Settlement leader Activity

[The GrumpyCat]

Running on a similar line of thought:

- Require settlements to have at least 2 appointed underling PCs assigned to the leader. These can just be the same sort of administrative or delegative staff that many leaders already have.
- Underlings gain the ability to trigger an election after 7 RL days if the leader has not been online. You could automate this, but by having the underlings do it, it gives a bit of IC legitimacy.
- If underlings are not assigned within 7 RL days of a new leadership, elections are triggered.

Hay, maybe you could tie this in with the writ system?

Basicaly - it works like you say. But the Underlings need writs to do anything. The 'Chancellor/Mayor/head Poohbah' can do anything he wants without a writ. He can also make a writ for an underling, who can combine it with their writ to do something (like with the three leadership system)
Alternativly both underlings could combine their writs to do something without the chancellors knowledge.
And yeah, that's an interesting idea Dreams! I like it!

[Dreams]

I thought about that as well, but I recall we had a lot of issues with the writ system just based on lining up play times and such. If the 7 day thing was automated, then it would safeguard against a series of unfortunate events coming together to result in a stagnant settlement. It would still require those in power to do something, just makes it a little easier to begin the process when the right conditions are present.

However, the in-government betrayals are a really awesome aspect of political RP and I'd love to see more ways that this could work. Maybe a writ like that is the way to do it. It also gives political opponents other avenues of attack, other than simply economy-based or assassin-based.

[The GrumpyCat]

Ooh! You've given me an idea!

What if the two 'Underlings' were the 'leaders' of the second and third factions that ran? I think in that case we'd REALLY need to make it so that they can only 'oust' the leader if both agree, and if said leader hasn't been around for seven days. But that could be interesting...?

I thought about that as well, but I recall we had a lot of issues with the writ system just based on lining up play times and such

Under my idea above - you'd basically still have one main pc running the show (Mayor, Chancellor, Thane, ect). But he'd have two lessers who could, in theory, combine to conspire against him or her. Or work with him or her! Whichever!

So you'd have one bloke who could do anything whenever he wanted (which is the issue with having the three person system, it's easy to paralize a government if the three arn't together at any point, or if they refuse to work together) but you'd also have two other people to possibly 'spread' the leadership load, if they were at all combined to work together.

[Hunter548]

Ooh! You've given me an idea!

What if the two 'Underlings' were the 'leaders' of the second and third factions that ran? I think in that case we'd REALLY need to make it so that they can only 'oust' the leader if both agree, and if said leader hasn't been around for seven days. But that could be interesting...?

I thought about that as well, but I recall we had a lot of issues with the writ system just based on lining up play times and such

Under my idea above - you'd basically still have one main pc running the show (Mayor, Chancellor, Thane, ect). But he'd have two lessers who could, in theory, combine to conspire against him or her. Or work with him or her! Whichever!

So you'd have one bloke who could do anything whenever he wanted (which is the issue with having the three person system, it's easy to paralize a government if the three arn't together at any point, or if they refuse to work together) but you'd also have two other people to possibly 'spread' the leadership load, if they were at all combined to work together.

This sounds suspiciously similar to the near-universally-hated devils table system (which is all around terrible). It certainly would have a similar huge propensity for frustrating game-y gridlock. No matter how popular a leader was, as long as you could round up two people who didn't like the leader and could fit people into a faction to run (So you need what, six pcs total?) you could force indefinite elections until you got a result you were happy with. Anyone hoping to avoid this situation would need to run at least two candidates and split up their votes to get two people in the top two to stop it.


I'm not convinced this problem needs some giant new system (inevitably with its own abusable idiosyncrasies that less savory players would exploit) to solve. Rather, this could conceivably be solved by dm removal of inactive leaders the same way the team already removes inactive quarter-loggers.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Mechanically instituting politically complexity doesn't sound super hot.

I hate to beat the drum, but inactivity should be dealt with by IC player actions, or if chronic and detrimental, DM intervention.

You can make as nuanced mechanics as you want to solve the follies of the playerbase - at a certain point, you're doing more harm than good.

[AstralUniverse]

Mechanically instituting politically complexity doesn't sound super hot.

I hate to beat the drum, but inactivity should be dealt with by IC player actions, or if chronic and detrimental, DM intervention.

You can make as nuanced mechanics as you want to solve the follies of the playerbase - at a certain point, you're doing more harm than good.

I agree with this a lot. I think there are enough tools in game to deal with leadership inactivity and that any more added factors will just open room for abuses. Eventually lets all remember that one character going MIA isnt the end of your character's RP. While, yes, it's puts the settlement in a jam, mechanically, your character still has a world of things to do about it or unrelated to it.

[JustMonika]

Mechanically instituting politically complexity doesn't sound super hot.

I hate to beat the drum, but inactivity should be dealt with by IC player actions, or if chronic and detrimental, DM intervention.

You can make as nuanced mechanics as you want to solve the follies of the playerbase - at a certain point, you're doing more harm than good.

I agree with this a lot. I think there are enough tools in game to deal with leadership inactivity and that any more added factors will just open room for abuses. Eventually lets all remember that one character going MIA isnt the end of your character's RP. While, yes, it's puts the settlement in a jam, mechanically, your character still has a world of things to do about it or unrelated to it.

This is significantly less true for the characters whose jobs all hinge on the ability to perform settlement actions, like guards or Trade Ministers and other equivilents thereof.

[AstralUniverse]

What you base your character concept on, and what it means in practice when you need to deal with game limitations, is a different topic, I feel. I'm not in favor of being in a position where a character can be shut down by something like a settlement system but that's more to do with my playstyle perhaps. Also, last time I played a settlement official there was a pretty wide spread of authority so if the leader went away for few days, there would be several different characters scattered around with different powers to each. Unless they all go inactive it does smooths the leader's inactivity time frame.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

I think allowing other political parties to have the power to call a new election would cause a never-ending headache and make political RP impossible without a lot of OOC agreements and arrangements just so things can function.

I really think the system we have now is fine, there's a term limit and people can call an election every month if they don't like what's going on. Absentee people can't rule forever.

If absentee people keep getting voted in, now that's something for the DMs to look into. But, I mean, if a character's friends are all in a settlement and vote for them no matter what, is that a rulebreak? I don't think this is something the team will step in to intervene with. But I imagine it'll end up into RPR considerations.

And at some level I think we could just handle it IC, too. If characters make an uproar about how awful an administration is, make artwork (we have a ton of exciting new fixtures), and write records detailing how bad it was, we can take it and have fun with it.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Mechanically instituting politically complexity doesn't sound super hot.

I hate to beat the drum, but inactivity should be dealt with by IC player actions, or if chronic and detrimental, DM intervention.

You can make as nuanced mechanics as you want to solve the follies of the playerbase - at a certain point, you're doing more harm than good.

I agree with this a lot. I think there are enough tools in game to deal with leadership inactivity and that any more added factors will just open room for abuses. Eventually lets all remember that one character going MIA isnt the end of your character's RP. While, yes, it's puts the settlement in a jam, mechanically, your character still has a world of things to do about it or unrelated to it.

This is significantly less true for the characters whose jobs all hinge on the ability to perform settlement actions, like guards or Trade Ministers and other equivilents thereof.

If you have a settlement leader that is stingy with administrative authority but is rarely around and expects you to do guard things, I would say it's 100% IC to demand your leader gives you the administrative rights necessary or threaten to resign.

Being a guard is already hard- don't work for leaders that refuse to work for you. IC, this will cascade and I guarantee you the settlement leader will wind up replaced, or they'll find someone they do trust with authority to ameliorate the situation.

[JustMonika]

I agree with this a lot. I think there are enough tools in game to deal with leadership inactivity and that any more added factors will just open room for abuses. Eventually lets all remember that one character going MIA isnt the end of your character's RP. While, yes, it's puts the settlement in a jam, mechanically, your character still has a world of things to do about it or unrelated to it.

This is significantly less true for the characters whose jobs all hinge on the ability to perform settlement actions, like guards or Trade Ministers and other equivilents thereof.

If you have a settlement leader that is stingy with administrative authority but is rarely around and expects you to do guard things, I would say it's 100% IC to demand your leader gives you the administrative rights necessary or threaten to resign.

Being a guard is already hard- don't work for leaders that refuse to work for you. IC, this will cascade and I guarantee you the settlement leader will wind up replaced, or they'll find someone they do trust with authority to ameliorate the situation.

You can't threaten to resign, or demand something of someone who isn't there.

Nor can you replace said settlement leader. Indeed, if any of people do resign the situation actually gets worse, as no-one can mechanically be appointed to replace them either. People stop being able to recieve pay, perform the basics of their jobs, exiled people and so forth.

There's a difference between a bad leader [which can actually generate a lot of -good- RP] and an inactive one.

[AstralUniverse]

You can't threaten to resign, or demand something of someone who isn't there.

Nor can you replace said settlement leader. Indeed, if any of people do resign the situation actually gets worse, as no-one can mechanically be appointed to replace them either. People stop being able to recieve pay, perform the basics of their jobs, exiled people and so forth.

I'm sorry, I really dont mean to condescend, but I've been through such situations in the past and it really isnt so bad. From your words alone it doesnt even sound so bad. All of these things can and will create RP if you let them. It is true that the system isnt perfect but my one and only argument here is that any more added factors into this and we'll just have more jams from other angles when a leader IS active. There are enoguh tools in play already.

There's a difference between a bad leader [which can actually generate a lot of -good- RP] and an inactive one.

No, there is not.

[The GrumpyCat]

You can't threaten to resign, or demand something of someone who isn't there.

Nor can you replace said settlement leader. Indeed, if any of people do resign the situation actually gets worse, as no-one can mechanically be appointed to replace them either. People stop being able to recieve pay, perform the basics of their jobs, exiled people and so forth.

I'm sorry, I really dont mean to condescend, but I've been through such situations in the past and it really isnt so bad. From your words alone it doesnt even sound so bad. All of these things can and will create RP if you let them. It is true that the system isnt perfect but my one and only argument here is that any more added factors into this and we'll just have more jams from other angles when a leader IS active. There are enoguh tools in play already.

There's a difference between a bad leader [which can actually generate a lot of -good- RP] and an inactive one.

No, there is not.

I'm sorry but, there really is! At least, there's a differnece between a leader who is highly unpopular/disliked, and a leader that just Is. Not. There.
Example:
'Leader! There's a man named Tony who's running around murdering people! We need to exile him! '
Bad!Leader: 'Oh no we don't, let's try and hire him into the guard!/Oh no we don't, let me dress up in my giant pink bunny costume and bounce around a bit!/No we don't, let's exile YOU instead! UP with murder! Up with Chaos! Huzzah Cyric!

All these actions can be responded to ICly, people can talk about them, argue about them, discuss them. Assassins can be hired. Ambassadors sent ect.

'Leader! There's a man named Tony who's running around murdering people! We need to exile him! '
*Crickets*
Leader?
*Crickets*
Oh well then, nothing to be done.

Granted rp can be made of that situation too, but I'd argue less rp and less interesting rp.

I get that people have real lives - I get that sometimes Things happen to take us away from Arelith, even burnout. But I'm going to put this out here now- a Settlment Leadership position is one of the very few positions in arelith where I feel that if you can't put a reasonable amount of time into it (I'm not saying being on for hours every day, but at least a few good few hours in a week) then you should consider passing it on to another person in your faction.

[AstralUniverse]

I'm sorry but, there really is! At least, there's a differnece between a leader who is highly unpopular/disliked, and a leader that just Is. Not. There.
Example:
'Leader! There's a man named Tony who's running around murdering people! We need to exile him! '
Bad!Leader: 'Oh no we don't, let's try and hire him into the guard!/Oh no we don't, let me dress up in my giant pink bunny costume and bounce around a bit!/No we don't, let's exile YOU instead! UP with murder! Up with Chaos! Huzzah Cyric!

All these actions can be responded to ICly, people can talk about them, argue about them, discuss them. Assassins can be hired. Ambassadors sent ect.

'Leader! There's a man named Tony who's running around murdering people! We need to exile him! '
*Crickets*
Leader?
*Crickets*
Oh well then, nothing to be done.

Granted rp can be made of that situation too, but I'd argue less rp and less interesting rp.

I get that people have real lives - I get that sometimes Things happen to take us away from Arelith, even burnout. But I'm going to put this out here now- a Settlment Leadership position is one of the very few positions in arelith where I feel that if you can't put a reasonable amount of time into it (I'm not saying being on for hours every day, but at least a few good few hours in a week) then you should consider passing it on to another person in your faction.

First of all, I agree with your last statement. I think anyone should ask themselves before taking a leading role in a settlement "Am I really up for it and do I have the time?".

But that said, I disagree with most of everything else you've said and with your example. The settlement system is a tool to create RP via a semi-realistic platform of economy right? This economy can sometime collapse and it doesnt generate any less RP than a functional economy system.

So what's the difference between a leader (good or bad one, doesnt matter) and no leader in an already existing mechanical system? The difference is WHAT rp can be done, but not in the quality (the quality can be just as high). In a town with an active leader you can get certain kinds of RPs going and that's good. In a town with an inactive leader you simply get DIFFERENT kind of RP opportunities and that's all. Hypothetically, if someone goes mia right after the elections, it has a potential to create RPs that could never have happened unless under these very circumstances.

If we go with the "Oh well then, nothing to be done" then no mechanical system will ever stand up to our standards. I dont believe in "oh well then, nothing to be done" on Arelith because there's always something else a character can find to do within or without the active leader.

I'm not in favor of being elected and disappearing and saying it's a good thing that facilitates RP, but it does facilitate SOME kind of RP one way or another. Enough RP for me to say no more factors that keep activity in check are required because it's just going to do more harm than good in the bigger picture (like, when the leader is very active). I mean sure, we can add even more factors to the systems for players to use and likely abuse on occasions, but I just dont see the need for that here.

[Nitro]

An absentee leader shuts down as much RP as it generates. The only thing its cabinet can do is resign if they haven't been given literally all of his powers to act in his stead, and any opposition can't do anything about it until the full 30 days pass to call a re-election. You're essentially forced to have no government with no way to fix it, no assassination or forced abdications to get a new election going.

[AstralUniverse]

An absentee leader shuts down as much RP as it generates. The only thing its cabinet can do is resign if they haven't been given literally all of his powers to act in his stead, and any opposition can't do anything about it until the full 30 days pass to call a re-election. You're essentially forced to have no government with no way to fix it, no assassination or forced abdications to get a new election going.

It shuts down some aspects of RP, and opens up others. And at the very worst case (which, lets be honest, it doesnt happen very often that someone gets elected and disappears for 30 days straight after without spreading power to division leaders) its gone after a month. It doesnt sound so bad and I'd even say (at the risk of sounding lunatic) that it's a positive thing to happen every once in a long time.

[Nobs]

How come this does not fall under the be nice rule?

If you make a play for sutch a important position and you know you hardly have the time to play just dont do it...
Lets some one els do it that has the time for it.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

This might be veering off the path a bit -

But settlement leader activity, the more I think about it, really should fall under the supervision of DMs and not the mechanics or even other players/characters.

Because settlement leaders can have such a profound affect on the server and roleplaying (both positive and negative), they should have an open channel with DMs.

I think it'd be good policy that DMs keep tabs on the activity and agendas of settlement leaders. It doesn't have to be malicious or overbearing, it can be simply

"hey, how's it going Settlement Leader Krad? have any questions for us DMs? do you need assistance with any story arcs for your settlement? no, everything's under control? great! remember you're in a position of influence, so try to keep everyone involved and having fun!"

This can reinforce the significance of these positions OOCly. Let player-leaders feel supported. Alleviate some kind of anxiety amongst the playerbase around PEACEOUT leadership.

[Zavandar]

there's nothing stopping settlement leaders from opening that channel with DMs. I do it sometimes

also, I think trying to defend absentee leadership as a legitimate way to generate rp is a little weird. You can't say it's good with how frustrating and discouraging it is to the people that want to do something with a settlement. Like a player that murders someone and shelves, or gets a contract on them and shelves, or does anything and disappears, it effectively ENDS rp and removes the opportunity for repercussion and interaction.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I do think there are some things that could be done to increase the enjoyment and bolster the confidence of a settlement leader by the dms, especially slow burning plots that last for years and multiple leaders that the current one can try and take a chunk out of if they are interested, and some light interaction with the town npcs here and there. But that's a different topic.

I agree that an absentee leader sucks, and I have nothing to add to that so I just want to say this: When it does happen, try to remember that more then likely its because whatever the person envisioned didn't pan out. People don't go through a process of getting elected to intentionally do nothing, chances are they had ideas that just didn't work or just found out they didn't like it and they got bummed out. Them's the breaks, and its fair game to call them out for being an absentee leader...just try not to use excessive vitriol that borders on ooc when doing so, they are already probably a bit down about it. And if someone is just not logging in then yea, the dms might want to step in. I'm sure they have all sorts of reasons on why a situation like that would need to be handled with care however.