Call for ideas

[addicted2rpg]

Right now suggestions and comments would be very appreciated in response to this post:

makzimia.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=MAXIMUS&action=display&thread=1089380008

[Naraldur]

Cool, I wanted to reply to that, but it was closed-book by the time I read it.

My suggestion would be to have a more RP-related reason for guild heads than a level requirement. This would, ideally, vary by guild. "Chaotic Blackguards Inc." would basically have no option but to fight to the top and hire a fiercely loyalist bodyguard unit to protect against assassination while there (for anyone who plays Warhammer 40,000, I'm thinking Dark Eldar politics). Lawful groups could just vote, or go by simple seniority status--whoever has been in the guild longest leads it. Barbarian clans could have strength or endurance competitions.

Basically, I think guild/house heads should be chosen based on criteria specific to each guild/house. I would make certain feats required as well. For example, one could not become leader of "Polly's Paladin Corps (tm)" without Epic Reputation (actually, I would make that a requirement for most groups, just to see it used), or "The Microsoft Thief Corporation (R)" without taking, say, 20 levels of open lock and the Skill Mastery feat.

You know... it just occured to me, I'm basically thinking of something like a prestige class for guild/house leaders. Stat requirements, ability requirements, feat requirements, that sort of thing.

[addicted2rpg]

It is closed as far as the public forum goes, but that doesn't mean it isn't being talked about.

We have several revisions that will be coming out soon, including the creation of Minor Houses that will not be apart of RCS (no titles, no taxes) and Major Houses that will.

The specific details of these things are being laid out by our excellent gamestaff, and Silentus is going to create a nice beautiful summary of it all when I am finished with that giant doc, so you poor sods don't have to read something that long (but I do ).

There will also be some changes regarding House disbandment and things along those lines.

Besides, every post here is reactionary (which is fine to an extent, but more whining and questions than solutions. It was call for IDEAS/solutions not a call for complaints). When I realized Mitza was the only one who had suggestions to address some of the things she found fault in, I realized that the resources I need are already available among my competant peers. Although no one would suggest a thing on the Nature of Appointment or the Nature of Meeting. I eventually was forced to carry the torch on this. I think I got lucky on that one....

Anyway, not too much revelation of the DM threads. We have to surprise you all. I still do in-game discussion with people as well.

When I was getting my CS degree, I remember one of my internship supervisors saying, "There are users and designers. Some are just users. Some are just designers. Some are users and designers. All combinations exist to varying degrees of skill."

I have found his words to be especially true this week.

Silentus and I are currently of the opinion that it would be productive to have a second public discussion at a later date, especially one under Silentus' moderation. He does rather well at that. I do not know what its topic will be, but it won't be "reactions to the House system and RCS"

He will probably pose it as a series of questions like he did for the Jail system? who knows.

I'm locking this thread until then.