Gaining a noble title

[Mike Ventrella]

But so what? As long as the players we make nobles earn it, deserve it, and keep the good of the game in heart, why is this a bad thing?

If your game is intended to cater or focus around nobles with titles, and you have a higher percentage of players achieving nobility to facilitate that, then the likelihood is that your threshold for achievement is likely lower. Not necessarily "bad lower", but lower overall, simply because the needs of the game demand it. So the phrase "they earned it" has substantive contextual difference which does not necessarily translate to equivalent effort.

I think Mark's OP was intended to discuss what differences exist amongst chapters as to what constitutes "earning it".

Well, I certainly couldn't disagree with that more. Our standards for becoming a noble are quite high and players spend years getting titles, and some never do (which has caused some OOG problems). We have a larger player base than most other chapters, and have been around many more years as well, and run an event a month which is more than many other chapters do. We therefore have a larger group of talented players to choose from and more events in which to test them. To imply that our standards must be lower simply because we have more nobles is, well, insulting.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

But so what? As long as the players we make nobles earn it, deserve it, and keep the good of the game in heart, why is this a bad thing?

As JP said, the thrust of this thread is about what constitutes 'earning it' or 'deserve it.' Should it be 100% IG actions and RP? Should it be 90% IG actions and 10% downtime submissions? Should it be 10% IG actions, 90% donations?

My personal feeling is that it should be almost entirely IG actions since it is possible to have a totally different 'written personality' via downtime submissions as it does to being face to face and dealing with people. I also feel that game support should have zero factor in it as you already gain a benefit from that (Goblin Stamps). It also stops someone whom the players don't respect from becoming one simply because they can buy their way in (although it is a historic way of becoming a noble).

In addition, I also think that personal feelings of the player should be kept out of it. If he's a huge jerk out of game but actually plays a noble character in game - shouldn't he be allowed to be one? I mean, our slogan is be all that you can't be. And it's not like a higher NPC noble couldn't come in some time and strip him of his title if he acts up.

I agree with this. And in fact, we certainly have had nobles in Ashbury who did things behind the scenes that were, well, not very noble-like but never got caught IG. That is absolutely fine.

The biggest OOG consideration is whether the person makes a lot of events. We won't make someone a noble who can't show up to 80% of the events.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

However you don't need to be the gm's girlfriend to help out your chapter. Yes, sometimes favoritism happens, but it's been my experience that it is the squeaky wheel that contributes the least (not always, but often). I do think that PC nobles should have some responsibility to help give back to the game though helping the chapter and leading by example.

Sometimes people see favoritism where it doesn't exist, too. Joe Player runs logistics. He shows up to every event, helps set up and take down and clean, donates spell packets, helps on props days, promotes the game, and helps train new players. When that person also gets a noble title, sometimes other players will say "Well, it's because he's a staff member" when the fact that he does all those things was not even part of the decision to be a noble.

 

[RiddickDale]

I don't think there is any way to fully address the OP without taking specific examples of people with Noble titles in various chapters and specifically disecting the plot staff's decision to grant them the title.

Otherwise we'll all go around in circles talking about the how high or low each other chapters' standards are. I don't really see that as all that productive. You don't really get to score "standards" without an actual data set to work with.

I'd like to participate in the discussion, but I'd like some information if I could.


We obviously need to respect that each game takes place in its own area. This leaves plenty of room for thematic variation. But, how many nobles per chapter is "too many"? Is there a magic ratio?

 

[tolgar undershaft]

In the chapter I consider my "home," if you are a PC noble, you are now customer service in that chapter. That, to my mind, is the best way to have a PC noble because the player now has a vested interest in other people's good times. They can still be shady characters, but OOG help the people running plot and desk to keep a good pace and distribution of plot.

Whereas I feel exactly the opposite. IG power should not be tied to how much OOG benefit you give the GM. It's the 'GM's Girlfriend Syndrome' that plagues certain other larps rather badly, and is frustrating to deal with.

However you don't need to be the gm's girlfriend to help out your chapter. Yes, sometimes favoritism happens, but it's been my experience that it is the squeaky wheel that contributes the least (not always, but often). I do think that PC nobles should have some responsibility to help give back to the game though helping the chapter and leading by example.

I do not agree with this! It should be everyones goal to help the chapter anyway they can. I know I have made many last minute props, by request, for game and usually give up my thursday before an event to do so. I constantly ask plot if there is anything they need me to make to help add flavor to the game. Do I expect to have my char progress because of this? NO! We get gobbies for donations and assisting plot/staff with time spent organizing boxes or fixing weapons. That is your reward. Anything that is given in game such as titles should be based off RP, IG, OOG actions your charcter has taken.

 

[Gilwing]

I think people have to remember that the adventuring class is the "cream of the crop". We are not the every day commoner, not the farm hand or the bar keep, the cook or the server. So it makes sense that a lot of people become nobles.

 

[jpariury]

We have a larger player base than most other chapters, and have been around many more years as well, and run an event a month which is more than many other chapters do. We therefore have a larger group of talented players to choose from and more events in which to test them. To imply that our standards must be lower simply because we have more nobles is, well, insulting.

I want to be clear here, I am not suggesting that you are doing anything wrong, just that per your own statements, your game is directed more towards a court-centric theme, and that you (probably) have a greater number pc-noble:non-noble ratio:

Ashbury has always strived for a more high fantasy King Arthur type of game, where the plot heavily revolves around the doings of the nobles and their courts.<snip> (P)ercentage wise, yes, we probably have a lot more nobility than other Alliance games.

Running larger games doesn't equate to having a higher percentage of PC nobles. (For example: if chapter A has 10 players of which 1 is a noble, it doesn't stand to reason that if they had 20 players, they should have 4 nobles - double the population doesn't suggest double the percentage.) (Maybe you didn't mean percentage?)

Running more events might, though, I'd need to think about it.

To be even more clear, I'm not asking anyone to justify their games. Whether or not the actuality of effort is equitable (I don't even know how you would measure that), if there is a higher percentage in one chapter vs another, to Duder walking in, it would seem that the higher percentage chapter has lower standards (again, not low standards - just lower-than-chapter X). Being one among thirty is substantially more significant than being one among five, right?

I also feel that game support should have zero factor in it as you already gain a benefit from that (Goblin Stamps).

I disagree. Game support isn't just giving stuff to a chapter. Game support is playing a character that facilitates the story plot wishes to tell. Game support is creating a play environment that is inviting to new players. Neither of those are Goblin Stamp-rewarded. To give an example, Bryan Gregory plays a character who has become a Baron. Even setting aside all his out-of-game contributions to the game (marshalling, donations, policy improvement, etc. - all of which generate specific goblin stamp rewards), the character he plays is pretty inviting - he seeks out new players and takes them under his wing as apprentices left and right, teaching them the ropes both in-game AND out-of-game, giving them pointers on how to improve their gameplay, costuming, and overall ability to experience the game. He makes the game better and promotes it through good sportsmanship and good customer service, of his own volition. You can't really reward that in a meaningful way with Goblin Stamps, and that is a player you would want to be able to point to and say "this guy plays one of our top characters".

In addition, I also think that personal feelings of the player should be kept out of it. If he's a huge jerk out of game but actually plays a noble character in game - shouldn't he be allowed to be one?

No, because if he's a huge jerk out-of-game, he's probably pushing existing players and potential players away from participating, and I believe that characters who are given noble titles need to be played by players who draw more people in (even if their character acts as a foil to other characters). If someone spends half their time kvetching about the NPCs and plotline to anyone who will listen, complains about every rules call, and in general makes the out-of-game experience of attending the event unpleasant, you definitely don't want them as a noble in your game.

Nobles are the most visible representations of what your game has to offer. A few people might know who Bob the Farmer is, but everyone sees or has to deal with Duke PoopyMcPants. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying if your shining examples of good social gaming are the peasants, and your noble lineage is filled with jack-a-moles, something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

 

[dreadpiratebill]

As one of the PC Nobles in the game, and as a very regular player on the East Coast, and as a staff member in two chapters, I have a few opinions on how players attain a title.

The first is that I belive that a character and player have to earn it. Your character must demonstrate the qualities expected of a noble while earning it through IG actions. This can be done in many ways, with the most traditional being squireship to an existing Noble. Squires are meant as Nobles in training, who's daily life is a test of their values and leadership skills. This should, and does take time, usually a few years. Some squires never pass beyond that.

Others gain titles for IG actions that went above and beyond the duties that a common citizen should ever undertake. These titles are usually things like Lords and the such. Others suddenly find themselves squires after these actions.

However skilled the IG actions tho I belive a Noble title must also be earned on an OOG level. The player has to be someone the Plot and staff of the chapter feel can be trusted to help use their new position to make the game a better place for all. I am not saying Titles should be quid pro quo, but the player must be of the right caliber, and dedicated to making the game better as a whole.

To avoid any accusations I'll give the story of how I got my Title: After being a spy for three years in HQ, one of the villains of the plotline escaped to NH, where he used a great power to enslave the last city of my character's people. I spend the next year going chapter to chapter seeking aid and research to find a way to defeat him and came up empty handed until the last moment. I did made it my mission to free that city, and after one big event all about that city, and where I went all out, the city was saved, the people freed.

I found out over the winter off season of that year that IG the Kingdom was rewarding me efforts by naming me a Lord of the City, with rank equal to a knight within the city, and a Lord outside it. With the city joining the kingdom the following year, my title makes me a minor noble at events. It is a constant source of political and RP strife, and a very interesting turn of events for me as a player.

I laer found out after talking to the chapter's owner that one of the reason's they made the choice to promote my character was they knew the way I played would create story and entertainment just by the changes my presence now as a noble would cause. Its the highest compliment I could have gotten.

--bill

 

[Jevedor]

how many nobles per chapter is "too many"? Is there a magic ratio?

Personally i dont think there is a threshold of too many. I think its really only an issue if they mistreat the significance of the title. I dont care if there is 1 noble or 10 nobles in town, my expectation is the same. That those players act as a nobles. If they do not then they should be stripped of title. The significance of a noble is that they represent, help the community and are consistent in their actions. It is their presence, just as much as any other characters, that gives the IG world realism. However, particularly with nobles, they stand for an achievement both IG and OOG, and they need to be a shining example of that achievement, so that those following them are inspired to themselves achieve.

People are gifted titles when the plot team generally feels they are worthy of it, and in the spirit of the game, I would expect that the plot team uses their best discretion to gift such a title appropiotely to people who deserve it. I can imagine that bias "could occur" but chances are that when its a collective plot teams decision, bias will get out weighed by group/team debate, and such an occurrence wont pass through plot until its collectively agreed on.. I don't think it would be very good practice for plot teams to start doing things that the other plot members are not okay with. So regardless of impression of bias I am quite comfortable stating that I highly doubt much bias plays into the selection of a noble, but rather the actions of that individual in their own merit is the deciding factor. Now if a player is a great OOG player I think you will find the IG they tend to be equally good at what they do. They could be "shady" characters but I'm sure they are also good at hiding that when needing to. So from an IG perspective these characters will still tend to be highly likely to be considered for nobility when the time comes. I am not surprised at all that many nobles hold OOG positions, but its a reflection of interest not bias.

As far as being watered down... it again comes back to how the players represent their noble title. If they all act as their title should dictate I dont think it would be an issue. I think what could cause the "watered down" impression is when the expectations of what that title represents is not 100% clear to everyone else. If I think a title of a certain position means that that person with that title should be acting one way, and they are not... it changes my view of those who put that person in that position. So it could water down my opinion of nobility, but that is a reflection upon my impression of how nobility should work not nobility itself. ... Now if a large body is having the exact same impression of the same person in that same role, then perhaps that person is not living up to their title, and such a thing should be reviewed. ... But again it comes back to the quality of nobles not the quantity.

EDIT:

I would also like to add that to date, I cant think of anyone who I thought did not deserve their title. I whole heartedly feel that while the ways each individual plays their noble may differ I have yet to meet one I did not enjoy interacting with OOG... and I have yet to meet one who did not do their best to fulfill the role their title dictated.

 

[markusdark]

I also feel that game support should have zero factor in it as you already gain a benefit from that (Goblin Stamps).

I disagree. Game support isn't just giving stuff to a chapter. Game support is playing a character that facilitates the story plot wishes to tell. Game support is creating a play environment that is inviting to new players. Neither of those are Goblin Stamp-rewarded.

I see those items though as IG actions. I had meant OOG support. I am talking about deciding to give Leroy a noble title because he donates 1,000 gobbies worth of stuff a month while IG he drops character about 50% of the time and most of the other characters and players don't respect him.

In addition, I also think that personal feelings of the player should be kept out of it. If he's a huge jerk out of game but actually plays a noble character in game - shouldn't he be allowed to be one?

No, because if he's a huge jerk out-of-game, he's probably pushing existing players and potential players away from participating,

My question to this is why would you allow such a person to continue playing in your game to begin with? My comment was meant to describe someone who may be a bit of a jerk out of game but during the game and for the game he's not pushing anyone away and, in fact, is enhancing the setting and story with his IG actions and most of the players actually respect his character.

 

[RiddickDale]

My question to this is why would you allow such a person to continue playing in your game to begin with? My comment was meant to describe someone who may be a bit of a jerk out of game but during the game and for the game he's not pushing anyone away and, in fact, is enhancing the setting and story with his IG actions and most of the players actually respect his character.

I don't think this person exists.

Someone who is a "bit of a jerk" is probably not a jerk at ALL. They might just have people that don't like them... and thus thing everything they do is jerky.

 

[jpariury]

I see those items though as IG actions. I had meant OOG support.

It sounds like you mean strictly financial support, though. I agree that financial support shouldn't factor in. Non-financial, though, I can see arguments for it factoring in (though not being the sole source of the reasoning). Even the guy who plays an evil, backstabby jerk, if he's dropping OOG to make sure people are having fun, or metagaming in a way that encourages participation (i.e. - passes on mods or rewards in favor of letting newer people go after them), he's contributing out-of-game by keeping the larger picture of what makes a good game for others. Whether or not your nobles are good guys, they should exist to improve the game experience, and that is a strictly out-of-game contribution. Sure, resources shouldn't buy you a title, but contribution can and probably should.

My comment was meant to describe someone who may be a bit of a jerk out of game but during the game and for the game he's not pushing anyone away

I think "a huge jerk" and "a bit of a jerk" are distinct descriptors there. Sure, just because someone's a deadbeat dad doesn't mean they shouldn't get to play a Count, but out-of-game attitude, especially as it pertains to the game, probably should play a factor in picking nobles. FWIW, I think that's true regardless of whether or not someone is a PC noble or an NPC noble.

 

[phedre]

In the chapter I consider my "home," if you are a PC noble, you are now customer service in that chapter. That, to my mind, is the best way to have a PC noble because the player now has a vested interest in other people's good times. They can still be shady characters, but OOG help the people running plot and desk to keep a good pace and distribution of plot.

Whereas I feel exactly the opposite. IG power should not be tied to how much OOG benefit you give the GM. It's the 'GM's Girlfriend Syndrome' that plagues certain other larps rather badly, and is frustrating to deal with.

I don't think Lauren is saying that. Its not because you put in OOG work you are rewarded with a title. It's the other way around. Since you have a noble title you now have to put in OOG work.

Correct.

You do the IG work to get the title, and have to be willing to put in the IG and OOG work to maintain it.

 

[RiddickDale]

I'll just add that I tend to agree with just about everything JP has said. (Yes... it just happened.)

I view the "local" nobility as one of the selling features of a chapter. Those players represent what that game wants to stand out for flavor wise. The only way for a player to prove they can do that is through IG action that is consistent with the chapter's flavor AND OOG activities that are congruent with the chapter as well.

I understand that we should be rallying against people being knighted because they bought the Owner a laptop. But, rallying against someone who helped support the game as a member of their operations staff (CS/logistics/publicity) or who actively helped make the game better is just... odd to me.

With that said, I love hearing stories about knights. Maybe we could start a different thread talking about AWESOME knights and how they ended up being that way (including their ig and oog stories). This way chapters will have a standard to look at when they make decisions? We shouldn't start mudslinging at chapters because we don't like their knighting decisions (which this thread has been dangerously close to doing at points). But, we can take positive steps to recognize good decisions in the hopes that they make MORE of them. Maybe?


Stephen

 

[Duke Frost]

HQ has two OOG requirements of its nobles. They must be fair and honest players and they must attend a minimum percentage of events a year...barons more events than knights. We are much stricter on the first requirement than the latter. They do not have to be on staff or contribute OOG in monetary or work matters, though the vast majority do or have done so. Everything else is IG.

On the average, I'd say it takes five years for our squires to become knights. Some more, some less. Some never become knights, which has even caused customer service issues. We even have an NPC ducal squire who is the "eternal squire" to show that just because you put in time doesn't necessarily mean you will become a knight.

As for having a lot of nobles...we have nobles in our game that were knighted over a decade ago and still play. People who play nobles tend to stick with the game and not "go away". So at some events we do have a large percentage of nobles.

And we sometimes have the grey or black knight. Often these are NPCs, but sometimes they are PCs. But OOG, they have to be top notch fair and honest players. We have knighted people whose characters have done some pretty to very shady stuff that plot knows about, but our other nobles don't IG.

Scott

 

[Duke Frost]

I just reread Mark's OP. I agree with JP that the game is played at the game. We don't judge a character for knighthood on their BGAs, only on what they do at an event. BGAs are to add flavor and backstory only, IMO.

Scott

 

[Deadlands of Old]

In NH, to be granted a title as a lord, squire or childe (a specific type of squire with no liege) we generally expect a few things:

1) Consistent attendance at events
2) Consistently benevolent dealings with players and other characters
3) Excellence with regard to RP
4) A character who has demonstrated on several occasions a willingness to risk his or her own live to save those with which he or she has no personal ties.
5) Some measure of being exceptional: someone who is wise, or cunning, or a great leader when it comes to battles, or an excellent diplomat, something useful for the benefit of the town
6) A decent reputation for integrity: no egregious reports (from a reputable source) of stealing, lying, killing, or disobeying noble orders (depending on the offense, if it was a really long time ago, we may give them a chance).

In addition to those things, to become a seneschal, knight or ria (a specific type of knight with no liege) we certainly expect to see evidence of the following:

7) An even temper
8) A strong capacity to lead in virtual all situations
9) An understanding of the IG laws and how to apply them
10) A willingness to be humble and administer justice with fairness, while also maintaining respect for the law
11) A solid resume of impressive IG accomplishments
12) A capacity to show compassion, while also being rational. In more poetic terms, we look to see that someone has developed a wise and goodly heart.

The highest rank we would allow a pc to achieve while I’m running this gin joint is that of a count. To date, no one has done it yet, so this is entirely theoretical, and it might not ever happen.

To become a count a knight must rally enough forces, martial, political and civil, to conquer the denizens of a section of the Deadlands. They must then successfully coordinate, both through write ups and IG, to recapture the land, secure it, build it back up until it is habitable, and then get people to move there. The knight must then get enough resources to supply the population, establish the rule of law, convince people to stay and make sure the area is now productive enough so that the Crown can justify officially annexing the land. Lastly, he or she must rule the protectorate effectively for a period of time, probably at least a year.

There is only one npc in our game who has done this.

So…it’s kind of hard.

JP made a good point about being kind of plot controlled as your pc becomes a noble. I think that is often the case in some games, and understandably so, but I suppose we try more so to bring pcs/players into the noble fold who don’t need to be plot controlled, since they already do all the things that we would want them to do, such as being a good player, helping out new players and lower level characters get involved in the game, and so on.

Gary

 

[Shhh I'm not here]

Just wondering, where in all this is the room for the shady bastard noble, the one who bought his title with coin or took it at the end of a sword, and uses his wealth and power for his own machiavellian schemes? He may not be the shining knight to whom so many aspire, but such characters have been integral to many a good story, both fantastical and historical.

 

[Toddo]

They're out there, and the fact that you don't know em means they're doing it right. :twisted: There have been a good number of shady folk who have become nobles, but it takes a lot of RP effort and silence OOG to pull it off (at least at the chapters I frequent) so I can't really name names.

 

[Deadlands of Old]

Just wondering, where in all this is the room for the shady bastard noble, the one who bought his title with coin or took it at the end of a sword, and uses his wealth and power for his own machiavellian schemes? He may not be the shining knight to whom so many aspire, but such characters have been integral to many a good story, both fantastical and historical.

Is this perhaps the most ironic post that has ever happened?