|
|
Post by addicted2rpg on Jul 9, 2004 16:50:10 GMT
This was sent to me in an IM by ElithReliner
That is an interesting question. Should 40th be a requirement? Personally I think epic (20+) is a minimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silentus on Jul 9, 2004 17:09:52 GMT
Were it up to me, I would say that 30th be the standard and allow for DM/Makz override if there is a longterm character who is not that far up in seasons. I know there are not many, but it is very concievable to be very influential for the long haul without the battle XP.
Keep in mind also that most will WANT to be 40th due to the ramifications of dying while house head. A low level would be a large assasination taget!
|
|
|
|
Post by JoScMa on Jul 9, 2004 22:11:41 GMT
I agree with Silentus that 30 levels should be the standard. I also agree that a non lvl 40 character will become such an easy target for assassination. Although that will be up to the player if s/he wants to become such an easy target.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cella on Jul 10, 2004 3:22:50 GMT
This looks really good.
What happens to the Knights in this structure?
Are they now glorified Police officers?
|
|
|
|
Post by addicted2rpg on Jul 10, 2004 4:47:33 GMT
It is difficult to say what will become of the knights in RP. Nobody is in a vacuum. I am sure their stories will be effected.
As far as code goes, or the ooc policy that they volunteer for us (its a thankless job: thanks guys), there will be no changes in those lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by ElithReliner on Jul 10, 2004 12:11:45 GMT
I agree with a 20+ minimum, it's another way to reward epic levels. 30+ would be good also.
Though a <40th character would be easier to assasinate the choice of being a House Head is up to the player & it would be good to see diversity of power throughout the houses.
I can attest to the fact that is very possible to RP a character for months without reaching 40th.
|
|
Hanah
Elder
Hanah Dedraluin<br>Kether<br>Verine Odama
Posts: 203
|
Post by Hanah on Jul 11, 2004 15:22:51 GMT
I'd like to discuss a few points on this issue, please bear with me as they maybe aren't the best organised.
1) Perhaps I missed this in your otherwise thorough write-up (and thanks for including the SQL tables! It lets SQL newbs like me take a look at someone else's work), but is there any mechanism to prevent a 'defeated' house from simply reforming?
2) Is there a need to prevent a defeated house from reforming under a new leadership (perhaps the Seargant takes over, or some similar circumstance)?
3) Other than susceptibility to assassination I haven't seen a very strong argument in favour of a minimum level for leadership. Think of the child rulers of past empires, often totally under the sway of a Regent. Mind you, these poor souls risked death at the hand of their supposed guardian as much as at the hands of a rival faction. Is this something we could explore in terms of RP?
3b) Other means of House subversion in addition to assassination. Let's face it... many significant political events of the past oh... four hundred years haven't always involved a garotte or a bullet. Often more insiduous changes in power structure can be effected. Is this something that can/should be incorporated into House code? Can leadership be transferrable to recognise other means of claiming power?
3c) How much work is this really going to be for our DM staff? You guys have enough to keep you busy as it is.
4) Will limiting house leadership and court status to those who have houses create an increased demand/begging/nagging for player homes? While the concept of a policy of inclusion is great (and really, exclusion only breeds resentment and stagnation, to rephrase your statements in the write-up), this is inherently an exclusionary practice. On the topic of home ownership, we may have a number of home-owning players who currently do not spend a lot of time on the server. From a technical standpoint, when do we have 'too many houses'? Do we create allowances for absentee lords/ladies, or do we have some sort of RP to deal with that? While the real world always plods on, Fredian similarly moves forward in real time.
5) Taxes (I realise this won't be implemented until RCS is) may be problematic. While cash is not an issue for our master smiths it can be for those who have pursued other crafts or, no craft at all. Do we want people to actually have to *work* to raise their tax money, rather than pursuing other pastimes on the server? What do we do with lords and ladies who fail to pay their taxes? Taking away a house isn't appropriate, as that was a token of recogntion for contribution to the community. What do we do about wilful or negligent tax evasion?
6) Players with multiple prominent PCs.... who or how many qualify to be lords/ladies/house leaders? Is this something we ought to put a stipulation on? If BigTimePlayer2004 has three prominent characters, and his character Lord Pointyteeth gets killed off as leader of House Nosferatu, what does that say about BigTimePlayer2004's other prominent characters chances of leadership?
To be honest... my take on this is that those who want to RP such alliegances and political structures will be able to with or without this structure. However, the amount of effort necessary on a player's part is drastically reduced by providing a framework like this. Generally less work is more fun. Thank you to everyone contributing to these ideas. You are doing much to optimise the work:fun ratio for the community.
Hanah
|
|
|
|
Post by Makzimia on Jul 11, 2004 22:33:55 GMT
Finished. Thanks for now.
|
|
