ti-legacy.com

So, when Influence Points and Guild Approval Ratings were on the table, we had a rousing discussion on GL about what it might mean.

Gavin, one of my favorite players when it comes to an interesting perspective said, "So what happens when you find out 90% of the pbase are heretics?" and "I think we'll see a situation where the Order, or the Grand Inquisitor at the least, will see constant, pretty brutal churn." We reserved judgment.

Skipping about a week later, without commenting on anything we're seeing in the support system that makes us suspect that there's the *cough* strong possibility that most of the pbase are heretics... I can say that I've seen some powerful evidence that we've lost at least one Grand Inquisitor.

I think my eyes have opened to some interesting quandaries. Not that I'm exactly inviting Gavin to "I told you so" just yet. But my mind is certainly turning around in this direction.

Firstly, taking a step back, I'm going to make some major assumptions, and I'd like players to tell me if it's true. The first one is that, despite the fact that we all individually dislike the morality and execution of an Inquisition, for a game setting, we agree that we want the game to continue to center around the search for mages vs the mages outsmarting of the Holy Order?

Secondly, a broad statement of philosophy that's coming to my mind is that the Historical Church kept power out of the hands of the people, keeping them ignorant and uneducated. Introducing the social system with influence points puts power into the hands of players, which endangers the Order. at least, because 'good people' with our OOC mores (and no few with their IC ones) would rightfully turn away from The Inquisition.

The nitty gritty of the problem is that it's a qualitative judgment call, and that's not something the system can easily make. Further, getting too black and white towards the theme can actually make the theme unfun and distasteful to play. My thought is perhaps to allow players to nominate themselves theme champions, then to reward them for thematic activity - but I'm not certain to a matter of degree or if it will degrade into something silly like staff slapping fingers when they disagree with RP instead of awarding people for playing non-heretics (which may genuinely be in the minority, and the game's conflict is lost if there's no non-heretics to not just let mages wander around free).

So, tell me, what do you think? How would you address these issues?

I definitely like the mages v muggles aspect right now...

Just based on what the post says, I'm not sure I like the idea of theme champions or any of that sort of thing--not only because it promotes a certain amount of "Soandso does it this way, so that's the standard" amongst individual players -regarding- other players, who should be their peers, but also because it caters to a degree of necessity in keeping all of your dealings open and plain. Given the number of secret societies and methods of intrigue, one could make the the case that secrets and social maneuvering is just as prominent in the theme. To have someone be named theme champion would then cause others to wonder if they shouldn't feel the same way on the same issues as said champion, despite that that character may have perfectly valid reasons for out-of-the-norm behavior or opinions.

Personally, I would set a certain level of protection against non-guilded disapproval, depending on each guild. I'm sure none of us like the scary mean GI who locks up in the cells, but it takes RP and careful planning to remove potential enemies, not just a simple disapproval by the masses.

Similarly, the Justiciar, King, and Earl Marshall aren't exactly going to be run out of their respective offices because the local miners have rallied the townsfolk into an eat-in against their atrocious actions, but it would have -some- influence, in varying amounts.

I think each Guild should have a certain standard by which is weighs outside negative opinions, to account for the increasing or decreasing level of shits given about what Joe Schmoe thinks about their leadership.

Obviously, guilded disapproval is different, and represents "in-the-know" people who are likely to actually be weighed more heavily, as the system (I believe) was designed for.

drop 2*silver

I agree with Amdair's wisdom on the matter. I don't like qualitative judgments, nor do I want to sway the pbase to think they 'must go along with Mr. Theme' lest they be in dire straits. I would prefer if some of the more gross shockers of theme misrepresentation were somehow easily addressed by staff, but I suppose I'll have to live with the ambiguity for awhile longer until something better comes to mind - or you guys make suggestions.

Geras - glad to see you approve of the theme! I think we'll keep it. :)

What about if we develop a system to award people who take a stand and step up to champion theme issues on an individual basis? This would be for public acts with criteria that it increases the presence of unpopular themes, ie those things we love to hate.

*Flogging the peasants
*Being racist
*Being superstitious
*Freaking out at the scary magic
*Speaking against a love match for a marriage
*Shunning the freaks
*Condemning the kittens & bunnies

These are all things we love to see in the theme (from the baddies, anyway) and it helps to bring our nitty-gritty, dark and superstitious world to life, but we're often much more leary about demonstrating them ourselves, because they are opposed to modern day values and cultural mores or they just make us look foolish. And when everyone stands against the guy that does it (not necessarily because they don't appreciate them standing against it - often they do and love that it gives them the chance to stand up and be heroic by modern standards), it makes the player feel like everyone is against them. I think that rewarding people who take these 'risks' and reinforcing that we OOCly love it will only help to strengthen theme.

I also don't think that this would invalidate the RP of those who don't do it. It's an extra incentive for stepping out of the box on unpopular, and it's there so the people that don't have something to rail against. Would you feel like your RP was invalidated if you didn't get one of these? If the person you were RPing against did?

And how could we even design a system to award this?

The award system handles it to an extent. Perhaps just having an imm who notices this sort of thing being RPed well award a few QP, and players do the same? It seems to work with think at least...

In terms of the GL-approval issue, I think down weighting the approval/disapproval of people outside the guild should be sufficient to handle Gavin's concerns. I do think how popular a GL is outside their guild should play some role in their likelihood of being removed, but not a very large one.