How do you think that a coup command might work?
In theory, I think a GL secure in their approval should not be able to be couped against, but if they are sitting below 50 on the GL approval ratings, then I'm thinking it'd be reasonable for a member of the guild who wants to be the GL to be able to type 'coup' and kick off a week-long IC battle. For that week, the couping member would be protected from being deguilded and could RP to attempt to gain support. Whomever has the highest in-guild support at the end of the week would be declared the winner of the coup (either the GL or the couping member).
Alternately, we could go for a straight guild vote either at the end of the week or throughout the week, with votes being able to be changed up until the deadline.
Anyway, if a GL is deposed, we'd move them to the next highest appropriate rank in the guild and move the coup-er up to GL. Whether or not people exact revenge through deguilding, etc, would be up to them ICly once the coup term was complete.
If you don't like the above ideas, what would you propose instead?
Coups
First of all, yes, I think a command like this would be useful and is fun/slightly needed. I am voting yes. Buuut...
1. Maybe not call it coup, as a coup instinctively brings up negative feelings, and I feel this would be more of a 'challenge' system. Really nitpicky, and I wouldn't mind if this is ignored, but I feel that 'challenging' might not be entirely negative - in the way that a Knight might challenge his mentor for personal growth, or something. I don't know. I'm a little tired.
Next!
2. I feel that this goes against theme, but there are ways to work around it. We are in a society where modern diplomacy (voting) is a distant concept. The Earl Marshal is appointed by the Royal Council and they should have a hand in it. It's entirely not an inter-guild thing. Same thing with the Justiciar. We already don't bring these people into it enough - we shouldn't encourage that. However, if the person challenging gets sponsored by more than half the Royal Council? Yeah, that'd be cool.
3. I feel like it would be overused by players who just want to win. However, requiring the initial sponsorship of certain people outside the guild (see point 2) would disallow most of this.
4. Where will the High Synod come into play on this, when selecting a Cardinal? In that position, I really don't see there being room for a 'coup'.
Really, I feel like if the points brought up are ignored (and most of them are theme points) then this system will largely be OOC, and it'll be mixing with my IC.
1. Maybe not call it coup, as a coup instinctively brings up negative feelings, and I feel this would be more of a 'challenge' system. Really nitpicky, and I wouldn't mind if this is ignored, but I feel that 'challenging' might not be entirely negative - in the way that a Knight might challenge his mentor for personal growth, or something. I don't know. I'm a little tired.
Next!
2. I feel that this goes against theme, but there are ways to work around it. We are in a society where modern diplomacy (voting) is a distant concept. The Earl Marshal is appointed by the Royal Council and they should have a hand in it. It's entirely not an inter-guild thing. Same thing with the Justiciar. We already don't bring these people into it enough - we shouldn't encourage that. However, if the person challenging gets sponsored by more than half the Royal Council? Yeah, that'd be cool.
3. I feel like it would be overused by players who just want to win. However, requiring the initial sponsorship of certain people outside the guild (see point 2) would disallow most of this.
4. Where will the High Synod come into play on this, when selecting a Cardinal? In that position, I really don't see there being room for a 'coup'.
Really, I feel like if the points brought up are ignored (and most of them are theme points) then this system will largely be OOC, and it'll be mixing with my IC.
Player of: Alexander ab Courtland
Happy to change the "coup" to a "challenge".
I don't see a challenge being OOC at all, however. No more than a character's stats or skills are OOC, but used as arbitrators in RP. Or combat code. Could people use it OOCly? I'm sure they could just as easily as they can ICly go after someone because they don't like them OOCly... but most wouldn't, so I think it's moot.
I also think that there's a bit of a misconception about the amount of power outside bodies like the Royal Council (or Queen) would have over any given organization. It's rare that anyone can rule with an iron fist, and that's even in the case of kings and queens. Power is very contextual, and whereas a Royal Council might well be able to influence the selection of a particular individual as a leader, there's far more of a chance that those within body of a given organization, especially the upper echelons, would be in a far more immediate and appropriate place to flex their authority on the matter. In short, I'd probably mostly make in-guild infighting remain in-guild and anyone outside wishing to influence it would, if we allow it, have to spend influence to interfere.
With regards to the Cardinal, I would expect a challenge would probably convene the Synod or votes/influence (however we measure it) would influence that body's actions.
I don't see a challenge being OOC at all, however. No more than a character's stats or skills are OOC, but used as arbitrators in RP. Or combat code. Could people use it OOCly? I'm sure they could just as easily as they can ICly go after someone because they don't like them OOCly... but most wouldn't, so I think it's moot.
I also think that there's a bit of a misconception about the amount of power outside bodies like the Royal Council (or Queen) would have over any given organization. It's rare that anyone can rule with an iron fist, and that's even in the case of kings and queens. Power is very contextual, and whereas a Royal Council might well be able to influence the selection of a particular individual as a leader, there's far more of a chance that those within body of a given organization, especially the upper echelons, would be in a far more immediate and appropriate place to flex their authority on the matter. In short, I'd probably mostly make in-guild infighting remain in-guild and anyone outside wishing to influence it would, if we allow it, have to spend influence to interfere.
With regards to the Cardinal, I would expect a challenge would probably convene the Synod or votes/influence (however we measure it) would influence that body's actions.
I would change the helpfiles that state that the Justiciar and Earl Marshal are titles conferred by the Royal Council if this system goes into place, as that would not be the case anymore.
What if a Charali or Hillman makes a coup to become Cardinal, Earl Marshal, or Justiciar?
What if a Charali or Hillman makes a coup to become Cardinal, Earl Marshal, or Justiciar?
Player of: Alexander ab Courtland
Dislike the idea completely - for the sole reason that we ought to discourage even more frequent turnover than we already have. It kills guilds; it saps corporate knowledge; it leads to frankly discombobulating situations where pages or apprentice bards suddenly become Grand Masters or Poet Knights; and something like this, which could have far-reaching effects, should be role-played out and not left to the whims of a coded subsystem.
Conversely, if something like this is added, history and lore need to reflect that guilds aren't unified; they aren't powerful; leadership is transient, at best; and calling yourself "Grand Inquisitor" really isn't a big deal. Right now, it already strains belief: we churn through GLs like crazy for a multitude of reasons, and when you've got a long-lasting character and you're on your 4th or 5th Cardinal, it is literally impossible to roleplay that there's stability.
If something like this were added, I'd want the highest-ranking positions in the game held by NPCs. If you want to perform a coup to become Proconsul of Lithmore? Or a Magistrate? I get that. If you want to somehow backstab other bards or merchants to acquire a higher rank in that guild, I buy that.
But RP is, frankly, disrupted when guilds that historically number around, oh, 8 PCs (on a good month) have leaders that have areas of responsibility far beyond their scope (e.g., Cardinal, Earl Marshall) replaced. Or go vacant for long periods of itme.
If something like this were added, I'd rather the guilds better reflect the realities of Lithmore: in short, we would not have PC queens or cardinals or earl marshalls or leaders of global institutions. My own character (Gavin) would not exist. The highest-ranking PC Reeve would probably be a magistrate. There might be a knight commander charged with keeping the peace. Same for an Inquisitor charged with overseeing the city -- all Big Deals in the Capital, to be sure, but insulated enough that if one's toppled, we can readily assume that things proceed on without (too much) disruption.
Basically, in this world, you top out at Mayor of New York City, not President of the US.
Conversely, if something like this is added, history and lore need to reflect that guilds aren't unified; they aren't powerful; leadership is transient, at best; and calling yourself "Grand Inquisitor" really isn't a big deal. Right now, it already strains belief: we churn through GLs like crazy for a multitude of reasons, and when you've got a long-lasting character and you're on your 4th or 5th Cardinal, it is literally impossible to roleplay that there's stability.
If something like this were added, I'd want the highest-ranking positions in the game held by NPCs. If you want to perform a coup to become Proconsul of Lithmore? Or a Magistrate? I get that. If you want to somehow backstab other bards or merchants to acquire a higher rank in that guild, I buy that.
But RP is, frankly, disrupted when guilds that historically number around, oh, 8 PCs (on a good month) have leaders that have areas of responsibility far beyond their scope (e.g., Cardinal, Earl Marshall) replaced. Or go vacant for long periods of itme.
If something like this were added, I'd rather the guilds better reflect the realities of Lithmore: in short, we would not have PC queens or cardinals or earl marshalls or leaders of global institutions. My own character (Gavin) would not exist. The highest-ranking PC Reeve would probably be a magistrate. There might be a knight commander charged with keeping the peace. Same for an Inquisitor charged with overseeing the city -- all Big Deals in the Capital, to be sure, but insulated enough that if one's toppled, we can readily assume that things proceed on without (too much) disruption.
Basically, in this world, you top out at Mayor of New York City, not President of the US.
Gavin, I feel like you're attributing the characteristics of one problem too widely. The 'cohesive guild experience' might be damaged by this system, yes, but not if actions are taken to solidify the theme of problem guilds first. If that 'corporate knowledge' (I.E. lore/theme/objective) were common knowledge and not so easy to change, we wouldn't have to worry about each new guild leader completely changing the direction of these guilds. A lot of what you're putting out here might be better suited in the vein of 'How can we make guilds feel more like organized units' rather than 'How this code can screw up guilds more'.
Basically, I do agree with you - this will cause more turnover, and turnover is a problem - but it wouldn't make having this code any less useful. First though, the initial problem needs to be fixed: the lack of consistency during GL turnover, which I've seen addressed on like... three threads now, in various ways. Mostly concerning the Brohood - but it's a problem with other guilds too.
I think that consistent, IC turnover is something we should promote - along with good GLs in it for the long haul that have a lot of resources to make their gaming experience less like a job.
Basically, I do agree with you - this will cause more turnover, and turnover is a problem - but it wouldn't make having this code any less useful. First though, the initial problem needs to be fixed: the lack of consistency during GL turnover, which I've seen addressed on like... three threads now, in various ways. Mostly concerning the Brohood - but it's a problem with other guilds too.
I think that consistent, IC turnover is something we should promote - along with good GLs in it for the long haul that have a lot of resources to make their gaming experience less like a job.
Player of: Alexander ab Courtland
Personally, I think turnover is good for the game because it gives new people a chance when things are going wrong. It's especially good when the turnover is IC because it means that whomever takes the role has done some IC legwork and has background momentum as to how they got there. Good GLs have nothing to fear - they'll be sticky, I'm absolutely sure of it.
With regards to stronger guild lore, I think gnotes is a step in the right direction for that. I think it'd be good if we could give GLs a limited form of Hedit for their guild help files too so that staff don't have to approve/update them. That might also help.
With regards to stronger guild lore, I think gnotes is a step in the right direction for that. I think it'd be good if we could give GLs a limited form of Hedit for their guild help files too so that staff don't have to approve/update them. That might also help.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests