The Guldorand Founders' Council

[Red_Wharf]

With the much-waited Guldorand City Update, came the Founders, a council of NPCs that reigns over the governments of Guldorand and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Myon, all with a rigid set of laws.

I am very eager to know what others think of this, but in my humble opinion, from what I have seen in these last months, the function of these NPCs appears to be keeping the settlement leaders in a leash, which naturally stifles roleplay. Do they have a different purpose? If they do, it is not apparent to me.

I feel very much the same about King Edward in Cordor and the Houses Claddath and Freth in Andunor. I am not going to advocate for their removal, because I don't even know if I'm alone or not here, but as it currently is, and I say this with all due respect to the DM Team, these NPCs feel to me as if their goal is to wave a flag with the words "No Fun Allowed" written on it whenever a settlement's government starts going a little off the rails.

I comprehend that giving too much power to players can cause things like Wharftown to happen, and just like everywhere else, Arelith too has its black sheep, but it also has its fair share of amazing and great roleplayers! I would say that in their name, the leash could do with being loosened a bit.

[Ork]

We don't play in an absolute autonomy PW. Best to make peace with it. Guldorand's charter was made for a few very good reasons, and I personally like that leaders have to navigate innate political hurdles to accomplish control as opposed to settlements like Brogendenstein.

[The GrumpyCat]

The problem is that characters certainly, and less of all players, don't always act with the over all server narrative in mind.

So it's good to have NPCs that push that narrative, and that act to remind us of how the world works.

The former point is easy enough - running events where the actions of an npc spur it. This makes the world feel 'bigger', more realistic, and brings out interesting stories for pcs. Great.

The other example is as a way for us to keep server versimilutude.

Lets use the example of the Guldorand 'War.'

The PCs say, ICly 'We want to go to war with Myon/Guldorand'

And ICly this makes sense, and they probably have some cool ideas and stuff et cetera- and this isn't a response that's meant to disrespect any of them- I hasten to add. But what does this 'War.' actually mean?

Well, in realistic terms, and in historical terms, what 'war' has meant mostly is pcs running after each other for a week or so, then everyone getting sick of it, glaring at each other for a bit, and eventually agreeing to forget all about it.

It means that Elwin the elf, walking through Guld to get to Myon and who has no stake in this, gets relitivly randomly pvped for no reason.
And it means Bob the human - who just happens to have a Guld friend- gets likewise pvped for being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The whole concept of prelonged, serious pvp conflict amongst two groups that literally live side by side is... well it's a recipe for disaster.

But lets entirely ignore the player side of it. We're not talking 'a few pvp skirmishes' we're talking WAR!

What -is- it good for?

How would we, as DMS, support WAR! Moreover, what is basically a Civil War

Well obviously we couldn't show the more grousome realistic points of it (arson, homlessnss, starvation, women raped, children slaughtered).

To give the 'WAR' any weight beyond the sheer announcement, we'd need other consequences. So lets say that the players did do a proper war, with DM interventionn and aid to give weight to their actions.

I imagine that the winner, in the long term, from a purely DM point would probably be Guldorand. Guldorand has access to the port and more aid via sea, and from whta I saw of the situation they had the more allies. So lets say (just for arguments sake) they were victorious.

Well, Evermeet would at least tempoorarly draw out of Guld. The city would struggle for coin to keep going. Eventually Evermeet would likely return with a fresh waves of elves, eager to take the wells. Another NPC war would begin. I don't know who would win that except 'nobody' in the long term. I can't imagine Guld could keep the city and defend it from Elves, and from Monsters, And maintain it's own infrastructure. It's entirely likely that even if the elves didn't win the second attack, that guldorand would be reduced to a shadow of it's former self.

Quarters, resources, and npcs would be lost. Everyone is miserable.

So that's still not really a thing that, on a server level, we want. And that's ignoring the fact to support a war in NPC terms would take up a lot of Dm time, a lot of DM energy, and also a lot of Dev energy to rebuild entire areas.

Another example of a foolish move is the whole 'Let's let Drow/monster races into XYZ'
I'm glad to say this doesn't happen often. But when it does it's a good idea to have npcs step in and go, 'No.' Because the answer for 'No' is often purely IC. Yes, maybe -this- goblin/drow/gnoll is one of the 'good' ones, but these races rae known for supreme duplicity as much as supreme evil.
The thing is- pcs are more willing to make this leap because they know, on some level, that there will be no consequences for it. If the drow stabs them in the back, they can just respawn.
But what if they couldn't? What if they would permadi from it? Such is the case with NPCs - at least in theory - and to make them go 'oh yeah lol you can lol have a drow in lol we'll just respawn if he kills us all lol' would be ridiculous

So basicaly NPCs such as the Council, exist for three reasons
1) To make plot
2) To stop players doing something that would be damaging for the server
3) To add an amount of verisimilitude.

We try not to intervene too much with NPCs, especially where there are mechanicla reprocussions. We specifically keep them pretty ambivilent to most stuff (or at least I do) but it is really useful for them to be able to step in at points and go, 'No.' or even 'Yes.' Because honestly? Sometimes constraints do breed creativity - and good creativity.

If someone gives me a blank sheet and says 'be creative' I'll likely stare at the blank sheet a bit, overwhelmed by the options.

If someone gives me a blank sheet with say, a dot to dot, or a picture of a flower, or a instruction of 'write a story' I'll be far quicker to work, because the constraint gives me a better idea of what I can do, and how I can push or work with that constraint.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

We don't play in an absolute autonomy PW.

I think it would be more fun if we started to entertain this idea.

Solely because I think it's a false hope to expect people to bow to NPCs. It's more disruptive to play with people who think their in a desert, than a sandox, versus just all being tossed into the wild west.

[Kuma]

We don't play in an absolute autonomy PW. Best to make peace with it. Guldorand's charter was made for a few very good reasons, and I personally like that leaders have to navigate innate political hurdles to accomplish control as opposed to settlements like Brogendenstein.

This, 100%. I find better story comes from it, too. Note, better story: while individual characters may be stifled at the restrictions, the restrictions can create more engaging and enjoyable plots within that setting that is healthier for the server as a whole. And that's more important than any one character's power fantasies.

[ReverentBlade]

We could definitely stand to go harder with NPCs. NPC actions and DM plots work as nexuses for -healthy- conflict to metastasize around. It adds stakes, adds motivations, and means that there is supervision over the interactions.

Player conflict in a vacuum without DM-ran stories and narrative framework all too often feels arbitrary and pointless. Conflict is good, conflict for the sake of conflict is not.

I've always felt strongly that a strong, well-run persistent world has a "main quest" that is pushed by a coordinated DM effort lead by a lead writer. Characters will end up interacting with this story with different takes and different stakes and work towards different objectives, both good and evil. Suddenly all the conflict has -context-, and its a great thing.

The DM team has to be hyper-vigilant and self-policing about playing favorites, however, or the whole house of cards comes down.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I'm going to echo and expand on a lot of what reverent blade said, because I like his post.

I look at Guld and I think there is a lot of potential left on the table so far. From a design view point, the only complaints I would have is that it sometimes feels cluttered when you walk through it, making the pathfinder all herky jerky. But that's just cosmetics. The other is that it should have been a little bigger, which again, cosmetics. Beyond that it gets an A on design. You got three major powers that seem like more of an alliance of convenience then anything else in Guldorand Proper, the elves, and the iron throne. You got thayans, whom always beg the question "What are the thayans really up to", you got a bannite embassy that may not be as powerful as the big three but are at least powerful enough to have a embassy with impunity, you got a duergar trader that seems perfect for running story lines for the shifty and the shady and the low down greedy grimeys, and you got a giant gate separating the more controlled upper guldorand from the more "anything goes" lower part of the city in map meaning its perfect for stand offs. So yeah, design, solid A. Execution wise however? I would be generous if I handed out a D-, and find myself wondering if there will ever be a time where it will fulfill its destined greatness.

Part of that falls on the players. People need to figure out how to compete with each other without always going toward pvp, not because pvp is bad but because endless pvp wars are. But another part has to fall on the dms. These npcs should be more then just avatars of the dms will, they should be living breathing parts of the world that players can align themselves with or oppose along the way. They should be flawed, have clear motivations, and beyond the big three who you want to be stable save for extreme circumstances, beatable. And even there you can use NPC minions for the personalities of the big three to loose to give players a feeling of progress. Combine that with the tools you guys have to help facilitate player stories they wouldn't be able to tell without a dm, and suddenly you have a new version of "prestige" for players to shoot for beyond winning lots of pvp or their faction owning lots of premium properties. It's as simple as taking npc A wanting a complicated task that would take several events to accomplish, hiring player group B to do it or something, then finding a way to bring in player group C in opposition. Whoever wins, wins. You still have player agency, since you had two groups in competition, and you are hopefully telling a great story along the way that people will actually remember as opposed to something that has the high risk of degrading into ooc nonsense over and over again. Keeping them ambivalent save for when they have to come in and mediate makes them the nwn equivalent of a nursery school teacher, doesn't add anything to the server story at all, and likely just makes people feel like their "player agency" just got stomped on by the dms when it happens. At least, that last part is what I have read said over and over again since the launch of the city when this conversation comes up.

I hope that didn't come across as rude or dismissive, I have had mostly good experiences with the dm team and think you guys are cool folks, and I realize that you deal with levels of nonsense that would make the average persons head spin. I just think that if you are going to go in on the NPC rule theory, you need to go all in or not at all.

[Flower Power]

3) To add an amount of verisimilitude.

The issue with point no. 3 is that there's very little consistency with the Founder's Council, on a variety of levels. This is a natural growth of the NPCs being portrayed by a number of different actors/DMs, but it's a little jarring when you run into one Councilor one day, at an official meeting of the Council & the city gov'ts, and he's a happy-go-lucky drunk who very explicitly does not take his job seriously and doesn't care for the actual running of the city beyond the prestige associated w/his position and his ability to organize outrageous parties - and then you turn around and see him possessed by a different DM the next day and he's incredibly businesslike and sober with zero recollection of decisions and opinions he made or espoused just a very short while ago.

It's also difficult to take them seriously when, despite being a collection of largely intensely Lawful individuals, they completely fail to apply their own Charter to themselves with any degree of consistency (i.e., when Thay refuses to return elven artifacts to Myon and Guldorand refuses to allow Myon to have sole ownership over said magical artifact (despite the Charter saying that all elven artifacts are Myon's, and not Evermeet's property) and Evermeet both fails to push to defend the terms of the sub-accord within the Charter they wrote while the rest of the council rolls over and votes to pass everything off to Evermeet, etc. etc.) When a government that rules over a bunch of people that effectively all have superpowers fails to be internally consistent and police itself reasonably, it's even more immersion-breaking that everyone is simply forced to shrug and go along with it.

I'm uncertain of the degree of internal organization that the DMs have surrounding the Founder's Council, but it might be for the best if either:

A) Certain Councilors were reserved to be portrayed purely by certain members of the team, for consistency's sake, or
B) The team agrees internally on what general character tropes should be associated w/each member of the Council, and agrees internally on how best to portray each Councilor (slightly less consistent in the portrayals, w/o bogging everything down by going "X Councilor is Y's character, no touchie" if they're needed for a plot.)

While also keeping a running record of major decisions reached by the Council and how each councilor weighed in on them.

Even if it's just a quick cheatsheet ("All right. Malcom is - usually drunk, cheerful and not a terribly serious individual; he's also a staunch opponent of Thayan and Zhent influence in the city, tends to follow Evermeet's lead and strongly believes in personal honor."/"Blaze is a sober and no-nonsense individual who is primarily interested in advancing his mercenary warband's interests, and tends to vote incredibly pragmatically. He's historically leaned more on the Thayan side of things, but is known to break with them when it's in the Flaming Fist's interests to do so.", etc., etc. ), it'd still make their various appearances less jarringly inconsistent in practice.

That having been said, given that Guldorand and Myon as communities couldn't be more culturally different - and they'd already had a 30-30-something IG year history of warfare and intermittent skirmishing before they were forced to cohabitate together, I strongly approve of having a set of DM-NPCs who have the ultimate say in ensuring things don't devolve into a complete bloodbath.

Forcing these two groups to share house wasn't perhaps the best thought out decision that could've been reached - but forcing them to share house w/o someone there to bap people who go a bridge too far over the head w/a newspaper would have been completely untenable.

[-XXX-]

We don't play in an absolute autonomy PW.

I think it would be more fun if we started to entertain this idea.

Solely because I think it's a false hope to expect people to bow to NPCs. It's more disruptive to play with people who think their in a desert, than a sandox, versus just all being tossed into the wild west.

I don't think that's a good solution.

Been there, done that. When given the power and opportunity players never fail to demonstrate how they are in it for selfish reasons while putting themselves and their friends first.

The NPCs have been put in place precisely because players have proven time and again that they can't be trusted with that level of IG influence.


However, I can see how NPCs holding the highest positions in the IG power structure could have a stifling effect on storytelling.
That being said, if players are expressing the desire for war, the DMs can give it to them.

Perhaps an NPC faction threatening the island with regular attacks might give something for characters to bond over and look past their differences.
IMHO the DMs have become too comfortable in their role of arbiters / silent custodians. When they then decide to entertain players with small DM events, it's often met with envy and hints of DM favoritism from those who are uninvolved (not saying this is justified, just stating how I percieve it).
Then again, they could create something for everyone to have fun with that could also distract the playerbase from the plethora of petty personal conflicts that's been piling up and even occassionally spilling into OOC tensions for a while now.

[DM Snowcat]

I'm uncertain of the degree of internal organization that the DMs have surrounding the Founder's Council, but it might be for the best if either:

A) Certain Councilors were reserved to be portrayed purely by certain members of the team, for consistency's sake, or
B) The team agrees internally on what general character tropes should be associated w/each member of the Council, and agrees internally on how best to portray each Councilor (slightly less consistent in the portrayals, w/o bogging everything down by going "X Councilor is Y's character, no touchie" if they're needed for a plot.)

We have talked within the team about these NPC's and how they do act and react to things as a characters. Steps have been taken to try and ensue that the characters stay, relatively, similar from interaction to another.

[-XXX-]

TBH the current Guldorand situation seems very similar to Pit Town after the Cataclysm or Cordor after Fall of Benwick to me.

Essentially a fraction of the player base has been kicked out of their impenetrable fortress, pretty much hinting at that whatever they'd been doing there up until then wasn't working.
Then this group has been forced and shoehorned into a new environment with the expectation for them to redefine their paradigm on their own, but that seems to have been met with stubborn reluctance towards coming to terms with this new reality instead.

[Vespidae]

I feel very much the same about King Edward in Cordor and the Houses Claddath and Freth in Andunor. I am not going to advocate for their removal, because I don't even know if I'm alone or not here, but as it currently is, and I say this with all due respect to the DM Team, these NPCs feel to me as if their goal is to wave a flag with the words "No Fun Allowed" written on it whenever a settlement's government starts going a little off the rails.

For me the big difference between the settlements is:

1) Cordor's King largely lets the Chancellor and their government decide most stuff. It usually seems to be BIG stuff that doesn't get delegated. Government positions are sought after and can be roleplayed pretty effectively.

2) The Andunor districts actually feel like they create a decent balance of conflict in the game. The City has 2-3 governments mediated by the Hub's neutral ground. There's a fair bit of jostling for resources, and a genuine Pit-of-Vipers feeling that I've noticed as both a local and a slave.

3) Guldorand has one position? Among the entire founder's council? Given the usually hands-off nature of Settlement government NPCs this seems like a bad balance. I think this is reflected in how barren the city feels at times, which is a shame because the wait was long and the place is absolutely gorgeous.
I feel like if the council had more playable positions (one less than half, say, so a vote can always go in favour of the DMs) then there'd be more reason for people to get involved in local politics.

[UilliamNebel]

We don't play in an absolute autonomy PW. Best to make peace with it.

There is a fine line that PWs play about this, between players as characters in synergy with DMs using the setting as a character. Players often do by proxy of their characters treat the setting in a way where consequences need to be imposed that the player may find quite negative.

That said, character choice and action inconsequentiality is outright immersion destroying, and characters put into puppet roles to just have the role exist is setting and collective story telling suicide. A door was opened with settlement political mechanics, which I feel was a mistake, the placing of PCs in roles of consequence for what should have remained NPC tools for the DMs as story telling enhancers alone, because no PC could fully roleplay them without their autonomy being leashed to suit the setting narrative. The settlement's PC involvement system has with regard to autonomy and consequence of player choices not been a success in my estimation. It has not felt more immersive, it has more so felt constraining, as if you are giving over your PC to be an NPC.

[Flower Power]

3) Guldorand has one position? Among the entire founder's council? Given the usually hands-off nature of Settlement government NPCs this seems like a bad balance. I think this is reflected in how barren the city feels at times, which is a shame because the wait was long and the place is absolutely gorgeous.
I feel like if the council had more playable positions (one less than half, say, so a vote can always go in favour of the DMs) then there'd be more reason for people to get involved in local politics.

A correction:

Myon and Guldorand have zero positions/say on matters relating to the Founder's Council, a point that has been repeatedly made clear by the Council IG. When push comes to shove and the Council decides it's time for them to decide on something, neither player government has any actual voice or vote on any matter.

[-XXX-]

I don't think that the chancellor of Cordor has much say in the matter if King Edward decides to do something either.

[The GrumpyCat]

I don't think that the chancellor of Cordor has much say in the matter if King Edward decides to do something either.

This is basically true.

I'd hazard to say... Guldornad's constitution is a lot more restrictive than Cordor - which basically has no constitution. In Government over all Edward is a lot more 'hands off.' And will only intervene when things get silly, or when we want to put down some fun plot.

The Guldorand government is has a whole constittion to enforce, and it's a new city, which means that there feels like there's a lot more enforcement going on I think?

[Ork]

We don't play in an absolute autonomy PW. Best to make peace with it.

There is a fine line that PWs play about this, between players as characters in synergy with DMs using the setting as a character. Players often do by proxy of their characters treat the setting in a way where consequences need to be imposed that the player may find quite negative.

That said, character choice and action inconsequentiality is outright immersion destroying, and characters put into puppet roles to just have the role exist is setting and collective story telling suicide. A door was opened with settlement political mechanics, which I feel was a mistake, the placing of PCs in roles of consequence for what should have remained NPC tools for the DMs as story telling enhancers alone, because no PC could fully roleplay them without their autonomy being leashed to suit the setting narrative. The settlement's PC involvement system has with regard to autonomy and consequence of player choices not been a success in my estimation. It has not felt more immersive, it has more so felt constraining, as if you are giving over your PC to be an NPC.

I'd disagree in that I think a quality and good roleplayer can work within the confines of the charter and succeed without the feeling of loss of autonomy. We all work within systems of settings, and while Guldorand might be more restrictive than others that doesn't mean that it is inconsequential. Again, best to make peace with it.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

I don't think the new city went far enough. I'd rather see it have no player government. Make Myon and Westcliff their own settlements again and let the new city be a canvas for factions to do things in. I really dislike all of the micromanaging that happens with settlements, it stifles RP far more than NPC owned places ever could. There's a bunch of small settlements for people who want that sort of thing.

[Spriggan Bride]

I don't think the new city went far enough. I'd rather see it have no player government. Make Myon and Westcliff their own settlements again and let the new city be a canvas for factions to do things in. I really dislike all of the micromanaging that happens with settlements, it stifles RP far more than NPC owned places ever could. There's a bunch of small settlements for people who want that sort of thing.

Love that idea. Having a city where the PCs aren't running the show could allow many things like long burn DM plots of the kind players just aren't capable of (like how Skal has been sold to different factions and they impose their influence in different ways)-- PC stories always just burn out too quickly and tend to be black and white instead of shades of grey as it's difficult to achieve the level of subtlety and intrigue a DM can. I mean we have Cordor as a large PC run city already, that should continue, but that doesn't have to be the only way things are done.

I'd love to see Guld as a place where the government is one thing, NPC led with long term DM plots, and the players have agency in factions that make a city run at street level. An honest to God thieves guild that the government tacitly supports as long as they don't get too out of line for example. Imagine a surface city where the players are encouraged to be chaotic and rogueish against the NPC powers that be...

[UilliamNebel]

We all work within systems of settings, and while Guldorand might be more restrictive than others that doesn't mean that it is inconsequential. Again, best to make peace with it.

Is it all inconsequential, certainly not. But is it inconsequential in a way where the drawbacks of it are greater than its gains?

Guldorand has felt like an experiment, one that wasn't supposed to find out if it WAS possible with the right players in the right roles. Instead if there was sustainability, can it, under these constraints, with whatever of the player base is able to move into a role IC, keep it active, immersive, and rewarding. And at that end, I'd say no, given the server dynamics as they have come to be. And I'd say it would remain less than feasible for the foreseeable.

I'd rather see it have no player government. Make Myon and Westcliff their own settlements again and let the new city be a canvas for factions to do things in. I really dislike all of the micromanaging that happens with settlements, it stifles RP far more than NPC owned places ever could.

This I agree entirely with, and find a great idea.

An honest to God thieves guild that the government tacitly supports as long as they don't get too out of line for example. Imagine a surface city where the players are encouraged to be chaotic and rogueish against the NPC powers that be...

Really also like ideas like this. A lot of Arelith has seemed to come into factions like an MMORPG, with what are arbitrary and static groups. I don't see a cultural difference with Cordor, Guldorand, and many other places genuinely. More so the conflicts, as played out, are arbitrary power games. Perhaps that is just the way it is, it is a sentiment I see also on a player level with all the dips, gear, then RP at 30 style of things (Not saying it as a pejorative just how I see it). But I think that is only the case because there aren't things tended to and creating more immersive experiences with Forgotten Realms lore, classes, that lead to thieves guilds, druid circles, ranger leagues, mercenary companies, cleric orders, etc that see a character up through to 30 and beyond IC, to where you can aim for and achieve things IC as a profession versus a maximized build & gear approach.

[Zavandar]

Guldorand has felt like an experiment, one that wasn't supposed to find out if it WAS possible with the right players in the right roles. Instead if there was sustainability, can it, under these constraints, with whatever of the player base is able to move into a role IC, keep it active, immersive, and rewarding. And at that end, I'd say no, given the server dynamics as they have come to be. And I'd say it would remain less than feasible for the foreseeable.

still too early to tell and guld has really only left its original westcliff circle once

[UilliamNebel]

Guldorand has felt like an experiment, one that wasn't supposed to find out if it WAS possible with the right players in the right roles. Instead if there was sustainability, can it, under these constraints, with whatever of the player base is able to move into a role IC, keep it active, immersive, and rewarding. And at that end, I'd say no, given the server dynamics as they have come to be. And I'd say it would remain less than feasible for the foreseeable.

still too early to tell and guld has really only left its original westcliff circle once

Would say it has gone through enough cycles of IC office tenures to warrant concluding the variables of the experiment will result in predictable outcomes here on out. PC burnout in a role they cannot exercise viable autonomy in, as they are kept to a rigidity like an NPC role. Would be better, and fairer to the player base, to tie it off, and look at ways to make Guldorand have NPCs which allow for wholly player factions that orbit it externally, to react to its centralied power, and create immersion. Things like the thieves guild idea, where instead of wanting to move toward an objective the players would seem to have the power of action to do as elected officials, they are stopped by what feels like DM fiat (Likely not, but whole, entirely other discussion).

[ZeroPointEnergy]

But lets entirely ignore the player side of it. We're not talking 'a few pvp skirmishes' we're talking WAR!

What -is- it good for?

(absolutely nothing!)

[Ork]

I do find it fairly interesting that the same people playing in Guld have only once been deposed of leadership since its release. Time to move on, I'd wager.

[UilliamNebel]

I do find it fairly interesting that the same people playing in Guld have only once been deposed of leadership since its release. Time to move on, I'd wager.

Not sure if that is a healthy message.

If people are there, as players doing their best in character, to add immersion and continuity to the place, telling them it is simply time to move on after such an investment sort of says don't bother doing it anywhere else in Arelith either. Not saying that is the intended message, but that is a very likely interpretation for many. And sadly one, from such a message taken as such, that I know resulted in a great player who brought a lot to other's leaving Arelith this week.

I don't think anyone needs to move along as it stands now. I more so find the issue is with the structure to begin with for PC involved leadership. The state of Guldorand isn't fairly, or so cut and dry, a player issue or even of what specific players for what amount of time.