Political Questions


Archived topics from the different rule forums.

Moderator: Admin

GM

Posts: 4491

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:14 pm

Post Wed May 16, 2007 11:01 am

So you take out the people requirements from the guilds and the house (currently I think they need 6 people) and make levels of organizations all point based (with the numbers possibly being tweaked a tad). Then, instead of having a leader per se, you would have someone in charge of different things, so if you had 3 trade routes, one person would be in charge of each route and thus, it is the number of things your org wants to do which determines the number of people required within it. At the house level, someone would be in charge of commodities and someone in charge of market places. You would then be supporting an organization more than you would a person. Is this the gist?

If so, is one of the roles a person plays managing the support points for the org in terms of supporting a higher org? Meaning, how does an RGO support an RRO? One of the nice things about the system is that there is this person in charge who controls the point pool who could simply say, "My people are not supporting you anymore." Can that be done with this new proposal? Since we have several skills that up the support point total, I assume it is; I'm just not sure how you are conceptualizing it.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Wed May 16, 2007 11:49 am

Well currently people vote for a person who is in charge of a guild so we know who is in charge for logistics and plot reasons.

In this proposal it would make things more fluid. Let me give some examples.

You could have an organization where Aaron is king. As king all of the people in his organization support him. He has 1200 support points.

He designates himself to be in charge of the military and then assigns "jobs" to people and uses the remaining support points to fuel those jobs. His org has let’s say 10 people.

Later on Mike, who runs a 3 person org with 3 trade routes decides he really like Aaron and decides to support him as king. On paper this could happen 2 ways. The first way would be for Mike to tell everyone to support Aaron and on each person's check out sheet they write in Aaron instead of Mike. The other way this could happen (the way I would hope it would happen) is Mike would take all of his allegiance and hand it over to Aaron increasing Aaron's total support. (basically as it is done now)

What would be lost, and different than now, is that Mike would not be directly in control of the trade routes he possessed because Aaron would be. (results of the merger)

The role playing would be like:

Aaron: Mike I like you and if you would join with me you can remain in control of all your trade routes. I will in turn give you magic items and commodities so you can grow strong and be my champion.

Mike: I bow to you my king.

Lastly we have the NPC side
This is really where the cool stuff happens. We would determine how the trade routes react to the change which would lead to plot and possibly a lowering or an increase in stability.

Now lets say Mike hates Aaron and leaves.
Well Mike was in charge of 3 trade routes and the trade routes know him, but there is also kingdom loyalty. This is where I see orgs falling apart and stuff. Instead of the players dealing with it mechanically on the front end we would deal with it on the back end through plots, stability, and yield. Exactly how that would happen I have not gotten that far. I know it would depend on how the Mike and Aaron thing shook out and the previous RP that would be recorded on our side. Aaron would have to decide if he wants Mike’s trade routes. Mechanically, they would bid using support points with Mike having some kind of an advantage since he was in charge. (the route knows him) During this time yield and stability would decrease (this simulates the loss and regaining of levels we currently have yet more fluid and less mechanics for the players)
Eventually it would shake out in some way. Heck Aaron might chop Mike’s head off and tell the remaining people in his org that it would be best to remain loyal to Aaron.
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them

GM

Posts: 4491

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:14 pm

Post Wed May 16, 2007 12:02 pm

That example makes no sense to me. Now, if Mike were the king and Aaron the subordinate without a head, it becomes much more clear and understandable. Let's not throw realism out the window. :wink:
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 214

Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:39 pm

Location: On the way back to Woodhold from traveling with Connor (my husband)

Post Wed May 16, 2007 4:26 pm

I'm for the idea of giving your allegiance pts to one org.

If you decided to leave, but were one people that support pts were to go through to support your portion of the group... as in the system now...they would totally mess up the numbers for the group....so if they wanted to leave on relatively good terms but doing it in game they kind of could not do it between events....and that kind of sucks.

Burecrate would change too wouldn't it?? Or maybe I'm confused.... :P
Shea Stonebrook

Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Speak the truth, always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong. That is your oath.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Wed May 16, 2007 4:52 pm

Well leaving on good terms is an RP thing and I do not think the mechanic change would alter that at all.

and no beurocrat would not change since a beiro could control 2 routes themself
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 2369

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:32 am

Location: Michigan

Post Thu May 17, 2007 7:46 am

I see one big issue. Laddering. The way it is now, we are forced to funnel points into one person (the guild head), and then that person and a few others funnel them into one person (house head) and so on. In your example, I'd just get as many people to take bueracrat or chieftan as I could and then have each one give points to the next guy in the ladder, effectively giving us monumental support points when we finally declare Aaron as king of our org (and he'd be the last in the ladder).

Also, currently can't you still role play out the trade route thing? If someone leaves as guild head what's preventing you from having it be role played?

And I'm still not real keen on the idea of one organization since it's impossible to downsize. If you lose members or support, you're completely screwed versus now where you can salvage by manuevering people and support points. You'd have to add in some ability to lower your guild/house/kingdom's level.
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Thu May 17, 2007 8:18 am

Some missconceptions.

1) The laddering would not occur, because I would not apply the bueracrat % bonus in the way you suggested. The reason why is because there is one organization the bueracrats would all be inside the same org. Their % bonus would only apply if they were in charge of a posisiton like say a trade rotue. I would simply add up all the %'s. Also, currently I guild uses their support then passs it to a house which uses the same support. In this system there would be just 1 pool to deal with.

2) we will be RP'ing the current trade routes. I am simply discussing a mechanic change to help simplify things for the player.

3) Downsize? Levels would be removed and there would not be downsizing in the way you are thinking of it. Basically people would not have to worry about orgs falling apart in the traditional sence since there would be no people nor no support point requierment to be an organization.
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 2369

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:32 am

Location: Michigan

Post Thu May 17, 2007 11:11 am

So if you have a group of (say 6) people (all who have 2nd level cheiftan (ie +25% personal and total allegience) in a group and each is in charge of something, how would you do this math and what or who would they support? Who/what do they support? Say each has 8 support...

Now add in a new guy and he has no support bonuses. Who/what can he support if he isn't in charge of something. Who/what can he support if he is in charge of something?

Back to your original point of trying to increase the support requirement of guilds, how does any of this change that? I mean every person could have a job to max out, whereas now, you need at best 2 people per job. You've made it more geared towards people, haven't you?
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Thu May 17, 2007 11:34 am

Dont worry about the support points with disciplines and how it all adds up because those are just numbers and I can tweek on the back end the requierments for trade routes or what have you to make it fit as it does now.

As for do I make people more important I guess the answer would be yes and no. Currently a guild needs 6 people to have 3 trade routes, in my model you would need 4 people, and if you lost a person for 2 events your org would not fall apart, but you would have an issue with the trade route.

So basically they way it will look for players is on their checkout sheet they decide to vote for a person or an organization. The person who gets the most support will be named as the "leader of the organization" The leader puts on their check out sheet who is in charge of what trade routes.

We as GM's put the resources of said trade route into the folder of the person designated.

The result is orgs dont fall apart as they do now. Higher level orgs like houses and kingdoms do not have to try and explain the entire guild/house structure since there will only be 1 person to vote for. Buracrats probably get a little bit better. There is a better conceptualization of division of labor. The leader of an org and bestow a real job to a person instead of them branching off into their own org. Trade routes are more tied to RP than mechanics on paper. Lastly, I open up the chance for more corruption since more people will be recieving resources there is a greater chance of skimming off the top.

win win :)
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Thu May 17, 2007 12:06 pm

I think what chris is proposing is starting to become alot clearer to me now. Basically you are saying that we get rid of the need for the guild level but leave room for smaller groups. (Im gonna use king house guil since I can never remember which R*O is what)

The king can get pts from groups or people, Bob and Bill have groups, each group has 2 trade routes. Charles, Cory, Derek and Daniel and are loners with no previous affiliations. They all support Alpha, the king level organization that is run by Alan who runs the military points.

Alan gives Bob, Bill, Charles and Cory 1 trade route each to run. Derek runs Trading post Alpha 1 (market place), Daniel runs Alpha 2 Magic Exchange (commodity).

Earl and Evelyn join the org, Alan assigns them Alpha 3 (2nd commodity) and recently acquired trade route 5 respectively.

Bob's entire groups pts were upped when given to Alan because he got a bonus. Cory is also a beaureucrat but because he doesn't have people under him giving him allegiance only his pts are upped. The routes would have the contacts listed as Bob Bill Charles and Cory respectively.

2 months later Bob decides he wants to support someone else so he leaves the king level group taking his house level group with him. Bob would then have to assign people under him to run commodities, marketplaces and trade routes. The route suffers a hit because its changing around.

Basically everything stays the same, except its all handled by RP, no people requirements for guild level and if your people decide to support someone else you lose the trade route, commodity or marketplace or whatever had their name as contact.

Questions would be who and when can the contact names be changed?
If you lose a commodity or maketplace does it really mean anything seeing as you can just create a new one and you would only lose the yield from 1 event of putting stuff into it?
How do you lose the ability to have MP's or marketplaces and commodities? Is it just by falling below the total SP's required?
Can Alan decide to intercept the incoming shipment IBE and have it put in their folder instead?
If Derek doesn't come to an event is the stuff just left in the folder or can the person they gave their pts to have someone temporarliy replace them as long as that person is not in charge of something else?
If Derek doesn't show to 2 events in a row can Alan assign a new contact?
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Thu May 17, 2007 12:38 pm

I dont know if I was explaining it that way, but I do think that is a better way of loking at it Erik.

A couple clarifications. Orgs would be orgs there would no longer be 3 different kinds. (At least I do not see a need)

Since there is just 1 org technically, lower level orgs would be role play, though you can as you say have a group support another group.

As you said in your example, If bob has 3 trade routes and Bob is assigning them to 3 people under him and then joins Alan, it would be Alan's decision if the 3 trade routes remain with the same 3 people.

Questions would be who and when can the contact names be changed?

I would say every event, but I would think that a change would have an effect on a trade route. Forexample, lets say Bob leaves the king organization. The trade route technically belongs to Alan, so there would have to be a bid war with Bob having an advantage since the trade rotue knows bob more than Alan. In another example, lets say Bob sucked and killed villiagers resulting in a stability loss of the trade route. Alan comes in and removes bob and gives it to Mike. Mike in turn does a good job and stability goes up.

(make sense?)

If you lose a commodity or maketplace does it really mean anything seeing as you can just create a new one and you would only lose the yield from 1 event of putting stuff into it?

Wouldn't work that way. As you grow as an org and take on more things the total support points needed to maintain everything goes up. If the orgs total support points did not match the support points needed then the % difference would effect the yield of everything that the org is doing. Less tropps, less comodities, less resources.

How do you lose the ability to have MP's or marketplaces and commodities? Is it just by falling below the total SP's required?


I think this is answered above

Can Alan decide to intercept the incoming shipment IBE and have it put in their folder instead?

Alan would need to change people next event, or Alan can in game intercept the person.

If Derek doesn't come to an event is the stuff just left in the folder or can the person they gave their pts to have someone temporarliy replace them as long as that person is not in charge of something else?
If Derek doesn't show to 2 events in a row can Alan assign a new contact?

We currently do not handle this in the best way. I would assume that missing an event would turn the resources directly over to Alan for that event, since they could not find Derek.

Oh and the spy can be used to determine if people in the org are skimming from their shipments.

[/quote]
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Thu May 17, 2007 12:50 pm

I like it except that I think it should belong to whoever is on the card as contact. If Bob decides to leave then Alan has to outbid Bob by a certain % (which can be a function of stability and yield or something)to wrest control of the route then he can assign a new peron to control the route.

Makes more work for you guys as you have to find the % to adjust everything IBE events up or down but it certainly makes it easier for the players and makes RP means something more than it currently does without the clunkiness of needing to build and maintain in org steps and keeping a # of people in each small org.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Thu May 17, 2007 1:31 pm

Well if Alan got it from bob then he could immeadeatly assign a person.

Oh in my mind both systems are nearly identical, but I thought it would help people conceptualize the RP aspect when the mechnicas are stated this way.
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 2369

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:32 am

Location: Michigan

Post Thu May 17, 2007 1:34 pm

I'm still not sure how the org within an org situation will work well in this concept. What's the mininum amount of peole you need to do that? When would percentage bonuses to total support be applied?

I like the concept but the ability for groups to be within groups just means that we'll end up with a bunch of small groups that support a few people, who band into a few larger groups that support a person to get the maximum amount of support points. Same as we do now, except if groups can be smaller, more percent modifers can be applied. Unless you change how support multipliers are factored in...
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Thu May 17, 2007 2:09 pm

This is a great debate. The roleplayer loves it, the number cruncher cannot see how it works :)

The old system had much more front end mechanics where a person could spend some time learning and the new system is simplier, yet both would opporate the same :)

Anyways I am unconcerned about the numbers because I would not care that you maximize % bonus's. Disciplines that give % bonuses are desinged to encourage those people to have more control of the political process. A buracrat should be trying to form small groups within organizations to give them more political muscle so they can in turn demand choice jobs within the organization.

In the current system that would be someone wanting to form a guild inside an already existing house.

The problem is, and I think it is partially due to mechanics, there is a population which does not get it. We instead have 1 or 2 people who tell other people where to go to maximize a mechanical bennifit. I think this mechanic change will make things alot more intuitive and help foster the RP we all want to enjoy, while still allowing people to try and maximize the mechanics more than they probably could before.
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
PreviousNext

Return to Rule Forum Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Designed by ST Software for PTF.