd just make the world nastier, which in and of itself doesn't feel like a valuable end goal. (Especially for players, and reasons, like BattleJenkins mentioned.)

I think we should disentangle the idea of a meaner theme from a theme that is designed to empower conflict, and be driven by the latter, rather than the former.

[Silrie]

I'm seeing this disconnect where people are saying "I don't want more grit", but also supporting a lot of the policies listed in the post (if not all of them). I think that grit is a fuzzy and imprecise term, and it may be doing more harm than good.

Me, I don't want a crueler, nastier theme, which is one way to look at grit - I want a theme that is 1) more internally coherent and consistent, and 2) that is designed to empower and create small-scale, non-lethal conflict with both the environment and other PCs so that we can be more easily and naturally entertained without having to rely on large-scale plots and mayhem all the time.

So that's why I support a lack of universal education, for point 1, and why I support the idea of an environmental threat, for point 2, but I personally don't feel adding slavery to Lithmore would do much to create conflict - it'd just make the world nastier, which in and of itself doesn't feel like a valuable end goal. (Especially for players, and reasons, like BattleJenkins mentioned.)

I think we should disentangle the idea of a meaner theme from a theme that is designed to empower conflict, and be driven by the latter, rather than the former.

This. I know I love some of the thematic ideas proposed here to an extent. Some feel as if they can promote thematic conflict and realism while others just feel like they'd promote thematic cruelty and nastiness in a game that, while dark, should still be fun and not a "so when will I die now that I'm just a Charali with no rights to protection from murder" sort of thing. Fun for the player, I mean; I realize Lithmore's not sunshine and roses. Especially not for the barbarian races, etc.

Good thing they've been closed in my opinion. I fear they'll appeal to many even less if that sort of disregard is enforced.

So aye, I'm all for conflict, but a bit wary of just how cruel and nasty that will go beneath the label of theme.