Arelith

clanogrady wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:57 am I think that something that should be implemented is, no new citizens while an election is ongoing.

That will cut down on the 30-80+ new citizens that can show up during elections.

I like this one the best so far!

-S

I agree with the ideas to limit voting on active characters, one vote / CD key and no new citizens until the elections are over or wait certain time to get voting rights.

I personally think we should also put limits on how many times someone can enter the elections and rule the settlement, or how long a single character can rule if there has not been any thrown challenges.

This would make sure that no single group or player will rule forever, keeping things fresh and giving chances for everybody.

Petrifictus wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:12 pm I agree with the ideas to limit voting on active characters, one vote / CD key and no new citizens until the elections are over or wait certain time to get voting rights.

I personally think we should also put limits on how many times someone can enter the elections and rule the settlement, or how long a single character can rule if there has not been any thrown challenges.

This would make sure that no single group or player will rule forever, keeping things fresh and giving chances for everybody.

On the one hand, stagnation is a thing, and no ruler should last forever. Assassination, succession wars, coups, etc, are all the makings of great stories.

On the other hand, you have elves, drow, and dwarves. Races that live for hundreds of years, where having static rulership makes perfect sense. I don't see any good reason that a specific character that has enough support and is keeping things fresh on their own should not be able to retain control into perpetuity if they can manage it. Suitably ambitious rivals will be able to unseat them if they play their cards right, via assassination, or clever diplomacy and subversion.

It should be stated that no one is entitled to a chance. Life is not fair like that, and entire generations of people will be born and die knowing only a single ruling dynasty in any given state. I don't think term limits should be a thing, nor will they work even if they are. This is the forgotten realms; a fantasy realm with duchies, kingdoms and empires. We should not have 'presidential' term limits in any form if we can avoid it.

Also, even if we did,You'd have a russian scenario, where the ruler rules for their given terms, puts in a stand-in, and then takes control afterwards to rule for another consecutive however many terms.

Durvayas wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:55 pm
It should be stated that no one is entitled to a chance. Life is not fair like that, and entire generations of people will be born and die knowing only a single ruling dynasty in any given state.

I dunno, this kind of logic results in the must always win mentality imo, which is by its own nature highly toxic..

It's still a game and there need to be some mechanics to keep the story moving. The same leader ruling for over a year leads to stagnant RP and leads to the same clique being permanently entrenched. That's realistic, yeah, but is that the end goal with the political system or is it to encourage drama and intrigue and conspiracies?

Six months is plenty long for a leader. Even if they put a sock puppet under their control in power afterwards, at least that's some change and shakes things up and opens up some vulnerability.

The idea that we need mechanics or even character concepts to 'encourage conflict' I think is very over done. There is more than enough (IMO too much) conflict. This generates itself with good RP, and intentionally making mechanics or characters to generate conflict usually (but not always) comes across as just being a Snuggybear. Especially in an environment where that conflict will continue indefinitely until the ones causing it decide on their own that they will stop/roll.

Personally I find the extreme levels of conflict that already exist to be exhausting and frustrating and wouldn't mind a day where things are just normal and stable for a bit, and where the monsters are the only enemies. Players need a chance to catch their breath sometimes.

Hazard wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:24 pm The idea that we need mechanics or even character concepts to 'encourage conflict' I think is very over done. There is more than enough (IMO too much) conflict. This generates itself with good RP, and intentionally making mechanics or characters to generate conflict usually (but not always) comes across as just being a Snuggybear. Especially in an environment where that conflict will continue indefinitely until the ones causing it decide on their own that they will stop/roll.

Personally I find the extreme levels of conflict that already exist to be exhausting and frustrating and wouldn't mind a day where things are just normal and stable for a bit, and where the monsters are the only enemies. Players need a chance to catch their breath sometimes.

I agree with this, a lot. When you have drama, intrigue, and conflict up to your ears every single day, eventually it loses all meaning.

I would totally disagree, as someone playing on the 'conflict rich' underdark, I still don't think there's enough.

There are characters with bounties on their head that no one tries to collect, elected officials are almost never assassinated, no heated bidding wars, no dramatic evictions, no military coups, and there's not much in the way of epic plots to undermine or infiltrate.

For better or for worse though, the level of intended conflict presented through mechanics is at the Dev's discretion. So far I think it's pretty alright!

When looking at Dev changes, there are a few things to consider IMO. A couple of these are

Freedom Vs Consequence.

Reality Vs Fun

The first one, in this thread can be summerised by the argument of 'On the one hand, settlment leaders should be able to use their power to remove citizens. (Consequence.) On the other hand, this power could be abused to styme the enjoyment of others (Freedom.)

To us another, more extreme example:
Consequence: 'On the one hand, Death should mean Death. If I want a character dead, they should fear death, not be able to wriggle their bum at me, and ignore me entirly knowing they can respawn. Ergo all PvP death should be Permadeath.'

Freedom: 'How can I make a meaningful character story, how can I enjoy myself on this server, if power building griefers can just utterly destroy my character at a whim?'


The Reality Vs Fun comes across as the argument against longre terms, which Duvyas put across nicely. On the one hand yeah, it makes sense elves/dwarves ect should have longre terms for characters. On the other there is the matter of keeping things fresh and interesting.

And further, one must also consider that what's fun for YOU isn't fun for someone else. Ok maybe you arn't enjoying this conflict, but at the same time that doesn't mean no one -else- is. It's finding a middle ground where people who want conflict and story can have it, and people who don't want that arn't shoved forcibly into it evrey few minutes. We have a large vareity of players on this server, and it's important to respect the enjoyment of all different sorts of rpers.

My personal suggestion (And this is only a thought!) would be to limit each pc to three (consecutive?) elections where they can run as leader. (maybe per settlment? Maybe full stop? I don't know). Note that I say elections, not 'terms.' So whilst yes, theoreticaly a leader could be outed within three IG years, it also depends on if people actually /call/ the election. That means if say, the Dwarves are happy with Falgrim and don't want to call an election that year - then that's fine. Falgrim rules until he is challenged three times- which could mean three IG years, or could mean four, six, or whatever! Entirely down to if someone wants to challenge him.

And whilst I agree that people need chance to catch their breath - the idea of limiting terms - even ignoring my suggestion above, would only enforce a 'conflict' every Three Real Life Months. That's not exactly fast and furious action.

DM GrumpyCat wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:45 am
My personal suggestion (And this is only a thought!) would be to limit each pc to three (consecutive?) elections where they can run as leader. (maybe per settlment? Maybe full stop? I don't know). Note that I say elections, not 'terms.' So whilst yes, theoreticaly a leader could be outed within three IG years, it also depends on if people actually /call/ the election. That means if say, the Dwarves are happy with Falgrim and don't want to call an election that year - then that's fine. Falgrim rules until he is challenged three times- which could mean three IG years, or could mean four, six, or whatever! Entirely down to if someone wants to challenge him.

I think limiting a PC to three elections would be a disaster in the making. Three consecutive elections? maybe. Eventually you'll have the russian puppet scenario, but at least that character can continue their rule.

But three elections total over the lifetime of a PC? They screws people, badly, if they hang on to their character at all, and screws long lived factions badly. Imagine a drow house that is first house. They have the most members, the strongest members, the most wealth, etc. And imagine if that faction is forced to field people who don't want the position in order to keep the group in power. It makes zero sense that they can't continue their rule, but if they run out of eligible people, especially people who WANT to do it, what then? They just suddenly have no mechanical power despite all this massive RP influence? Or are they suddenly forced to have their leader generate a new electable PC every 6-9 months to maintain RP that makes actual sense? Or are PCs in the house suddenly made to be 'representatives' regardless of if they want the power, because its their turn to take one for the team? Artificial caps like this are anathema to both RP and player enjoyment, especially since its not hard to assassinate someone. Do you want people to just rule from a secure building forever? Because your suggestion makes assassins absolutely the be-all end all of political conflict RP. All you have to do is have someone killed, and boom. One of their three terms is over. It could be three months in, it could be three days in, won't matter.

Additionally, this may make some very minor sense in the settlements that have the tyrant system, but it screws people in the devil's table that have to deal with the hyperdysfunctional council system that was purged from literally every single other settlement on the server because of how logistically bad and artifically unstable it is.

Addendum: If you make it even more beneficial to use PvP to wipe out your political rivals, you can't keep on pushing the narrative that levels are not nescessary for leadership and RP does not start at lvl 30. Because the more potent you make assassination as a settlement mechanic, the more prevalent that mindset WILL become.

but it screws people in the devil's table that have to deal with the hyperdysfunctional council system that was purged from literally every single other settlement on the server because of how logistically bad and artifically unstable it is.

good luck, when i tried to affect this IC i was told it's not anything that can be addressed IC, that it's OOC only, and so there was no point in doing any RP with it, and moreover that "bad flawed things are good for RP"

Without dealing with the Massively OOC shadow government issues that are significantly present in the game, limiting Terms/candidacy is merely a superficial fix anyways.

It won't change the fact that it is a coordinated OOC effort to create specific RP or simply destroy all other RP's in the settlements.

I don't see how there is any realistic way to change the citizenship/settlement systems that would actually improve things as it is.

I propose a new system of government where the player with the most sweetberries in their inventory is declared leader.

It is flawless. I dare you to even try and poke holes in this.

Hazard wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:08 am I propose a new system of government where the player with the most sweetberries in their inventory is declared leader.

It is flawless. I dare you to even try and poke holes in this.

Cant poke holes on this sweetberry. Perfect idea worth of 100RPR and free 5% Reward.

The Nomad Inn & Tavern will rule the Cordor forever with their sweetberries in the garden!

clanogrady wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:30 am Without dealing with the Massively OOC shadow government issues that are significantly present in the game, limiting Terms/candidacy is merely a superficial fix anyways.

It won't change the fact that it is a coordinated OOC effort to create specific RP or simply destroy all other RP's in the settlements.

I don't see how there is any realistic way to change the citizenship/settlement systems that would actually improve things as it is.

Quite literally making it so only one active citizenship per CD key in ANY settlement would ensure that 1) multiple characters can't influence multiple settlements in its voting apparatus and 2) you wouldn't be able to effectively OOC coordinate rule due to time limits, constraints, and limited characters.

The only remaining issue we'd have is multiple keys and that goes rightly into the realm of the DM team. Without having to watch every single election for specific bad boy fraud they could pay attention to this alone.

I don't know why this was ever changed, I remember it being a thing back in 2009?

I feel like the shadow governments were a lot of fun, anyways. They're going to need a new puppet. Don't like the current shadow regime? Infiltrate the group, prop yourself up as a valid candidate, and start turning the settlement in a different direction. It took a lot of coordination, and coordination requires communication, which means RP. People gotta talk to each other. This gives you people to spy on, interact with, and befriend, rather than the same small group ruling who barely logs in often enough to make any meaningful RP for their constituents.

CosmicOrderV wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:17 pm I feel like the shadow governments were a lot of fun, anyways. They're going to need a new puppet. Don't like the current shadow regime? Infiltrate the group, prop yourself up as a valid candidate, and start turning the settlement in a different direction. It took a lot of coordination, and coordination requires communication, which means RP. People gotta talk to each other. This gives you people to spy on, interact with, and befriend, rather than the same small group ruling who barely logs in often enough to make any meaningful RP for their constituents.

I think you might have missed the OOC part when clanogrady mentioned OOC shadow governments. If it is all IC and made sense IC that is fine. But we shouldn't have to play mind games and try to get everyone to like us OOC just to have any kind of influence on a settlement IC. That would just be a bunch of metagaming and turn IC politics into an OOC popularity contest. If you just mean IC shadow governments I completely agree with you. But I don't like the idea of groups dominating and influencing settlements based on their OOC relations. That's not playing nice.

Lady Astray wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:48 pm I don't like the idea of groups dominating and influencing settlements based on their OOC relations.

I'm willing to wager this doesn't happen as often as you might think it does.

Ah, you're right Lady Astray. I only skimmed the quote in Red Ropes' post. Didn't realize it was about OOC stuff.

Still, I find myself completely agreeing with Red Ropes.

magistrasa wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:37 pm

Lady Astray wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:48 pm I don't like the idea of groups dominating and influencing settlements based on their OOC relations.

I'm willing to wager this doesn't happen as often as you might think it does.

How much gold are we talking here?

If voting in a settlement was limited to one character per cd key, and I too agree and think this is a good idea, then citizenship and voting would need to be two separate things. Both should cost, perhaps citizenship a certain amount and if you want that to come with voting rights then it costs more? Citizen storage was designed so that you can have storage across all your characters. Wording would need to be very specific when buying the citizenship so it is known that buying voting rights would take it away from any other character, some form of cool down may need to be in place so you can't just go and rebuy voting every time an election comes up.

However making it so you can not buy citizenship once an election is called would have a downside. Personally my newest character is very interested in politics but she hasn't scrapped together the ten thousand to buy citizenship because she is spending it on other things currently. Though if an election popped up she would absolutely toss those plans and want to buy in. Perhaps make it so the character needs to be X many days old for that restriction to apply? Only made within the week when election is called? No, can't join and vote.

I'd like to see one vote per cd key as well, with a switching cooldown. I don't really have a problem with new voters and quite enjoy bribery roleplay. I more have a problem with the "one character for every contest on the server" issue.

I'd be happy to see maybe a two month cooldown between voting on any one character and the next. It would be very simple to implement and it what would solve the problem of separating citizenship from city perks. At the same time, it would prevent people from idly interfering in every election ever, even if they only played their alt as a utility character in that location to make wands for their mates, or level their druid buddies, or something. However, I realise I don't play that much, and some people have raised a character to max level, written about three different volumes of their life story and rolled for an award over this time period. I'm sure people could debate the finer points of the mechanics... time delay from last vote or time delay from registering citizenship, length of delay, etc, but in general, I'm behind the concept.

Everyone copes with the whole "one property plus a potential room within an owned guild house, and one shop" per cd key, so I don't think the concept is too convoluted.

I'm not a fan of removing citizenship, though. Active players should be able to influence leaderships as much as possible. However, if people have the good will of the majority of active players, let them rule for as long as they want, I say.

I think points 1 through 3 in the original post are a step in the right direction. We're not going to be able to stop everyone who thinks they need to game the system so their character "wins", but it's a good start.

Lady Astray wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:22 pm

magistrasa wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:37 pm

Lady Astray wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:48 pm I don't like the idea of groups dominating and influencing settlements based on their OOC relations.

I'm willing to wager this doesn't happen as often as you might think it does.

How much gold are we talking here?

Don't take the bet, Magistrasa would win.

The feeling of it happening > than the actuality by far.

Off the top of my head and without getting into forum callouts, this happened at least four times last year. None of those instances were even attempted to be kept secret, indicating that OOC organizing seems to be a commonly accepted and used practice.