Dear Players,
Once again, I'm somewhat torn with what I think is an important game design decision. We have a PC Monarch! A total PC who worked their way to it and has no special relationship with staff. That's great, and we're really happy.
However, on the flip side we note that there's no forces to remove this PC or to otherwise create conflict or strife at this level. Certainly, if you read Help Council of Three, we note that the Monarch cannot remove a Duke on their authority alone, but there's not really anything set up for when or how a Monarch might lose their control or power (except OOCly failing to abide by help Policy Monarch - but that'd be a staff decision, and we'd really like for this to remain in PC hands).
In any case, we are considering whether or not to bring the Dukes in as they are, more or less, the sovereigns of their respective duchies and carry as much weight in their homelands as the Monarch theoretically does in Lithmore. These are people who would, theoretically, have the power to unseat the Monarch. Do we create them and let them play?
Or will that bring us back to a pbase that's far too noble heavy?
Let us know what you think!
-Kinky
Do we open the Duke and Duchess roles?
I think, in the hands of the right players, it could make things more interesting - I'm all for PC roles. But, I think if it were opened, it might be a good idea to make sure there's a way for strife to be created at that level.
Julea/Lien/Ashe/Adaline
I feel like we don't really have the players for this - especially since ideally the Dukes and Duchesses would be hanging out mostly in their own lands, and we definitely don't have the people to split the playerbase that way! Having them always in Lithmore would feel a little strange, and it really would glut the high end. I think you could easily enough justify the high-ranking lords of Lithmore itself as having more direct ability to cause trouble for the King than the Duchess/Dukes in their far-off duchies.
Yes, I agree with your sentiments, Julea.
We could set it up to be as simple as if we get a majority vote from the Dukes of No Confidence, the Monarch would be deposed and we'd have to run another quest for it.
We've got domains on the docket to be built, and influence points as well. Once Influence and Domains come in, I think the game will lend itself to a far more political atmosphere as I'd like to see people able to invest influence points in domains (even if they're not the owner of the domain or a noble) to enact actions there. This should bring our world to life as events happen outside the city, and people can affect one another's interests simply by spending some of their earned influence.
Unfortunately, that system is currently being built as opposed to 'already available'! We may need to make do with a stop-gap like Dukes in the meantime.
Or, we might say that the Monarch is so powerful that, at this time, being deposed simply isn't realistic. This was the status with the ab Harmons, and was reasonably thematic given the 'divine right' they enjoyed. This may simply be easier, but I don't think it makes for the best game overall.
On the other hand, we have a limited pbase size. We did have a lot of nobles when the game first started because we had a belief that everyone should be entitled to play a noble. But because the pbase was so small, and everyone did want to play a noble, the result was that other, quite necessary, roles in the game weren't filled. The game was very one-sided, and the nobles really didn't have a lot to do... so... it wasn't really great for TI until we closed off the nobles guild and stopped allowing people to make nobles. I don't want to miscalculate and return to that state.
Please keep your thoughts coming!
We could set it up to be as simple as if we get a majority vote from the Dukes of No Confidence, the Monarch would be deposed and we'd have to run another quest for it.
We've got domains on the docket to be built, and influence points as well. Once Influence and Domains come in, I think the game will lend itself to a far more political atmosphere as I'd like to see people able to invest influence points in domains (even if they're not the owner of the domain or a noble) to enact actions there. This should bring our world to life as events happen outside the city, and people can affect one another's interests simply by spending some of their earned influence.
Unfortunately, that system is currently being built as opposed to 'already available'! We may need to make do with a stop-gap like Dukes in the meantime.
Or, we might say that the Monarch is so powerful that, at this time, being deposed simply isn't realistic. This was the status with the ab Harmons, and was reasonably thematic given the 'divine right' they enjoyed. This may simply be easier, but I don't think it makes for the best game overall.
On the other hand, we have a limited pbase size. We did have a lot of nobles when the game first started because we had a belief that everyone should be entitled to play a noble. But because the pbase was so small, and everyone did want to play a noble, the result was that other, quite necessary, roles in the game weren't filled. The game was very one-sided, and the nobles really didn't have a lot to do... so... it wasn't really great for TI until we closed off the nobles guild and stopped allowing people to make nobles. I don't want to miscalculate and return to that state.
Please keep your thoughts coming!
Re: Dice
I'm sort of agreeing with you.
How could we empower the nobles of Lithmore to have an opinion on their king?
We *DO* already have the OOC/IC 'vote a GL out' policy, but that's not really IC. Can we put something in there?
Thanks for directing my brain towards the obvious, Dice! Hehe.
I'm sort of agreeing with you.
How could we empower the nobles of Lithmore to have an opinion on their king?
We *DO* already have the OOC/IC 'vote a GL out' policy, but that's not really IC. Can we put something in there?
Thanks for directing my brain towards the obvious, Dice! Hehe.
I like player-driven RP roles too, but the problem is as always the small pbase. A king nor the dukes/duchesses should realistically not dally around town randomly roleplaying with the freemen, after all.
If a player-driven high-level political game is to be feasible from a game-design perspective, I believe it must efficiently require, affect and make use of those lower down in the hierarchy. For this I think some sort of more fine-grained support code need to be the key mechanic.
Firstly the dukes/duchesses (or high lords of Lithmore, as Dice mentions) need to have competitive reason to intrigue with each other and for/against the monarch. The way to move on their goals (whatever they are) could then technically be their current support in the king's council. I don't think deposing the king should be the main goal here really ... other goal sounds more interesting than contesting the crown itself.
I envision ideally that, if the top echelons are player-controlled, this top of the pyramid could force lower-level nobles to pick their alliances, by extension getting gentry and even the freemen pulled along as their support is required up the ladder. To make this a continually exciting political game (if that is what is desired), those alliances must be easy to change and as volatile as possible.
If such a trickle-down effect could work efficiently, I'm all for high-level player nobles. If not I think it will create too much behind-closed-doors palace rp.
This is somewhat off-topic, but coincidentally I'm not sure the current support code could handle actual politics of this kind - I'd think you'd then need to be able to change your allegiance much easier, and let support mean less - like give your support on a very specific, limited issue, or for a pre-set limited time. Point is that 'removing' or 'resetting' such support should not be a big deal. The current support feels like a sort of all-or-nothing affair - you put all your clout behind a person for/against everything they do, or none at all. To me at least, this more simulates a longer-term dedication to a cause than that volatile last-minute fast-talked or bribed support so crucial in a political gambit.
As it is, throwing your support behind someone is one thing, but changing that support from one person to another is quite a psychological threshold to overcome (as a player), especially as it's all visible now and you even have to explain yourself when doing it. As such I imagine the support "hierarchy" will not be volatile enough to support court politics of the kind I envision above.
.
Empheba
If a player-driven high-level political game is to be feasible from a game-design perspective, I believe it must efficiently require, affect and make use of those lower down in the hierarchy. For this I think some sort of more fine-grained support code need to be the key mechanic.
Firstly the dukes/duchesses (or high lords of Lithmore, as Dice mentions) need to have competitive reason to intrigue with each other and for/against the monarch. The way to move on their goals (whatever they are) could then technically be their current support in the king's council. I don't think deposing the king should be the main goal here really ... other goal sounds more interesting than contesting the crown itself.
I envision ideally that, if the top echelons are player-controlled, this top of the pyramid could force lower-level nobles to pick their alliances, by extension getting gentry and even the freemen pulled along as their support is required up the ladder. To make this a continually exciting political game (if that is what is desired), those alliances must be easy to change and as volatile as possible.
If such a trickle-down effect could work efficiently, I'm all for high-level player nobles. If not I think it will create too much behind-closed-doors palace rp.
This is somewhat off-topic, but coincidentally I'm not sure the current support code could handle actual politics of this kind - I'd think you'd then need to be able to change your allegiance much easier, and let support mean less - like give your support on a very specific, limited issue, or for a pre-set limited time. Point is that 'removing' or 'resetting' such support should not be a big deal. The current support feels like a sort of all-or-nothing affair - you put all your clout behind a person for/against everything they do, or none at all. To me at least, this more simulates a longer-term dedication to a cause than that volatile last-minute fast-talked or bribed support so crucial in a political gambit.
As it is, throwing your support behind someone is one thing, but changing that support from one person to another is quite a psychological threshold to overcome (as a player), especially as it's all visible now and you even have to explain yourself when doing it. As such I imagine the support "hierarchy" will not be volatile enough to support court politics of the kind I envision above.
.
Empheba
I would love to see more player roles like dukes and such... but, frankly I do not think we have the playerbase.
However, in rare cases, the Monarch might contact the staff to consult raising a long played and loyal character to a ducal position. This might allow for some interesting RP in the already existing nobles without making too many more. Provided this is uncommon and only given as a sort of high honor for a player crucial to the King's rule, it might be interesting to play with.
However, in rare cases, the Monarch might contact the staff to consult raising a long played and loyal character to a ducal position. This might allow for some interesting RP in the already existing nobles without making too many more. Provided this is uncommon and only given as a sort of high honor for a player crucial to the King's rule, it might be interesting to play with.
The problem with roleplay muds are, they never seem to really get much more than 20-30 (peaking at 50 for events) on at one time and an active player base of characters (not players) of not more than 100.
It is really difficult to raise it higher than that, even with advertising etc.. as new people come, old people seem to drop out and it kind of evens out.
At the moment, TI has quite an active player base, and healthy numbers and interest.
It is really difficult to raise it higher than that, even with advertising etc.. as new people come, old people seem to drop out and it kind of evens out.
At the moment, TI has quite an active player base, and healthy numbers and interest.
Julea/Lien/Ashe/Adaline
I really like Empheba's comments about support, and how it psychologically feels to alter it, etc. Thank you sincerely and deeply for that insight.
I think also that the short-termness of individual causes might be better reflected in the way people will be able to spend influence points versus laying out support relationships.
==
That is aside from this question, however. Thus far, I think we're saying no to bringing in the Dukes and Duchesses. That's the feeling I get thus far, albeit it's quite early days in the polling. I'd love to see more thoughts and opinions.
Following this, however, I may make another thread on the question that entranced me when Dice wrote it, but it may have to wait - that being how to put the matter into the hands of the 'lower player'. And it trails on to what Emph was saying about non-nobles and others needing to be able to be involved for that type of game to errupt, so I might have some thoughts before I get to a posting about it.
Thanks again, my brilliant comrades, for your valuable thoughts.
I think also that the short-termness of individual causes might be better reflected in the way people will be able to spend influence points versus laying out support relationships.
==
That is aside from this question, however. Thus far, I think we're saying no to bringing in the Dukes and Duchesses. That's the feeling I get thus far, albeit it's quite early days in the polling. I'd love to see more thoughts and opinions.
Following this, however, I may make another thread on the question that entranced me when Dice wrote it, but it may have to wait - that being how to put the matter into the hands of the 'lower player'. And it trails on to what Emph was saying about non-nobles and others needing to be able to be involved for that type of game to errupt, so I might have some thoughts before I get to a posting about it.
Thanks again, my brilliant comrades, for your valuable thoughts.
Personally, I'd love to take a shot at playing a Duke. I think I could make it work enough to make it interesting at the very least.
That said, I do agree moreso with the rest of the sentiment here, in that it's probably too early yet to start introducing such powerhouses to the mix.
That said, I do agree moreso with the rest of the sentiment here, in that it's probably too early yet to start introducing such powerhouses to the mix.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests