Settlement Management - The Ugly

[Good Character]

I have managed or helped manage three settlements now. For me it's been the single most enjoyable thing the server has offered so far. However, over the years as changes have been made I've noticed it's gradually become difficult to match what's occurring IC to what's occurring mechanically.

Removal of the Citizenship Rosters
I admit I don't remember this change being documented nor can I find it, so I am not sure what the reason for it was. Settlements that incentivize being long-term citizens (to usually prep for the next elections) now find themselves having to just trust that the person is a citizen.

Change to How Shops are Purchased
The hard and fast rule for property has always been to interact with the owner if you intend to evict/release their property. It was a good concept and helped generate some really solid roleplay. It still does, but now it feels like an OOC chore. However, the relatively new auctioning system has all but stripped settlement leaders of managing shops and their quality. Now that shops are auctioned on a lengthy timer settlement leaders are stuck with three options:
1. Permit shops with poor quality items that hardly sell,
2. Pray whoever owns the shop will put out quality items, or
3. Let shops sit in indefinite limbo while settlement leaders chase down the new shop owners to avoid rulebreaking, serve a notice of eviction, wait for the next auction to finish, and potentially repeat this process.

Shops are usually the majority of the settlement's income. Naturally, poor-selling shops are going to make that more difficult.

[AstralUniverse]

Removal of the Citizenship Rosters
I admit I don't remember this change being documented nor can I find it, so I am not sure what the reason for it was. Settlements that incentivize being long-term citizens (to usually prep for the next elections) now find themselves having to just trust that the person is a citizen.

I dont recall this ever being a thing. Afaik, you could never tell if someone is a citizen or not by accessing a full list of citizens for the settlement. Never seen such a list myself in my many years here across quite a few characters in roles who would have access to such things.

[Good Character]

I dont recall this ever being a thing. Afaik, you could never tell if someone is a citizen or not by accessing a full list of citizens for the settlement. Never seen such a list myself in my many years here across quite a few characters in roles who would have access to such things.

First two settlements I helped manage were 4-5+ years ago. I thought this feature possibly from a fever dream of my own so I ended up asking. A few people insisted it existed but was removed.

Assuming it was never a reality, it would be a fantastic feature with restrictions based on positions created by the actual settlement leader.

[AstralUniverse]

I even specifically recall we had a situation that an election was called by someone who doesnt even live in the settlement, and we were really wondering if they are a citizen and while at it we were also wondering how much support from citizens that person might have. But we were never able to find out by any means if they or their supporters are citizens via any "for sure" method. Only what characters said IC. Looking back? It's probably for the best. Made a whole lot more story than if we could just look at a list and not feel threatened IC by the leadership challenge at all.

[Good Character]

I can certainly see merit for the absence of a list and the presence of one. They both ironically contrast with one another.

One on hand the absence of the list to anyone but the current leader makes it more "fair" - you never know your actual audience, so you don't just go around putting money into people's pockets for votes.

On the other hand the absence of a list means you can't do things such as reserve property for citizens, limit who has access to town hall-like meetings, assign non-mechanically backed roles to people who you expect to be citizens, etc.

I suppose you could make the list available to all at any time, but it would likely just lead to warring districts checking the list to confirm if a certain person is a part of the enemy's district.

[Xerah]

That has not been an option as long as I played here, which is over 5 years ago now. It was still in the list of options back then, but it didn't give any info.

Your negatives for having the list are actually all extreme positives:

On the other hand the absence of a list means you can't do things such as reserve property for citizens, limit who has access to town hall-like meetings, assign non-mechanically backed roles to people who you expect to be citizens, etc.

Restricting people like that is very much insular RP, we don't need countless more "banned faiths/races/etc." lists out there. Plus, existing leaders will just remove citizens aside from those they know will vote for them. This is very much not an ugly part of settlements.

If you want to do something like this, which I did once upon a time and Kuma et al did before me, create your own faction that people can apply to be "elevated" citizens (in my case, it was weave users). This is an active case of RP development that is not tied to pressing a few buttons.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

You can learn about who lives in a settlement by RPing there. You'll learn who its regulars are. And even if those people aren't citizens, they're probably friends with people who are.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen elections called in Guldorand by some character who nobody's heard of, who is never seen again after they lose the election. Like they made their char to become sheriff and then roll when they lose. You need to be part of a place's story for people to care about you. And you become part of that story by RPing with people there.

[Good Character]

That has not been an option as long as I played here, which is over 5 years ago now. It was still in the list of options back then, but it didn't give any info.

Your negatives for having the list are actually all extreme positives:

On the other hand the absence of a list means you can't do things such as reserve property for citizens, limit who has access to town hall-like meetings, assign non-mechanically backed roles to people who you expect to be citizens, etc.

Restricting people like that is very much insular RP, we don't need countless more "banned faiths/races/etc." lists out there. Plus, existing leaders will just remove citizens aside from those they know will vote for them. This is very much not an ugly part of settlements.

If you want to do something like this, which I did once upon a time and Kuma et al did before me, create your own faction that people can apply to be "elevated" citizens (in my case, it was weave users). This is an active case of RP development that is not tied to pressing a few buttons.

I disagree entirely, especially when leaders are eager to foot the bill for individuals who can't afford the 10K buy-in to be citizens.

None of what I mentioned has any bearing on instilling "countless more "banned faiths/races/etc."" Regardless, there are districts that actually do embody those concepts: Myon and its elf-restriction, entirety of the Surface banning monstrous races, Tungsten Tower and its gnome-restriction, Devil's Table being made for devil-worshippers and drow houses, and The Sharps being for monstrous races and misfits. Unique identifies to settlements is never a bad thing, and that pushes me into my next point if it is.

Plus, existing leaders will just remove citizens aside from those they know will vote for them.

This is definitely not a bad thing. It's the reason why settlements are time-limited mechanically even if you're playing some sort of dictator/tyrant. It's also why people can force elections after a year has passed, or choose to have an assassin assassinate the leader to start an election. Why would such conflict be frowned upon?

[Xerah]

Yes, it very much is a bad thing. Your whole post is really concerning that you're looking at it through this lens.

If you can go to such lengths to restrict people by making a few menu choices, that is absolutely awful storytelling. There are good ways to go about making such restrictions, this is not one of them.

I'm going to dip out on this conversation now as we are so far apart on this that I don't see anything positive coming out of this discussion.

[Good Character]

I have absolutely no idea what point you're attempting to make at this time. What restrictions would be imposed by a "few menu choices"? The only "restriction" I have explicitly mentioned imposing is related to to whether you're a citizen or not, and all those restrictions would be implemented and enforced through roleplay and not through some coded system.

If your issue is just whether or not those restrictions should be implemented or not based on citizenship, obtaining citizenship is not some hidden mechanic, not some status barred by ridiculous mechanical hoops. I admit the 10,000 gold requirement is something to keep in mind (and frankly I have always thought it should be lowered or removed), but otherwise it's solely that: a one-time monetary expectation, and one assumedly implemented to give people thought about flip-flopping between settlements.

[-XXX-]

This is definitely not a bad thing.

It is empirically verified to be a bad thing.

Viewing citizenship lists used to be a thing, but as Xerah described mayors actively exploited the list to ban everybody not on their team to secure their position on numerous occassions, running their settlements into the ground and turning them into a ghost towns in the process.

Where the settlement system is concerned, forget about the stick and reach for the carrot, always, every single time.
Corrupt politician PCs work. Tyrant overlord PCs do not.

[With Darkness and Silence]

The last election I was apart of in Cordor (supporting another party,) was completely and utterly buried by the fact the competition handed out bribes faster than you can say Bob's your uncle.

It was very inspiring. Especially when the follow up was to completely clean out the cabinet of players and enstate completely new people, just kind of kicking them out without showing any interest in them.

They easily did this without a list. Since this is something considered acceptable and "fun" on Arelith, yeah, I say no list. Make them vaguely work for "I'll give you 10k if you sign up and vote for me person on Cordor's street who I've never seen before and is most likely a new character."

[Good Character]

Knew I remembered the mechanic existing. It explains the shift from outright revocations to Pariah status. With the shift to utilizing the Pariah system (which still permits voting even when you have the status), it feels like this has shifted from outright abuse of how a system worked to ensure an endless reign to now inherently discouraging tyrant overlord PCs from ruling because your enemies can still (and likely will) boot you out once your time-limited reign ends.

Admittedly have never been a pariah, but if they're currently banned from calling early elections I personally think that should be changed, too; the pariah system reads (based on the mechanics implemented for it) as a punishment for a crime or a way to slowly discourage a political enemy from hanging around the settlement due to them not having access to key resources without having to use the exile system.

I think the carrot works 90% of the time. Even on an evil PC related to the settlement that's the choice I go for because at the end of the day my PC is still benefitting. However, the stick needs to be applied or shown that you're willing to apply it in some cases.

The last election I was apart of in Cordor (supporting another party,) was completely and utterly buried by the fact the competition handed out bribes faster than you can say Bob's your uncle.

It was very inspiring. Especially when the follow up was to completely clean out the cabinet of players and enstate completely new people, just kind of kicking them out without showing any interest in them.

They easily did this without a list. Since this is something considered acceptable and "fun" on Arelith, yeah, I say no list. Make them vaguely work for "I'll give you 10k if you sign up and vote for me person on Cordor's street who I've never seen before and is most likely a new character."

Always loved that. It was fun. It's how the chancellor I was underneath as vice chancellor won. I love how it's still a reward of 10K to vote.

The issue with this, however, is that it works primarily and only just for Cordor and somewhat for the UD districts; it preys on new characters because they have no voting cooldown, and the characters won't accidentally break the rule of "it is also against the rules to vote with characters who have not been active in roleplay in the settlement prior to the election", because they'll always naturally be around the settlement. It actually used to be such an issue due to alts that the administration limited it to lv 7+ but now extra accounts in the same settlement just won't count.

When it comes to other settlements you're usually dealing with individuals who have committed themselves to the settlement long-term. You could sit there and pamper someone who isn't a citizen just because they act like one (i.e. my previous character that hung around Cordor but was a citizen of Guldorand for its NPC merchants) without realizing they can't even vote for you anyways.

[ElvenEdibles]

I'll give you one thing, the change to the way shops are purchased has most definitely given rise to a new wave of terrible shops.

[Good Character]

I'll give you one thing, the change to the way shops are purchased has most definitely given rise to a new wave of terrible shops.

I will say it unintentionally gives a new incentive to work with those shop owners to see how you can assist them in moving towards better products, or even better for the corrupt PCs - force them to carry your crafted products or get the boot.

However, I have already experienced the issue of someone refusing to switch up their stock. I frankly don't want to give them the boot because the even worse scenario, which I've experienced, too, is someone that doesn't realize they own the shop so they never stock it.

[Arienette]

I have harped on about the problems with the shop system for a while now. I made a feedback thread about it a while ago.

There is so much downside to the current system that the support it gets from people really does baffle me.

There is a particular shop in the settlement I primarily play in that has been basically unused for several months now. Week of bidding, bought by someone who never stocks it, week of bidding, won by someone who puts a few junk items in there and then a week later it’s up for bid again, then someone owns it for a couple weeks and disappears, then someone else owns it but puts in 0 effort and quits in protest when the settlement official strongly recommends they make improvements… on and on for months.

These are all random people who have no discernible connection to the settlement. And at the same time, there is a want-to-be merchant faction of citizens who’s inventories are all overflowing with crafted stuff but they have no shop. Really wish the settlement could just give them the shop.

It seems to boil down to a difference of opinion on the purpose of shops.

If the purpose of the shop is for the sole gratification of the player who is randomly lucky enough to have the winning lottery ticket, the current system is great.

If the purpose of the shop is to be a resource to benefit the broader player community, create RP, benefit the settlement, etc, then the old (or some other) system is better.

[Mattamue]

Couldn't find the announcement, but for the shop question, I thought settlement shops were handled differently somehow?

Otherwise, I like that you can't just pull up a list of people. Seems like narrowing down someone else's or building a constituency yourself through rp -- even if it's just 10k a pop -- is better than having a mechanic you can just click in a closet somewhere.

[ElvenEdibles]

If the purpose of the shop is to be a resource to benefit the broader player community, create RP, benefit the settlement, etc, then the old (or some other) system is better.

I agree 100%

Someone told me the price of fairness is shitty shops everywhere, then i'd rather it not be fair anymore because it's completely degraded the Player Shop system into a mostly useless hood ornament.

I think the bidding system is great for in-demand houses. It's awful for shops.

[AstralUniverse]

Are there downsides to the current shop system? Yes. I can even list them.

1) you cant do RP about selling/buying property anymore.
2) you cannot really control the quality of the goods sold in your settlement. This isnt even just because the mechanical system, as it's levels of freedom are even encouraged by DMs and I hear a lot of "the king/whatever wont allow us to intervene unless it's an extreme case of trade crime" around Cordor and other settlements even. So it's not necessarily a downside overall, but lets call it a downside just for the shop system specifically.

The upside of the current system, however, is that shops cycle a lot more and people of all timezones and playstyles and ooc cliquery level have an equal chance to get a shop.

My two cents? The current system is great in comparison.

[Good Character]

Couldn't find the announcement, but for the shop question, I thought settlement shops were handled differently somehow?

Otherwise, I like that you can't just pull up a list of people. Seems like narrowing down someone else's or building a constituency yourself through rp -- even if it's just 10k a pop -- is better than having a mechanic you can just click in a closet somewhere.

I looked at the announcement. Only mention relating to settlements was that quarters important to a settlement (e.g. barracks, state buildings, etc.) could be passed on without an auction.

If not a list, which I've mentioned I'm against due to a degree for the reasons I've stated above, possibly some sort of identification that is given to players? A 1x1 item? People could even potentially use some sort of other system to create fake identifications to present themselves as citizens of whatever settlement they desire.

Are there downsides to the current shop system? Yes. I can even list them.

1) you cant do RP about selling/buying property anymore.
2) you cannot really control the quality of the goods sold in your settlement. This isnt even just because the mechanical system, as it's levels of freedom are even encouraged by DMs and I hear a lot of "the king/whatever wont allow us to intervene unless it's an extreme case of trade crime" around Cordor and other settlements even. So it's not necessarily a downside overall, but lets call it a downside just for the shop system specifically.

The upside of the current system, however, is that shops cycle a lot more and people of all timezones and playstyles and ooc cliquery level have an equal chance to get a shop.

My two cents? The current system is great in comparison.

As one who's been on both ends of this system, I do agree this current system has felt better. While there has definitely been an increase in frankly piss-poor shops, the main benefit outweighs that.

I would rather see citizens of a settlement have a greater chance to win auctions. Maybe 3x more likely than the Average Joe just hunting down whatever shop they can find that's available?

[AstralUniverse]

I would rather see citizens of a settlement have a greater chance to win auctions. Maybe 3x more likely than the Average Joe just hunting down whatever shop they can find that's available?

I mean, it would make sense, in a way... and it keeps the "no passing shops between friends" limitation, but then since people can just buy citizenship every time they bid on a very good shop in a high traffic area (because it's totally worth sinking 10k gold extra to triple your winning chances) it just becomes a gold sink race again and I think it defeats the spirit of the system that is meant to give low level characters equal footing and not just prevent cartel.

Also? Some shops are just piss-poor. It's only organic and natural isnt it...

[Good Character]

I mean, it would make sense, in a way... and it keeps the "no passing shops between friends" limitation, but then since people can just buy citizenship every time they bid on a very good shop in a high traffic area (because it's totally worth sinking 10k gold extra to triple your winning chances) it just becomes a gold sink race again and I think it defeats the spirit of the system that is meant to give low level characters equal footing and not just prevent cartel.

With the limitation of settlement-hopping added in long ago (i.e. 1 year voting cooldown), I say implement that lv 7+ limitation again and strip the 10K sink.

While certainly high traffic areas are going to see a lot of people dumping their citizenship there, it means those who have invested their time in lower traffic areas will find their self rewarded more easily.

[AstralUniverse]

here's the thing. Not all people even care about voting or the outcome of the election. There's no timer on switching settlement citizenships afaik? just voting.

[Good Character]

If the issue that someone would just flip-flop between settlements the moment a shop goes up for sale, just make it to where there's a cooldown; you won't get the bonus until an X amount of time with a settlement similar to how the voting works.

[AstralUniverse]

If the issue that someone would just flip-flop between settlements the moment a shop goes up for sale, just make it to where there's a cooldown; you won't get the bonus until an X amount of time with a settlement similar to how the voting works.

Then it limits shop keeping to lvl 7+ to prevent people from spam voting. I dont know if it's a huge issue. I personally dont recall ever having a shop on a lvl 3-6 character outside of Skal but... it may be against what the system has tried to achieve, idk.