Interesting; Gary said the same thing to Phil back in '74, and had Phil change the 'Stability/Change' thing to 'Good /Evil', as Gary didn't think that gamers would be able to understand the nuances of the former - too many shades of grey - and would be more comfortable with the simpler black and white divisions of the latter.Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel
Someone, on another thread on this forum, posted that part of the problem with "selling" Tekumel to a wider audience was that social interaction between classes and clans was so alien to the Western experience, that it often turned off prospective players (paraphrasing one of his arguments). He specifically referenced the relationship with Highborn and Lowborn persons. One of the things he mentioned was that, essentially a Highborn person could do whatever they wanted to someone "beneath" them, and so long as restitution was offered they could always get away with it. Although I realize that strict adherence to "one's place" is the norm, and that one "knows their place" in Tsolyani society, and money talks, and all that, I still found it kind of hard to accept that this would be common every day behaviour: to get beaten up or killed because a person of lower status addressed a person of higher status (the example used). A Vriddi may be top dog in Fasiltum, but if one of their clansmen goes around continuously stepping on, and beating up everyone beneath them they're going to eventually stir up a hornet's nest and probably get a knife in their back. I'm not so sure that this would lead to a viable long term game.
This got me wondering. During the time that you played in Phil's game did this come up very often; i.e., were people of higher social class continuously bullying and kicking those lower on the social totem pole? How important (from 1 to 10 with 10 being the most) was social etiquette in the game? Was this relationship maintained even amongst party members?
Shemek
The kind of thing that you're describing - I haven't seen the particular post, sorry - where a higher person can bully a lower person is the kind of simplistic thing that people seem to like. The concept that a higher person would not do this, and take advantage of their social position, seems to be very difficult for gamers - American gamers, in particular - to grasp. It's the good guys vs. bad guys concept, and a very common stereotype that's easy to play and easy to comprehend. What I've found very interesting, over the decades I've been doing this, is that non-American gamers don't seem to have this issue; see the previous post, for example. I have also not had this issue in my own game groups, but then the gamers I normally play with have a different viewpoint then most. See also Gronan's comments on learning this in Phil's campaign.
As for your questions:
No. It was not 'noble action', and was considered rude and unsophisticated. People who did it, like player-characters in the Monday group, faced all sorts of social sanctions for doing it. We learned not to in short order, and did very well as a result.
Maybe a four or five; like the supposed use of languages, it didn't figure in play except where it was needed in the course of a particular game session. Once we'd learned the ropes, as it were, it was assumed that we were being polite.
No. In the culture, once people establish their friendship, they are normally more 'informal'. Same thing inside the family circle, as well. See also Chirine's relationship with Vrisa; he's a relative nobody, and she's royalty. In a normal social situation, they'd never really interact, but because they are friends they are very informal with each other. There's also the facet of their relationship that she's his hired mercenary, of course. Socially, she usually stayed in the mercenary role, and used her vastly higher social status when it helped the two of them out, like in the Nyemsel Isles.
Bookmarks