Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by Greentongue

I think it is the different expectations between ...
This is a "Wargame" were one side wins and the other loses. How do we WIN?
-vs-
This is a "Story" and my character is the Hero. How do I WIN?

The implication is that in a Story the Hero never loses, at least not permanently.
Things are made "exciting" not "deadly" by the GM.

As you likely know, a Wargame is more deadly.
The GM is not trying to kill you but the opponents are.

chirine ba kal, you did say there were to main play groups, is this the division (or one of) between them?
=

I'm sorry; I'm not sure what your question is. I think I may have been describing Phil's two groups, which were split between our Thursday Night group and the bulk of Phil's original players.

The split, which is documented in Gary Fine's book - he was a player in Phil's group at the time - was between the guys who liked to have a lot - and I do mean a lot - of inter-player conflict going in the group. As OG has mentioned, back-stabbing, double-dealing, and a lot of pretty outre trouble-making was what they liked to do. They used to get into all sorts of trouble, and cause Phil all sorts of problems - one of them was the guy who zapped an Imperial Princess with an Eye, for example.

A number of us were not too happy with this play style, and we really wanted to just explore Phil's world. Jim Danielson, Rick Bjugen, and I asked Phil is we could have our own group, with the understanding that we would not like to have the same sort of malarky going on, and he agreed. OG and several other players moved over into our group as well, and off we went. We had a very 'cooperative' play style, where we all had our own objectives and goals but still made sure that there was something for everyone. Phil was initially a little apprehensive about the group, but once he realized that it was 'us against Tekumel' and not 'us against Phil', things got much better and we had a lot of fun. My two groups were the same as ours at Phil's, so we had three groups running back in the day with the same philosophy.

The other group was just as 'tactically minded' as we were, but the difference was that they were all out to get each other, no matter what the cost and how much havoc it caused in the world-setting.

Does this help, or have I muddied the waters?

Originally Posted by AsenRG

In a word, great!


Of course only weapon arts would have this attitude. It's funny, though, since they also contain unarmed elements, grappling at a minimum.
So this means these practitioners also probably see their weapons as signs of status, wealth and/or skill.


Noted. Still, they are likely to also use weapons whenever possible, because you know, weapons are better than not having an weapon. At the very least, the victim has less time to shout out.


Note to self, Tsolyani courts suck!


Would they provide additional training to a good recruit? That's likely to become a point in the campaign I started tonight!
My answer is that they would if you prove yourself. It's not going to change, just wondering how close it is to canon.


Were there any mechanical differences between them in the system you were using at the time?
And I'd expect them all to have combat skills, but some of them would have codified ones and schools, while the rest rely on collections of techniques passed down in a less formal and structured ways.
It helps that I cannot name any place or people that didn't have such traditions...


Sounds more like fidayin of the Ismaili Nizari, if you ask me! Given the known inspirations for T`ekumel including Central Asia, it makes sense.
Which is not to say less competent than ninjas, maybe even the opposite.

Taking it from the top, if I may...

Oh, yes, very much so. Warriors with 'prestige' weapons tended to try to lord it over the people with the 'oh-so-common' weapons all the time; usually, it was because they were also rich aristocrats with a high social status. A lot of them got dead - sometimes at my hands - as quite often their social and weapons skills were a lot less then their arrogance and annoyance. I once killed a guy at his own clan house for being rude (to two Imperial Princes, as well as the rest of the guests) and wound up being thanked by the guy's clan for relieving them of a nasty family problem.

Agreed; the assassins' clans have all sorts of useful specialist weapons, and they do use them a lot. It's why I stay on very good terms with them...

The Tsolyani court system is not a great venue for settling disputes; normally the clans and temples and anybody else get together and try to settle disputes as far away from the courts as they can. The courts do hear cases when nobody can agree on anything - we once sat as a Tsolyani court out at Phil's, trying a property dispute case that Phil had been sent from a GM in the UK. The Imperial Government is very 'hands off'; about the only cases that they start are for things like treason and tax evasion, and they tend to move very quickly to deal with the problem. Prisons for 'ordinary criminals' are rare, and usually people like this get executed pretty quickly.

The assassins' clans are resorted to when the courts fail to deliver a judgement; they take on cases for pay, although I had several cases where they took on the cases out of a sense of outrage over some crime that had been committed.

And yes, the clans to 'recruit'; you have to have the right letters of introduction, and know the right people. They do teach some of their less secret martial arts for a fee, but again you have to have an introduction and know the right people - they don't take in folks from off the street. One would not get taught the more recondite skills, but they will give a favored pupil a good grounding in a martial art. Of course, one is then under an obligation to the clan and might be asked to do a 'favor', but that's all to the good - you get more adventures, that way! It's very 'canon', at least in Phil's games.

There were no game mechanics differences between martial arts in EPT, but there were in S&G; I'd have to look in T:EPT and "Gardasiyal" to see if there are...

And I do think you have it nailed down, too...

Amazing! I thought that OG and I would be the only ones to think of the Ismaili - we assumed, back in the day, that they were what Phil was referring to, as he was right up front about not knowing all that much about feudal Japan. (He once gave me some static about using Ral Partha 'ninjas' for Black Y and Ndalu people on the game table - he wanted to know why I didn't have any 'proper' assassins...

Originally Posted by Bren

Yes, and?

And I have no tolerance for players who act stupid. And yes, there are players who seem to like to do the stupidest thing possible, and screech like an anime schoolgirl when things go badly for them.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

I suspect Been means the third style of "I'm big, tough and strong, so CHARGE! Because everything is a nail, right?"
In other words, the character knows less than the player about tactics.

There is a difference between "not knowing tactics" and "being stupid." I've seen too many players use "not knowing tactics" as an excuse for "being stupid."

This happens in wargames too, but there is less tolerance for it. The inexperienced player is expected to learn, not whine.

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

And I have no tolerance for players who act stupid. And yes, there are players who seem to like to do the stupidest thing possible, and screech like an anime schoolgirl when things go badly for them.

Not at all what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

I suspect Been means the third style of "I'm big, tough and strong, so CHARGE! Because everything is a nail, right?"
In other words, the character knows less than the player about tactics.

Yes, what I was describing includes this and occasionally the reverse which is actually harder to simulate.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

I think it is the different expectations between ...
This is a "Wargame" were one side wins and the other loses. How do we WIN?
-vs-
This is a "Story" and my character is the Hero. How do I WIN?

I was talking about neither of those two situations, but a third situation which is a simulation of setting and character. The GM "plays" the setting and the player "plays" the character. If the character is the sort to charge frontally he does, even if that is less than optimal. If the character is the sort to hang back and try for a clear shot with a missile weapon or a flank attack he does that, even when it may be less than optimal. If the character is a skilled, intelligent tactician, then he makes optimal tactical choices in line with his background and talents.

This is different than "Wargame" where every player picks the most optimal tactics they can think of regardless of character traits and abilities and it is different than "Story" where tactics don't really matter since "the play's the thing" and the heroes will succeed or fail based on what makes for a more interesting story and the tactics are just part of the painted scrim that forms the backdrop for outr Story - or should I say, The Play.

And the character simulation I am describing has nothing to do with the sorts of twit players who say "of course I drink from the fountain/pull the lever/open the door without looking first and without bothering to tell anyone what I am doing" or the sort of whiny crybabies who think their big bad PC should succeed at everything, always.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

The other group was just as 'tactically minded' as we were, but the difference was that they were all out to get each other, no matter what the cost and how much havoc it caused in the world-setting.

Yes, been there done that, have the T-shirt. I like the occasional interparty conflict so that the PCs don't just sound like a STNG captain's meeting at the conference table or a bunch of BORG, but the actual stab you in the back just cause your not looking style of play is less interesting to me and we all gave it up while we were still teenagers.