"PROGRESS ON RENAISSANCE CAMPAIGN RULES" Topic
15 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Campaign Message Board Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Renaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset Rating:
Featured Profile ArticleWe build an outhouse.
Featured Book Review
|
Ottoathome | 01 Jun 2017 4:34 p.m. PST |
a few months ago I posted this Been wanting to do this for years. The Renaissance was the starting point for my degree studies, the French Revolution was the end. Am besotted with the period. As befits that the game I am going to design will be called "Chiaroscuro" (got to have he title first) and its going to be one where artists, humanists, reformers, and generals are more or less interchangeable. The Sources I am basing the work on are the classics. Burckhardt's The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, and Huizinga's "The Waning of the Middle Ages" and Hales "The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance." It was randomly posted to another board which was NOT about the game. Working on it steadily and I have made some good progress. The tactical rules have been done for years. The campaign rules are coming along. Significantly I have had to take a jog off into the sideline of fabrication of game material. The game is for up to six players. I want the set up to be more than the usual folderol of paper and charts so I have had to figure out how to make very narrow tightly sealable boxes which can contain the markers, What each player has in the game is an "army," "an artist," a religious leader" "A Humanist" and a series of ploys. All of these are laid out in these trays. The game deals with the interplay of these cards and they are more or less interchangeable. An Artist for example can be more useful than an army. A Humanist or pamphleteer can wreck your state as easily as the Turks. The real game work is being done on how to develop "games" that are as specific to the Artist, Humanist, Religious leader as interesting and challenging as that devoted to the condottieri and generals. |
DOUGKL | 02 Jun 2017 7:50 p.m. PST |
Sounds interesting. Please keep us posted. |
Puster | 04 Jun 2017 2:29 a.m. PST |
I am not really sure wether a real "principe" would put the same value to a humanist or artist as to an able general, but these are minor squabbles. Keep it on, and us informed! Cheering from the sidelines :-) |
Ottoathome | 04 Jun 2017 12:44 p.m. PST |
Remember that the game is pitched from the idea of "virtu" and the amassment of power as a substitute to legitimacy as in Buckhardt's thesis and Hales, but also that of Huizinga's "The Waning of the Middle Ages" . Further, that the "coming of the Barbarians" to the Italian city states was the end of the Renaissance. |
Puster | 04 Jun 2017 11:08 p.m. PST |
For Italy the Renaissance probably ended in 1529 with the fall of Florence to the Medici. Sad that this family in the end just strifed to become a duke beyond the Emperor. For Rome many say that the Renaissance ended with the sacco in 1527, though in art and architecture Rome certainly continued to florish. It was more the mood that changed, with Counterreformation becoming the dominant problem despite the rising tide of the Ottomans. |
Ottoathome | 05 Jun 2017 5:53 a.m. PST |
Depends. There are as many thesis on the start and end of the Renaissance and we have been arguing about the mileposts for five centuries. One must remember that the personal revenues of the tiny town of Orvieto in 1494 exceeded those of the King of France. Others I feel are too narrowly centered on wars and politics and ignore the dimensions of state-building and internal consolidation which the nascent "great powers" of Europe could not have become what they became without the individualism of the Renaissance. Besides, there is no historical bell that goes off and says "Oh it's may of 1492 and we are now in the Renaissance." Many of the civil institutions of the City States keep right on going even after their independence is terminated under Austrian, Spanish, or French aegis simply because those are the powers that be in those states and the people who formed those civic institutions were necessary to the governance of the land. Subservient they might have been, but that did not mean they were servile or reduced to the status of conquered territories. If you had gold and connections you had them even after your lords had changed from the "Signioria" to the King or the Emperor. Even the lower orders and the civilian mobs like the Lazzarone of Naples had a political power of an unofficial sort, and conflict between the new masters and their subjects continued in the civic institutions of the carnivals and holiday celebrations where "the great" had to endure being ridiculed and lampooned and put a smile on their kissers while it was being done. What is interesting about the period is that at the time of what many see as the ending of the Renaissance the "Ottoman" tide was actually on its way down. The Siege of Vienna (in 1529) is the high water mark of the Turks and Islam and as Fletcher Pratt in his "Battles that Changed History" notes, :from then on they could make terrible faces, and be a grave danger at times but their path was always one going down. Significantly, artistically, the Turk now moved from being a monster to an archetype; either a noble soul like Pasha Selim or a buffo like Mustafa in "Italiani I Algheri" |
Puster | 05 Jun 2017 4:21 p.m. PST |
I would not put the high tide of the Ottomans at the start of Suleymans reign, but rather at its end, at 1566. It took Lepanto – despite the Turkish conquest of Cyprus – to take the imminent fear out of the daily topics. A succession of less apt Ottoman rulers played a far larger role then any rise of the west. I would say that the Reformation took the focus of Europe away from the Ottomans – but only for those who were sufficiently far away. The long slow economical decline of Italy and mediterran Spain was basically a result of the Islamic rule of the mediterran sea with their constant raids. link |
Ottoathome | 06 Jun 2017 11:59 a.m. PST |
Welcome to history. These issues are debated in Academia till the cows come home. My advice to you is publish, everyone else does. |
Durando | 06 Jun 2017 2:57 p.m. PST |
Please make sure any rules cover the period in Italy up to 1647 |
Ottoathome | 06 Jun 2017 3:15 p.m. PST |
Durando Not likely. Remember this is a campaign game, and models the High Renaissance in Italy which is going to peter out about 1560. It is a game of conflict and competition between the "famiglia" of the age. |
Ottoathome | 06 Jun 2017 4:59 p.m. PST |
The game I'm aiming for is for one where players get into the spirit of the Renaissance rather than standing outside of it as payers in a game. In the style of design I'm doing now a lot is taken over by the physical mechanic. The mechanic does most of the rules in constructing the environment . In this case each of the six players in the game, each representing a Renaisance Famiglia, would get cards which determine their opportunities. These would be placed in a "folio" or fold of wood (nicely varnished, painted and decorated which when snapped shut would hold the cards inside. The folio had room for five cards, an army, a preacher, a humanist, and artist, and ploys. The base would have a base card literally painted on the base. So for example the Salmanella family would have a card showing their coats of arms which would be their regular, family feudal troops-- pure crap on the battlefield. They also would have a preacher or religious, leader, humanist etc. During the game you could get cards dealt to you which you can place ON TOP of the base card. So for example suppose you got the card for Sismundo Pandolfo Malatesta. You could Play this onto your mechanic on top of the feudal troops and they would be somewhat better. Malatesta's mercenary company would in most cases chop feudal troops into chutney. Now assume that you got "The Swiss" You can add it to your display ONLY by tossing out poor Sismondo and adding the Swiss. The Swiss on the other hand would make chutney of a Mercenary company, and what they would do to an army of famiglia troops would not even require a battle. Humanists, Artists, Saints or Preachers, all would be handled the same way. Now, let's assume you were the Pappatattzi family, and you were unhappy with the Salmanella family having Sismundo under their control. you cold play your "Caterina Sforza " card which would send Sismondo (and herself) to the discard pile (but would not work on the Swiss). The"Fugger" card would do that. Use of any card sends it to the Discard so if the Salmanelli attacked you with the Swiss they would certainly defeat you, but he could not hold on to the card. Therefore it pays to have a condottieri extra in your ploy pile. So for example you as the Pappatazzi having only your famiglia troops showing would seem a fair game to the Salmanelli swaggering around with their feared Swiss, but aha! What he does not know is that you have the Imperial Army of landsknechts in your ploy pile, If the Salmanelli play the swiss on you, you can take out the landsknects and match him with it. Both then go to the discard. Note that on any of the four parts of "your hand " Condottieri, Saint, Artist, Humanist, you can only have ONE card, and that is the reason your famiglia troops, preacher, dauber, and scrivener are painted on. You always have them as a fall back but they're a pretty rum lot.. The point being is that the power only is valuable in the potential or in the use, but to USE them is to lose them.. So at the end of the game you only have to close the foglio , which is a little box and you can pack them away, with the box of the card deck (with the discard in a matching box underneath and slide them into a heavy case and secure with a silk ribbon and the game is done and ready for next time. That's what I mean about the power of the mechanic and the game materials you use. I think a nice touch would be a hinged velvet flap that would fold over the fifth position in the box on the right which would be your ploy pile. On top of the flap would be your "Famiglia power" for example like the Atredes in DUNE you could play that in any turn to see what card is being dealt one of the players, or like the Harkonnen, some sort of treachery ability, but you can only use that if the flap is closed and it is showing. If you open the flap to play a ploy card underneath you can't use it. This is why I mentioned Burckhardt, Hale, and Huizinga. the game is to put you in the position of a Renaisance head of the famiglia, with swift occurring and disappearing opportunities. The key is in the winning of the game which assumes that you can transfer your dynasty from the very chancy, very transient opportunities open to you as a private family into an alliance with a major dynasty which sort of means you "make it." But of course you do, that's Burckhardt's thesis and once you gain legitimacy (as Maria De Medici did in the late Renaissance) you don't have to bother with these petty Mafiosi known as your relatives. This is gained of course by acquiring Virtu (Virtue) or renown.
|
Puster | 09 Jun 2017 10:34 p.m. PST |
As I see this, the situation allows for two phases. In the first phase should be the competition of the Italian families and states as in the 15th century without external influence. The second phase would be the introduction of the European powers – first Hungary, then the Empire, France and Spain – or even the Ottomans, who did conquer Otranto for some time and would perhaps have continued if not for the timely death of Mehmet (the conqueror). When Charles later had combined the Spanish and Imperial ambitions and "won" the race for Italy, the game of competition between the families peters out, or rather transforms into one of recognition by the Kings and Emperors… Of course there is also the competition between the families within a state, a deadly race to supremacy that the leaders of the losers faction rarely survived. As there are many fights involved using the framework of the local law and customs these are probably hard to integrate into a game. Be that as it is, I am really looking forward to learn more about the mechanics of your game :-) |
Ottoathome | 10 Jun 2017 3:22 p.m. PST |
Dear Puster Yes, -- sort of. The Turks are always going to be "spoilers" in the game. Great Military power but not possible as a criteria of Victory simply because alliance with them of the type that will gain legitimacy of the illegitimate dynasties can never take place. To win, one must gain 100 Virtu' coins AND have the Spanish, Imperial, or French Influence in your "hand." The introduction of the non Italian powers was going on long before the "Coming of the Barbarians in 1495" (or was it 1494 I always forget that). The Angevin, Spanish and other meddling in Italy was going on long before the 15th Century. Now, remember- this is a CAMPAIGN game and so the game has to be fairly simple. You don't want to "play a game to play a game" as so many campaign modules do, and it has to have several features not always equal to do. Now for the purpose of this discussion I would like to substitute the word "Mummery" for "Mechanics." Mechanics drags with it too many other concepts we bring from war game land. "Mummery" I like because we can load into the bucket only what we want, and it also is ironically a very useful term to describe quite accurately what we DO do in war games. We put into our games more or less abstract obstacles which are only symbolic to the decisions we really wish to deal with which pantomime, mime, or represent the possibilities of real life. In fact we want to "privilege" just some of the aspects of real life and emphasize and exaggerate them for dramatic effect rather than fix them in what might be their appropriate magnitude. What that fine piece of gobbledygook means of course is… mummery. Thus we have already tossed out all sorts of things like "trade" or "economics" and reduced the opportunities for diplomacy simply to the draw of the cards from the deck. 1. It is assumed that the first and foremost aim of the game is to provide the widest latitude for "sense of wonder" and "spirit of play" which I design all my games to. Realism has absolutely no place beyond a "notional" connection. Both of these are completely unintellectual in the normal sense we have in war games, which is more or less a fetish with detail and an ability for endless arithmetic, and rely instead on the EMOTIONAL and PASSIONATE responses (that is as in passion and in no small sense the patient, as in a patient to who experiences things). Thus the verbage and terms used are those which most clearly relate to the time and the sprit of feeling as the age itself (not us!) felt things! Again this is why I refer to often to Burckhardt, Huizinga, and Hale. The game is there to encourage thinking this way, REWARD thinking this way, and to PUNISH the players for thinking as moderns. Therefore "mechanics" in the normal modern sense- the mumbled-puddily-poo of dice rolls and modifiers and arcane rules and socio-political semi-Marxist blathering has no place. Cool calculation must have no part in the game. On the contrary the blinding hate evinced by the paper crown scene in Shakespeare's Henry VI Part Tree, or the Mad Scene in Othello is. 2. The game obviously also for each interaction or mode, Condottieri, Artist, Humanist, Churchman, has it's own game which will be played out, for example in the more well-known area of the Condottieri for us between miniature armies (for which we already have copious rules but also the other interactions , artist, Humanist, Churchman, which I am designing "games" for. Each of these no less must have the same content of "sense of wonder" and "spirit of play" that the others have. The Rise and Fall of Savanarolla is a story of high drama as great as La Biccocia, and the stories about some of the great Renaissance works of art just as fascinating. They also were political events as well as artistic ones. 3. All of this must be "bucketed" in a sense of rules that will keep the romance and the passions of the period well to the fore simply because without the personalities and the abilities and crimes of the families, it's a very droll tale. The only way I can explain this is to hearken back to my undergraduate days when I was in the first course in History of the Renaissance" and we were reading Guicciardi's History of Florence. In specific in class one day we were talking about the assassination of Guido De Cavalcante, one of the great families, and the conspirators were talking and one of them said "I don't know about assassinating DeCavalcante, but I do know that if you try it, you better be sure to kill him, because otherwise he will stop at nothing in revenge." I commented to the Prof that this sounded terribly much like how the Mafiosi talked. My prof said "That is EXACTLY correct and you must understand that is what it was like and how this spirit of Virtu and power existed in the Renaissance." By the way at the time I was taking the class, the head of the most powerful crime family in the Mob in New Jersey was --- Guido DeCavalcante! Different guy- same thing! History works in mysterious ways its ironies to achieve. Therefore the Mummery of it , what we might call the mechanics, must hone very clearly to the simple, but the dramatic and often the brutal. If you want to talk about it here we can do that, it's good stuff. We can talk here if you wish till guys like McLaddie and others show up and ruin it, at which time we'll have to take it to my private e-mail, sigurd@eclipse.net. You are correct on one thing that the losers faction rarely survived, but the "famiglia" itself survived. Most of them were too smart to kill off the famiglia. Set a bad precedence, and worse, snuffed out people who might in the future be possible allies. 3. |
Puster | 14 Jun 2017 7:04 a.m. PST |
Well, lets just hope that Fortuna is with you when you put that mummery into a cloak that those of us who play games of dice rather then imagination can use. :-) BTW: In many ways the Mafia is a direct successor of those Italians who never accepted the rule of those foreigners, be they Spanish, French, Imperials, Arabs or Romans… |
Ottoathome | 15 Jun 2017 7:52 a.m. PST |
Dear Puster Umm.. Sorry, not going to happen. There's going to be almost NO dice rolling, and it's never going to get translated to common war game tropes. It's not where I'm at in game design these days. Presently I am trying to more with less. That is, put deep and long thought into the design so that you can do it with the least amount of rules. Most rules today are written in the following form. Rule statement caveat caveat caveat Example All bowmen hit with a 6 Elvish bowmen hit with a 5 or a 6 English lonbowmen hit with a 5 or a 6 Crossbowmen hit with a 5 or a 6 against armored. My theory is that for each caveat the rules degrade a little. For example in the Classical Ancient Warfare system I am working on, the whole thing is run on saving throws. It's called "Blessed are the Greeks: or Mardonius Lament." I also toyed with a small platoon company sized game for WWI which works on the iron and steel content of the air. Very simple. You direct fire into an area, and the level of fire makes a factor which every figure in the area must make a saving throw against. Fail it and you die. Very little of fire in modern war is aimed" Simplicity-- simplicity. You are correct in one way on the historical conquerors of Sicilly. Sometimes movies do get it right. In the second installment of the Godfather Series with the rise of Vito Corleone, you see how the conditions in New York among Italians perpetuated it. The Mafia forms an alternative shadow government to the legitimate one. At the turn of the century anti-immigrant feeling was high and in many cases it did not good for the Italian Americans to go to the police. They were often in cahoots with the persons who were abusing them, and when not indifference and apathy among the ruling ethnic did the rest. So when someone went to the Godfather's daughters wedding it was an appeal to an alternate authority which was frequently able to help them which civil authorities could not or would not. The heart-tearing case of the undertaker about his daughter is an excellent one. The problem with the Mafia is that it is for a price- always a price. The government is supposed to provide law and justice free of charge. The dialogues in that movie are most illuminating. True these people are over-glamorized and glorified but it is to make a point. Mafia is in a historical sense, nothing but feudalism. You do for your friends and you do to your enemies. It is the fall-back position from a higher form of government. Hence the Renaissance "famiglia" is merely feudalism, but feudalism unjustified by legitimacy. I'm not going to publish these popularly. I never publish any of my rules. To those interested I will give them away. |
|