“They are never around!”

[Arkadia Vaskerkin]

Settlement leadership is not kind, nor patient.

There is a feeling of entitlement that players within a settlement hold when it comes to dealing with their respective leader. If meetings are denied, or delayed, temper tantrums that would rival a child's are thrown and suddenly the overall attentive, active leader is being slowly worn down by a growing echo chamber of harassment and hate, fueled further by cliques and ooc metagrudges. I've seen it time and time again, and lived it recently.

When a player prioritizes themselves and their fun, it is almost always used as a knife in which their opposition wields to stab them in the back. Even if they are online relatively often, but play healthy hours or take a few days here and there to help the burnout and escape the people who harass them for not catering to their whims, as said above it is still used as a black mark of shame. Running your political platform on promising to be around 12 hours a day or "more actively" than the current leader is great and all, but no one in Arelith can sustain that forever. It indeed reeks of out of character bleed, but also of an utter lack of understanding for what the position entails.

Realistic to the setting, the settlement leader is never "offline". They are simply busy. Traveling, meeting (both foreign and domestic), sleeping- living their lives. If you're rping in the setting correctly, you can take and apply any and all of those reasons to ooc reasons why the player is not online as well. Just as the King does not sit stationary on his throne, available to all petitioners at all hours of the day, neither should the settlement leader be expected to remain on call when it is convenient for you. Even if you are also a settlement employee. They are not NPCs. Leave them a note, a report, a letter, or better yet work to handle your issue without always needing a hand held. Remember as well that they are dealing with similar requests from many other people, within the settlement and also outside of it, while simultaneously fielding the intricacies and hostilities of DM settlement plots.

There is a reason so many people rocket to the top of settlement leadership through a popularity contest and after a month or two quit the character altogether. Settlement leadership is thankless and most do not understand the role. While it is an unrealistic hope, I look to the future and pray that players can be more understanding and patient, and remember that not only are players not their characters, but there are also real people with real lives behind the pixels they give life to. Give them grace.

[Myrmidos]

Hi there! First time Settlement leader here!

Come to Sib. Do cool stuff. You don't need the thinly veiled Sith Lord's permission to do it.

Just be aware if you kill people carte blanche, I'll throw you in the hole. Ask around about the hole. It's a hoot.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

There is a feeling of entitlement that players within a settlement hold when it comes to dealing with their respective leader.

Just to start, I want to say I'm not picking on your post or anything you said, it's pretty much in line with what everyone else is saying. But I feel like this line, while probably not your intention, highlights a disconnect with reality that I feel many suffer from when they get in game power. I will be using the word "you" a few times in this post, but in this instance the "you" is a hypothetical settlement leader and not "you" the guy whose line I stole to make my point

The truth is that being a "settlement leader" does not make you the leader of the players in your settlement, you are just playing one as a character in a video game. Everyone who plays their character along with that in game (not real life) reality, from your "underlings" to your "enemies" to just some casual that voted for you and wants a little face time is doing you a favor by playing along with the role you won in a video game, not the reverse. And everyone is going to want a piece, especially early on in your first term where there is still hope that it could be fun for everyone involved, and the reality is that you -do- owe them something for playing along with your new role.

Now I will be the first to admit that this "debt" to the players who play along with your video game role can be all consuming and burn out inducing, but this is what you signed up for. It's why I would never do it again and always tell my few ooc friends that play this game when they pronounce their intention to run for something they are crazy, but I will help them try to win if it's really what they want to do.

But another truth that needs to be said is that the people saying "you don't need settlement leaders to do anything" are 100% right. Your settlement leader character is really only as relevant as the players around you make them, and I would count that reality often being misunderstood as one of the smaller reasons why settlement leadership is becoming bad for the server in general. People sometimes convince themselves that because they spent 10 hours a day in game working toward some silly in game goal that it's now a sort of validation of all the energy they have put into their online life, when it's really not. And maybe this is just a me thing, but I find that to be a pretty unhealthy approach in particular to that player.

[Floral Shoppe]

Delegating is good, and approaching those delegates first is also good, but I'll say one thing about it because I've hit this issue quite a few times...

When you delegate, let them actually make decisions and have some powers. If you're a leader who uses their underlings as a buffer but they can't do anything but say "I'll talk to my boss" then you should expect people to get exasperated and try to talk to you directly instead. I mean if they can't actually do anything, and they'll just be bringing your issue to you (the leader) with their own editorial spin, then what good are they except maybe the marginal fun of bureaucracy RP?

Obviously every leader doesn't do this but its a recurring thing.

[AstralUniverse]

There is a feeling of entitlement that players within a settlement hold when it comes to dealing with their respective leader.

The truth is that being a "settlement leader" does not make you the leader of the players in your settlement, you are just playing one as a character in a video game. Everyone who plays their character along with that in game (not real life) reality, from your "underlings" to your "enemies" to just some casual that voted for you and wants a little face time is doing you a favor by playing along with the role you won in a video game, not the reverse. And everyone is going to want a piece, especially early on in your first term where there is still hope that it could be fun for everyone involved, and the reality is that you -do- owe them something for playing along with your new role.

You are owed nothing. Dont vote. And by you I dont mean exactly you, I mean anyone who relates with what I quoted.

[Royal Blood]

A lot of the comments here are pretty neat and I think raise some like valid points. My character had the Devil's table for an IRL year, and then like 3 times after that for smaller amounts of time. I enjoyed it a lot, I think the settlement election positions serve best to like enable a player to enable others to help their plots. Whether it's like using settlement gold for events or funding espionage, hiring people to do jobs etc. Or just using the settlement spaces and creating a 'culture' IC that players enjoy and find engaging.

Sometimes its just organizing and hosting things that give players a launch point for their own plots.

I'm not quite sure why there's this feeling people need settlement leader approval to do things. In my own brain, if someone wanted to host something in the district, like sure? I think in a place like Cordor that would be easy because it's so big, and like in the smaller settlements as long as you're not having an Anti-Seldarine rally in the Temple of Myon or a Down with Lolth Sermon in the Table I cannot imagine you 'need' a settlement leader's permission to really do anything.

I kind of feel like that is a self-imposed excuse to not do things, like I've never had an issue as a player just doing my own thing in the various settlements. Usually, it ends up attracting a settlement governments attention and that is just more story. But it's never been like "Hey, please don't bring plots/stories/events here."

Last, I thought Dawn had a lot of valid things to say about being a settlement leader. I think it's important to recognize what we ask of player settlement leaders and just be aware of both constraints OOC but also is what we are asking IC really fair?

What resonated with me was another post talking about how like players demand settlement management to be efficient. I vibe with that a lot because sometimes the most 'efficient' thing to do is not the thing that is engaging or does anything for a narrative. I feel like players take an approach to settlements like character building and water it down to the most efficient thing possible And TBF, one thing that really pisses me off is when you invalidate a settlement's identity because X,Y, and Z well known PVPER are in that settlement and you disregard -every- other IC element and tool and focus just on PVP ability.

To just like end my post here I just want to say that I think some of the best uses of the IC leadership roles are to enable other characters to pursue their goals/agendas. Of course, a settlement leader will have their own ambitions and your sorta set the pace for things.

Just to mention, because Cordor is so big, I enjoyed being appointed to a government position in Cordor because I just did what I wanted to do for the most part but obviously respected the 'vibe' of the leading character. I saw the Chancellor maaaaaybe once a week but otherwise held meetings, events, gatherings, adventures etc independent of the main leader. Like you can be your own character. I think players who struggle with that are self imposing their own restrictions.

As a Settlement leader in the past, I'd appoint people left and right to things they wanted to do/be and I just wish more players would run with their concept and act independently. I think the robust settlement governments are filled with players who work together, but also separately and who exist as their OWN characters independent of the settlement leader.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

There is a feeling of entitlement that players within a settlement hold when it comes to dealing with their respective leader.

The truth is that being a "settlement leader" does not make you the leader of the players in your settlement, you are just playing one as a character in a video game. Everyone who plays their character along with that in game (not real life) reality, from your "underlings" to your "enemies" to just some casual that voted for you and wants a little face time is doing you a favor by playing along with the role you won in a video game, not the reverse. And everyone is going to want a piece, especially early on in your first term where there is still hope that it could be fun for everyone involved, and the reality is that you -do- owe them something for playing along with your new role.

You are owed nothing. Dont vote. And by you I dont mean exactly you, I mean anyone who relates with what I quoted.

Perhaps owed is a strong word, but I think your sentiment is wrong here. I'm going to make it smaller first to illustrate my point, then bring it back to settlement leaders. When you are a ship captain, your ic pitch is often "I will make you lots of gold", but the truth is most of us already know how to make more than enough gold to do what we need to do as far as gearing that oocly it's not really a pitch at all. What makes good captains successful -And by success, I mean having a crew that isn't hampered by massive amounts of turnover- is that they pull you in and involve you even when you aren't sailing. They make you part of their thing, and themselves part of yours. It's a self-policing thing, really, because a bad ship captain will always be searching for a crew whereas the good ones will always have the people they can count on.

Now, zoom out to a settlement leader. Obviously, you have enough of a thing going on where you got enough votes, so you got the "involving others in your thing" likely out of the way. But if you don't feel like you owe "the others" in the settlement any of your time, they become disenfranchised from the very thing you are supposed to be promoting. And that's how you end up with 6 page threads lamenting how discord is ruining the game, when really it has nothing to do with discord at all. It's the nature of becoming so self-insulated that you feel you don't have to work for the stragglers, you have your control locked in. Very much NOT a self-policing thing.

So yes, I do believe that someone that CHOOSES to be a settlement leader owes it to the people who aren't part of their little group that won them the election on some level, even more so than the group that got them there. That doesn't mean you owe them your soul or anything, just a bit of a "I see you" for that person who never really got into settlement politics but is now trying, or the guy who's trying to tell a story around opposing you. Unfortunately guy one usually gets ignored (after being added to the guard to inflate the numbers), and guy two usually gets curb stomped at the very first peep. This sort of "find a way to stand out, assimilate, or be nothing" attitude around settlements is prevalent even in well run settlements lol, and leads to so much strife and anger. And while I would agree, some of that is on the outsider taking it all a bit personally, I truly believe that the lion's share of the blame comes from the guy on the other end of the internet eating frittos and playing nwn 12 hours a day buying into the illusion of power that they get from a video game. I didn't always feel that way, but after twenty years of seeing the same loop happening over and over again on nwn servers I am starting to get the feeling that maybe the crazies haven't always been all that crazy.

I'm not quite sure why there's this feeling people need settlement leader approval to do things. In my own brain, if someone wanted to host something in the district, like sure?

I agree with you in sentiment, but just to play devils advocate there are definitely some "I me mines" that play here, and they are usually seeking power. So, while I say go for it if you want to say host a tournament in the arena, don't be surprised if the hypothetical current chancellor inquiries about why they weren't consulted first. I wish I were making this up, but I've seen similar situations firsthand a few times where I know this to be a possibility.

[D4wN]

A lot of the comments here are pretty neat and I think raise some like valid points. My character had the Devil's table for an IRL year, and then like 3 times after that for smaller amounts of time. I enjoyed it a lot, I think the settlement election positions serve best to like enable a player to enable others to help their plots. Whether it's like using settlement gold for events or funding espionage, hiring people to do jobs etc. Or just using the settlement spaces and creating a 'culture' IC that players enjoy and find engaging.

Sometimes its just organizing and hosting things that give players a launch point for their own plots.

This is exactly why I enjoy playing roles like settlement or faction leadership. Sure, there are plenty of downsides like stress and occasional toxicity, but the reward of guiding people into engaging storylines makes it worthwhile. It’s especially fulfilling to help those who struggle to develop their own narratives. I genuinely enjoy supporting others, giving them the space to grow, and helping them find moments to shine.

That said, this kind of support shouldn’t fall solely on one person. Most settlements have ministers or department leaders, and giving them clear responsibilities and authority would empower them to act independently. Playing the Cultural Party Boy in Sibayad, I don't need the settlement lead to micromanage me, I just do things because the Settlement lead made it clear what my scope is and what's expected from me.

Problems really arise when people either don't follow through on their assigned roles, forcing others to cover for them, or when players bypass those roles entirely and go straight to the top. This mindset that everything needs the settlement leader’s approval is flawed. I've lost count of how many times people insisted on talking to me about issues that should’ve been addressed with a division head. Each settlement lists its leadership and division heads, just check the admin NPCs and contact the right person instead of defaulting to the settlement lead.

[Rubricae]

Settlement leader is just a story role. So is city guard. No one has any obligations other than to be a part of the story. The outcome of their actions is not relevant, and they are not extra-qualified community managers. They aren't Discord moderators. Inefficient, corrupt, and lazy authority figures are so necessary but they're always at odds with the milquetoast pedanticrats among us who want our pretend organisations to be run with the same goal of efficiency as an Amazon warehouse.

This tbh

The only time where it's valid to talk about someone's activity is when they're clinging to a role but not doing much with it. Holding onto the torch and refusing to pass it on to anyone else. This community has issues with letting things go. Big time.

Also if a leader is spending more time on an alt than the lead maybe resigning so other players have a shot, is the move. I know they're already discouraged from having alts in opposing groups because of this.

Otherwise I do think people care too much about how active people are, and on the flipside of sticking around for way too long.

Also, if a leader is "flawed" and the like? Roleplay it out. Make something of it. That is not a mechanical concern. Nor an OOC one, so long as there is no OOC malice behind it. Do some intrigue to get them out or whatever. As a good friend enjoys saying, "just roleplay".

[Marsi]

Some have weighed in on that it can be ineffective to delegate, because Arelith players are quick to ignore stated authority structures and leapfrog to the level of actual authority. I think the problem is that it's not enough to just delegate. A leader who assigns low-visibility, low-autonomy tasks to underlings but takes all the jobs of symbolic importance is never going to build confidence or familiarity in or with their team.

Also, it's importance to recognise and treat as real others' "fluff" if you want your own to be respected in your time. If you ignore the incumbent regime's aesthetic flourishes and non-mechanical worldview/legislation/codes of conduct, if you expeditiously route them through base mechanics and treat the rest as nonreal, all so you can ctrl-alt-delete their stuff and replace it with your own, you can't be surprised when everyone ignores your own flourishes, focuses only on the hard "crunch" (ie. speedy messenger spamming you and ignoring your lieutenants), and then eventually throws your cool little roleplay structures in the garbage where you threw the last guy's. I see this all the time -- ambitious player acknowledges bare minimum of IC consensus reality so they can get in power and install their own vision. Is surprised to find they've helped create an environment where nothing matters except hard mechanics and facetime with DM NPCs.

[Aeryeris]

Delegating is good, and approaching those delegates first is also good, but I'll say one thing about it because I've hit this issue quite a few times...

When you delegate, let them actually make decisions and have some powers. If you're a leader who uses their underlings as a buffer but they can't do anything but say "I'll talk to my boss" then you should expect people to get exasperated and try to talk to you directly instead. I mean if they can't actually do anything, and they'll just be bringing your issue to you (the leader) with their own editorial spin, then what good are they except maybe the marginal fun of bureaucracy RP?

Obviously every leader doesn't do this but its a recurring thing.

This. So much this. This here is the key.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Using playtime arguments in-game approaches an ad hominem attack on the player, and is pretty difficult to get around. ("uh,my dog died, sorry, can your char stop bashing me?" "uh, sorry, im an aussie player" "uh i was on vacation?" "sorry my work schedule changed")

It should never be done unless there's a chronic malaise that stretches many months. Making this argument in-game is in poor taste, and if I ever saw a character doing it, I'd make a mental knock against that player. Good players know how to navigate this in a mature manner, and make it a lot more diegetic to the world.

[chocolatelover]

I think everyone who has posted thus far has had very valid points.

To reiterate, settlement/faction leaders cannot be online 24/7, nor should they be expected to game constantly instead of do real life.

Leaders
Signing up to be a settlement/faction leader does imply you are making some sort of committment, so follow through with all those suggestions of delegating.
Another suggestion is posting in-game (and possibly forums/discord) when you know you'll be gone.
"I will be gone through the 12th of Eleint in Evermeet, so Bob will handle concerns about XXX."

Opposition
Find out who are the settlement/faction underlings and go through them, especially for smaller concerns.
Leave a letter/message for the leader so they can set up a meeting at a convenient time. (Some players seem to feel written RP is not as good as face to face RP but sometimes this just has to happen)
Posting about those leaders not being around is either a new player mistake, or very unimaginative opposition role play.
Placing multiple assassination contracts to force the leaders into hiding so you can post that they're never around is poor sport.

Having been a member on both sides of a faction dispute several different times, I have acquired some interesting observations.

• The next opposition group, no matter what players it consists of, tend to use similar tactics as the previous groups. (assassination contracts, anonymous postings and whatever their topic was, ridiculous complaints etc.) Perhaps those on team opposition should spend some time coming up with a more imaginative opposition game plan. Obviously this should be planned out in-game.

• Anti-leadership posts apparently draw in random people. Team opposition can make one Message Board post and suddenly ten anonymous posts follow. Are those from a third party? Just random people who want to 'join in'? No one knows! But this will muddy the water as to what is going on.

• Players who have been on Team Opposition and suddenly get into Team Leadership will be surprised at how tiring it can be to deal with the same issues and tactics they used against the former leadership.

Personally, I do not think I will EVER be a settlement leader with any character as I have seen how incredibly difficult and exhausting it is.

For everyone who has ever held a leadership position, no matter how short or long, kudos to you.

[Hedgehog]

This thread gives me a bit of anxiety due to flashbacks and RP I’ve had to deal with because of my sometimes busy lifestyle. It’s one of my biggest pet peeves actually. I’m glad there’s dialog and awareness being raised about this topic because it can really sour and kill the fun of logging in and engaging.

[chocolatelover]

what if settlement leaders aren't as important as we think

what if you did cool stuff without a permission slip

-- Removed IC discussions --

[Kenji]

what if settlement leaders aren't as important as we think

what if you did cool stuff without a permission slip

-- Removed IC discussions --

Unsanctioned gathering of any kind is unlawful and therefore prohibited.

Praise Bane.

[The Moon]

what if settlement leaders aren't as important as we think

what if you did cool stuff without a permission slip

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed IC discussions --

[-XXX-]

-- Removed IC discussions --

[chocolatelover]

what if settlement leaders aren't as important as we think

what if you did cool stuff without a permission slip

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed IC discussions --

[The Moon]

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed, inflammatory and IC discussion --

[PowerWord Rage]

Let's be civil and not continue this kind of OOC quarrels.
There's no meaning to these kind of debates nor any meaningful outcome except more griefing.

Our opinions or in fact, anything that is written over the forum about these IG matters will not change anything after all.
Let the past be passed.

[Ruzuke]

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed IC discussions --

-- Removed, inflammatory and IC discussion

I am not in the group at all, but I think the post I quoted should be the prime example of why PCs should not be given authority.

Some unpacking here dictating what others should do in RP and how their characters should behave is only under the jurisdictions of the DM team. Someone like me would add that Pariahing someone, exiling someone, and then writing an order to kill on sight has consequences and that is it is discussed and not just dropped. It may make the people look bad. It likely will do so for a long time. A fictional government employee, ship's captain, or faction head may be able to kick someone out of an area. They don't have the authority to silence another PC from speaking. To demand someone do so OOCly is wrong, and this based on the rule that someone exiled was posted can continue to build faction support to run for office and make changes.

Anytime I see someone saying DM me after being rude I personally see it as a player thinking they are more than a player and trying to solve the issue quietly (typically telling the person to shut up and move on) then dealing with IC consequences. In my time at Arelith I have seen many people with IC leadership behave this way. Behaving if extra toys and abilities on a video game meant they were entitled to more.

[Cnaym]

I am not in the group at all, but I think the post I quoted should be the prime example of why PCs should not be given authority.

Some unpacking here dictating what others should do in RP and how their characters should behave is only under the jurisdictions of the DM team. Someone like me would add that Pariahing someone, exiling someone, and then writing an order to kill on sight has consequences and that is it is discussed and not just dropped. It may make the people look bad. It likely will do so for a long time. A fictional government employee, ship's captain, or faction head may be able to kick someone out of an area. They don't have the authority to silence another PC from speaking. To demand someone do so OOCly is wrong, and this based on the rule that someone exiled was posted can continue to build faction support to run for office and make changes.

Anytime I see someone saying DM me after being rude I personally see it as a player thinking they are more than a player and trying to solve the issue quietly (typically telling the person to shut up and move on) then dealing with IC consequences. In my time at Arelith I have seen many people with IC leadership behave this way. Behaving if extra toys and abilities on a video game meant they were entitled to more.

So much this yeah. The mechanics of elections and official guard quarters are a cool idea, but I honestly see nothing useful there that you couldn't do without it.
The exile thing is almost completly ignored by some settlements, either using pariah exclusively or just making their own internal guard lists for who to bonk when they show up.

The funniest thing to me is always seeing how the newly elected leader gets a visit from everyone looking for a "position" and trying so hard to get on the leaders good side, while the rest just keeps on doing their work without a care in the world about who is in charge on paper.
There do be a reason why so many guards survive a dozen leaders in their cities and it's usually not the political navigation skill of the guard folks but more so the fact that they can safely ignore the short month of drama.

[The Moon]

I am not in the group at all, but I think the post I quoted should be the prime example of why PCs should not be given authority.

Some unpacking here dictating what others should do in RP and how their characters should behave is only under the jurisdictions of the DM team. Someone like me would add that Pariahing someone, exiling someone, and then writing an order to kill on sight has consequences and that is it is discussed and not just dropped. It may make the people look bad. It likely will do so for a long time. A fictional government employee, ship's captain, or faction head may be able to kick someone out of an area. They don't have the authority to silence another PC from speaking. To demand someone do so OOCly is wrong, and this based on the rule that someone exiled was posted can continue to build faction support to run for office and make changes.

Anytime I see someone saying DM me after being rude I personally see it as a player thinking they are more than a player and trying to solve the issue quietly (typically telling the person to shut up and move on) then dealing with IC consequences. In my time at Arelith I have seen many people with IC leadership behave this way. Behaving if extra toys and abilities on a video game meant they were entitled to more.

-- Removed, inflammatory, unnecessary --

---

As an aside, I'm currently in agreement that PCs shouldn't have power. Many people are under this assumption that you can't do anything in a city without the government's approval which is patently untrue, and I've seen too many incidents of people wielding power inappropriately (in ways that aren't IC punishments, but as a method to grief OOC; meta-grudging).

I have thoughts about the various settlement systems and how they work, but that would be a whole other post to break down, criticize, and suggest improvements (a lot of it having to do with streamlining, and exiles vs. pariahs).

To summarize, it's a time and a half to set up permissions, and most of the time the permissions are completely unnecessary to do typical government "jobs" outside of warehouse/salary set up for financial roles and eviction/pariah/exile for guards/lawmen. People can run charities, community programs, militias, and more without necessarily involving the government or having 'powers' to exert. It's largely unnecessary, and cities are already more or less ultimately ruled by entities which step in and intervene anyway (sometimes. Your mileage may vary.)

[backlands]

Alright, I don't do this often but I need to lock this topic I think it has run its course and is devolving into off-topic. I will also be removing some beyond acceptable discussion from this topic after the lock.

For the admin perspective on this, at the end of the day this is still a game and everyone needs to remember that. No matter how invested you, someone else, or a group is, this is for entertainment at the end of the day. Every player commits the time that they can to enjoy this world and to gatekeep specific systems simply because one or another player might not play as much as you expect is unacceptable.

I have seen settlement leaders excel that both play 2 and 12 hours a day. The important thing to remember was well stated in the following:

May I politely request that for that important chancellor/guard commander business stuff, seek out your ministers, captains and aides?

A good settlement leader should mostly be cutting ribbons and signing off on major decisions, not micromanaging everything and yet this seems to be demanded of them constantly.

There is of course some greater expectation placed on settlement leaders, both in terms of how they engage in the community and how they encourage other players roleplay. That doesn't mean that they need to make all their roleplay about others characters, their own character still matters. At the end of the day if the settlement is still functioning properly and to be a little silly: the guards are guarding, the treasury is treasuring, and the events are eventing, then I think the leadership is doing enough.

Don't expect every leader to make every moment about everyone else, go to others in the government. Seek out people that have delegated roles. Accept that we all play this game when we can. If you think someone isn't active enough don't start making snide IC callouts like "They are never around!" we are in the end all playing when we can and if you think people want change you can always call an election and let democracy decide.