Greetings and salutations!
Alright, so I have Steffon in the run for Regent and I've noticed a few things, and think some things should be changed. Likely, this may agitate some people, but it's all about making the run fair for everyone that's actively trying to do this quest/run. As it stands, if the rules don't change during this run, I'm okay with it, but I think these changes would help for future runs.
The main issue is support. I personally think that support should be cut out of the Regency run completely, we should(as candidates) be relying solely on the bids command(see help bids). Though icly this isn't an electoral vote, oocly it is. Using the bids correctly collects all of the votes, and the winner is chosen from that. Support warps this count severely. If a Noble already has supporters from various rp they may have had prior to the Run, then they don't actually have to do anything with bids, support carries them through. Why is this a problem? The Noble worked hard to get that support so they should have it tallied, right? In my opinion, no. The point of the Regency run is to allow any player to have a fair shot at being king or queen for a day, using support to affect the Run means that if a person is well-liked and supported, they can be in power for as long as they wish(well, sortof). If it is truly supposed to be a public quest for any that wish, and to give them a shot at the Throne, then I think that Bids should be the sole source for the votes.
Please feel free to comment, looking to see what everyone thinks about this.
Regency Run Critique
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think the opposite. The Regency quest is definitely problematic in a lot of ways, but if the balance between support/influence is off, it's in influence's power.
The main problem is how easy it is to buy influence with money. I could probably win the Regency run on nothing but my bank account, even if I didn't have support. Now that's probably realistic, but I'm not sure that's how we want to do things, right?
As for the purpose of the Regency quest... I've never viewed this as a vote of all players as to who should be Regent, but a way to mark what character manages to arrange the best backing in order to take the most powerful GL role. That is, a fully IC process, rather than any kind of OOC referendum that gives every player an equal shot.
Think about it this way. The Regent role IS just a GL role, at the end of the day, with just a few more powers than any other GL role. With any other GL role, the existing PC who had done the legwork in the guild would have instantly become the GL without any contention whatsoever.
Now I'm not arguing for that extreme, but I don't think the other extreme is reasonable either. Having put in the time and effort to serve in the guild SHOULD be a legitimate advantage.
And it's not true that pre-existing RP is a definitive advantage that can't be overcome, either. If we recall the last regency quest, Herazade also was a pre-existing PC and at times her bid was most definitively threatened by savvy play by the NPCs. During this quest, I also have gained, at a guess, half of my current supporters by going out there and courting them aggressively. Some of these supporters do not even have any measurable amount of past RP with me, but decided to back me on nothing but my platform and ideas.
I won't deny this Regency quest has been problematic in a lot of ways. We've seen very little activity despite a crowd of candidates and a lot of playerbase disinterest/lack of engagement with it. I've been able to fund a massive influence event in my own favor by dint of nothing but my bank account, without putting that much of a dent in it. We'll probably need to revisit the whole system before the next.
But I definitely feel support should matter, and so should the previous deeds of pre-existing PCs.
The main problem is how easy it is to buy influence with money. I could probably win the Regency run on nothing but my bank account, even if I didn't have support. Now that's probably realistic, but I'm not sure that's how we want to do things, right?
As for the purpose of the Regency quest... I've never viewed this as a vote of all players as to who should be Regent, but a way to mark what character manages to arrange the best backing in order to take the most powerful GL role. That is, a fully IC process, rather than any kind of OOC referendum that gives every player an equal shot.
Think about it this way. The Regent role IS just a GL role, at the end of the day, with just a few more powers than any other GL role. With any other GL role, the existing PC who had done the legwork in the guild would have instantly become the GL without any contention whatsoever.
Now I'm not arguing for that extreme, but I don't think the other extreme is reasonable either. Having put in the time and effort to serve in the guild SHOULD be a legitimate advantage.
And it's not true that pre-existing RP is a definitive advantage that can't be overcome, either. If we recall the last regency quest, Herazade also was a pre-existing PC and at times her bid was most definitively threatened by savvy play by the NPCs. During this quest, I also have gained, at a guess, half of my current supporters by going out there and courting them aggressively. Some of these supporters do not even have any measurable amount of past RP with me, but decided to back me on nothing but my platform and ideas.
I won't deny this Regency quest has been problematic in a lot of ways. We've seen very little activity despite a crowd of candidates and a lot of playerbase disinterest/lack of engagement with it. I've been able to fund a massive influence event in my own favor by dint of nothing but my bank account, without putting that much of a dent in it. We'll probably need to revisit the whole system before the next.
But I definitely feel support should matter, and so should the previous deeds of pre-existing PCs.
I'm conflicted.
I see Dice's point - in fact, that's exactly why support matters and was part of the calculation. But looking at it in actual practice, seeing how it plays out... as mentioned above, I'm reluctant to change the rules mid-quest, but I also have to acknowledge... this isn't a fair contest, and it needs to change. Period.
Here is what I am thinking right now:
Existing PCs probably ought not to be allowed to participate.
This saddens me, because I'd love to see characters work their way up to the regency... and I'd be excited to see two characters like Herazade and Ariel go up against one another. But existing PC advantage is way, way too high. It solidifies existing power spheres when the aim is actually to allow power spheres to fluctuate in game to spread the love around and keep conflict alive.
This also covers the support issue raised. Support should calculate into Bids as Dice said, for the reasons Dice said - but support shouldn't come from pre-existing relationships because NPCs just don't have them. However, if every person had to politic to get them, and thus IP, and were on the same playing field about that - this is what is important, and more important than writing an IC_Event post. Far more important. The IC_Event post system is intended to provide some context and bring the campaigns alive, but shouldn't be over-emphasized.
Bid Influence Events need to be limited per character per week, possibly limited in strength, and definitely need some defining standards.
Being able to draw down on your bank account to buy IP and post it multiple times, in response to other IP events, unlimitedly, does make the quest about the character resources instead of their IC politics. It over-emphases the strategy of simply writing an IC_Event post rather than the importance of what is going on on the ground.
I'm thinking that characters probably ought not to be able to post more than on Bid Influence event for a particular character in a week, we do need some standards around approvals (yes, I'm sorry to say I've been half-assing it a bit and realized yesterday after I did an approval that 'a majestic influence event' probably wouldn't just be people talking kindly about someone, but something major, and it'd need to be in the power of the influencer to make happen)... anyway, this needs some standards to be set out.
Does anyone have other suggestions or concerns about what I'm suggesting?
I see Dice's point - in fact, that's exactly why support matters and was part of the calculation. But looking at it in actual practice, seeing how it plays out... as mentioned above, I'm reluctant to change the rules mid-quest, but I also have to acknowledge... this isn't a fair contest, and it needs to change. Period.
- I don't want the age of a character, or their XP value, and thus their silver access, to dictate if they can be the regent.
I don't want the barriers to NPC success to be so high as to void the importance of their participation.
I don't want the natural IC relationships to sway the game too much into the pockets of a select, unchanging group of individuals.
I don't want characters to be able to draw upon their comparably unlimited resources in an unlimited manner to win.
Here is what I am thinking right now:
Existing PCs probably ought not to be allowed to participate.
This saddens me, because I'd love to see characters work their way up to the regency... and I'd be excited to see two characters like Herazade and Ariel go up against one another. But existing PC advantage is way, way too high. It solidifies existing power spheres when the aim is actually to allow power spheres to fluctuate in game to spread the love around and keep conflict alive.
This also covers the support issue raised. Support should calculate into Bids as Dice said, for the reasons Dice said - but support shouldn't come from pre-existing relationships because NPCs just don't have them. However, if every person had to politic to get them, and thus IP, and were on the same playing field about that - this is what is important, and more important than writing an IC_Event post. Far more important. The IC_Event post system is intended to provide some context and bring the campaigns alive, but shouldn't be over-emphasized.
Bid Influence Events need to be limited per character per week, possibly limited in strength, and definitely need some defining standards.
Being able to draw down on your bank account to buy IP and post it multiple times, in response to other IP events, unlimitedly, does make the quest about the character resources instead of their IC politics. It over-emphases the strategy of simply writing an IC_Event post rather than the importance of what is going on on the ground.
I'm thinking that characters probably ought not to be able to post more than on Bid Influence event for a particular character in a week, we do need some standards around approvals (yes, I'm sorry to say I've been half-assing it a bit and realized yesterday after I did an approval that 'a majestic influence event' probably wouldn't just be people talking kindly about someone, but something major, and it'd need to be in the power of the influencer to make happen)... anyway, this needs some standards to be set out.
Does anyone have other suggestions or concerns about what I'm suggesting?
I agree that there are issues at hand here, nothing is ever going to be perfect. However, I would like to comment on the not allowing PC's to participate in the future. My concern there is that, if we are going to allow a PC monarch, eliminating existing PC's from running entirely does inhibit some big aspects of political RP. I think it has to be balanced against the NPC's, certainly, but removing it entirely I think would be going too far in the other direction.
I think if we can balance the money spending aspects of it and balance the other issues brought up, it will make for a more balanced regency quest, if it should come up again. I also think that ideas like the debate are good, but shouldn't be delayed for so long. If not everyone can attend one debate, have a couple, that's what they do IRL. Hold a couple with those who can attend at various times so that IC interaction can play a bigger role.
I think if we can balance the money spending aspects of it and balance the other issues brought up, it will make for a more balanced regency quest, if it should come up again. I also think that ideas like the debate are good, but shouldn't be delayed for so long. If not everyone can attend one debate, have a couple, that's what they do IRL. Hold a couple with those who can attend at various times so that IC interaction can play a bigger role.
I feel like this reflects a fundamental problem with attitudes toward power and GL slots on TI.
I've never heard any player express that we have a problem with power not fluctuating enough. Instead, on the ground, power fluctuates so much that people have tremendous problem getting anything done. I think our current system of willy-nilly turnover, again and again, hurts the game far more than more crystallized and centralized systems would.
I'm 100% in favor of offering new people roles, keeping restrictions so all the power isn't in one set of hands, etc.
I see players discouraged when they try to join guilds, but the GLs are inactive because GL slots are given to anyone who applies, no matter how inactive the applicant's history is.
I see guild regulations changing with every new GL, leaving an increasingly messy patchwork that's passed down from GL to GL so that even the most competent individuals are faced with a frustrating contradiction of board notes, gnotes and helpfiles they have to standardize before they can do anything - a task that defeats most people.
There is good conflict and there is bad conflict, and we get the latter out of our constantly changing GLs. It's disruptive, frustrating and I suspect we've lost uncountable players to it in the past.
So I don't think this should be the major driving factor behind the Regency, and no, I'm not just saying it because I hope/expect to win. I don't think we should be restricting existing PCs from playing and absolutely forcing a new Regent every 2 years when we already have such big problems with GLs sticking around.
I also don't see why Court should be so completely different from other GLs when the Regent's power is not, in fact, that much greater. With every other guild, we control for
selecting players who are really into the guild by offering the GL position to the active players first. This is a good thing - it chooses the GL from among those who have shown they are there, they are invested in this guilds' RP, etc. This would be saying that not only do existing PCs get no preference (which is fine, honestly) but that a candidate who's shown consistent dedication to the relevant guild/line of RP can't even run.
I do admit it's going to be difficult to balance existing PCs vs. NPCs if we don't ban existing PCs. But I think the bids influence will help, and again, I want to point out that none of this came up in the last Regency quest. The tenor of these discussions is that existing PCs are unbeatable and have an unbeatable advantage. That simply isn't true, as the last Quest proves - and this one does too. If bids influence were limited, it WOULD be possible for other candidates to overtake Ariel on the basis of support - absolutely possible, if not easy.
Bottom line: I think we need to focus on making sure our GLs come from the ranks of active players with investment in the guilds. Since the Regent is more powerful, it makes sense to allow NPCs to run to get a chance at this slot, but the advantage existing PCs CAN have is a good way to model the advantage existing members of the guild SHOULD have.
EDIT: Let's also note that all of the PCs who are making a serious, active grab for Regent have had GL roles before. This isn't a competition between people who have never gotten a chance to play PCs in power and someone who's always been in power.
I've never heard any player express that we have a problem with power not fluctuating enough. Instead, on the ground, power fluctuates so much that people have tremendous problem getting anything done. I think our current system of willy-nilly turnover, again and again, hurts the game far more than more crystallized and centralized systems would.
I'm 100% in favor of offering new people roles, keeping restrictions so all the power isn't in one set of hands, etc.
I see players discouraged when they try to join guilds, but the GLs are inactive because GL slots are given to anyone who applies, no matter how inactive the applicant's history is.
I see guild regulations changing with every new GL, leaving an increasingly messy patchwork that's passed down from GL to GL so that even the most competent individuals are faced with a frustrating contradiction of board notes, gnotes and helpfiles they have to standardize before they can do anything - a task that defeats most people.
There is good conflict and there is bad conflict, and we get the latter out of our constantly changing GLs. It's disruptive, frustrating and I suspect we've lost uncountable players to it in the past.
So I don't think this should be the major driving factor behind the Regency, and no, I'm not just saying it because I hope/expect to win. I don't think we should be restricting existing PCs from playing and absolutely forcing a new Regent every 2 years when we already have such big problems with GLs sticking around.
I also don't see why Court should be so completely different from other GLs when the Regent's power is not, in fact, that much greater. With every other guild, we control for
selecting players who are really into the guild by offering the GL position to the active players first. This is a good thing - it chooses the GL from among those who have shown they are there, they are invested in this guilds' RP, etc. This would be saying that not only do existing PCs get no preference (which is fine, honestly) but that a candidate who's shown consistent dedication to the relevant guild/line of RP can't even run.
I do admit it's going to be difficult to balance existing PCs vs. NPCs if we don't ban existing PCs. But I think the bids influence will help, and again, I want to point out that none of this came up in the last Regency quest. The tenor of these discussions is that existing PCs are unbeatable and have an unbeatable advantage. That simply isn't true, as the last Quest proves - and this one does too. If bids influence were limited, it WOULD be possible for other candidates to overtake Ariel on the basis of support - absolutely possible, if not easy.
Bottom line: I think we need to focus on making sure our GLs come from the ranks of active players with investment in the guilds. Since the Regent is more powerful, it makes sense to allow NPCs to run to get a chance at this slot, but the advantage existing PCs CAN have is a good way to model the advantage existing members of the guild SHOULD have.
EDIT: Let's also note that all of the PCs who are making a serious, active grab for Regent have had GL roles before. This isn't a competition between people who have never gotten a chance to play PCs in power and someone who's always been in power.
-
Onyxsoulle
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:46 pm
Okay, I so didn't want to bar existing PC's from the quest, that was definitely not my intent. However, I do agree with limiting the ability to buy Influence with coin. As this is supposed to be us trying to get 'votes' from the player base, using the coin to influence the support does seem a bit unfair.
And yes, I agree, the three people I know that are running for Regent are people that have been GL's before(I've run two so far, Earl Marshall and Sapiente) which is why, no matter what happens on this run, I am okay with the outcome. I'm more looking forward to future bids where we do have new players, that are very interested in playing the Regent, if they are new, it would be kind of hard for them to not only combat characters with history, but learn the system as well at the same time.
Of course, then again, making GL's a veteran only position seems like an option. I.E.- has played the game x amount of time, this allows for a good amount of helpfiles to have been found by them.
And of course on third thought, what dice was saying about making it like any other guild also makes sense. It is a guild, it has gl's, could work to revert back to that; but that, in turn, would make for less RP for all of the players.
AND FINALLY, this just occurred to me. If we're having the Regency run for the #1 spot in the castle. Would it be entirely inconceivable for the second place finisher to get the Keeper of the Seal spot(or whatever the #2 GL spot is in Court)?
And yes, I agree, the three people I know that are running for Regent are people that have been GL's before(I've run two so far, Earl Marshall and Sapiente) which is why, no matter what happens on this run, I am okay with the outcome. I'm more looking forward to future bids where we do have new players, that are very interested in playing the Regent, if they are new, it would be kind of hard for them to not only combat characters with history, but learn the system as well at the same time.
Of course, then again, making GL's a veteran only position seems like an option. I.E.- has played the game x amount of time, this allows for a good amount of helpfiles to have been found by them.
And of course on third thought, what dice was saying about making it like any other guild also makes sense. It is a guild, it has gl's, could work to revert back to that; but that, in turn, would make for less RP for all of the players.
AND FINALLY, this just occurred to me. If we're having the Regency run for the #1 spot in the castle. Would it be entirely inconceivable for the second place finisher to get the Keeper of the Seal spot(or whatever the #2 GL spot is in Court)?
As a note, I didn't actually mean to suggest we should just do Regent like any other GL (more that the philosophy of at least preferring active players in the guild under question is a reasonable one and thus the advantage existing PCs get is sensible) but it's got points in its favor. We've had to struggle to get RP out of this regency quest, amid a sea of disinterested players.
I'm presuming that won't happen, so honestly, I think we'd do better to limit it TO existing PCs unless no existing PCs want to run and then everyone can NPC it off to their hearts' content. Let it be similar to other guilds in that regard. Or reset all supports right before the Regency Quest to force people to re-earn them, if there's worries old supports for unrelated RP will persist - but from my own personal experience there's considerable difference between supporting someone in general and supporting someone from the Regency.
I'm presuming that won't happen, so honestly, I think we'd do better to limit it TO existing PCs unless no existing PCs want to run and then everyone can NPC it off to their hearts' content. Let it be similar to other guilds in that regard. Or reset all supports right before the Regency Quest to force people to re-earn them, if there's worries old supports for unrelated RP will persist - but from my own personal experience there's considerable difference between supporting someone in general and supporting someone from the Regency.
I do think that the 'deep pockets' IP is a rather unfortunate addition to this round that acts as something of a disincentive to getting involved, now that I've realised the potential extent of it.
I'd also suggest possibly give the NPC characters a further boost in terms of starting IP, or even some 'ghost' support of free npc supporters to represent their own background connections and help even up the playing field.
Off to a meeting, but I'll return with some more cohesive thoughts when I can.
I'd also suggest possibly give the NPC characters a further boost in terms of starting IP, or even some 'ghost' support of free npc supporters to represent their own background connections and help even up the playing field.
Off to a meeting, but I'll return with some more cohesive thoughts when I can.
I'd honestly prefer to give preference to existing PCs over new NPCs. I thought that is what we were going for and the NPCs were just to fill it out because there weren't many, not as the main event. If we get the new characters in to fill up the noble slots, they would have time to work up towards it, instead of introducing them for the bids themselves.
Plus, being an existing character can provide additional challenges, not just additional advantages. Everything you've done comes along to haunt you too. For example, see Casimir. I'm sure the player would make a great regent, and based on his background, the character could perhaps have done it. However, the RP in the meantime would make that pretty much impossible now.
Plus, being an existing character can provide additional challenges, not just additional advantages. Everything you've done comes along to haunt you too. For example, see Casimir. I'm sure the player would make a great regent, and based on his background, the character could perhaps have done it. However, the RP in the meantime would make that pretty much impossible now.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 137 guests