Coups

[Applesauce]

Not sure yet how I feel about coup/challenge as a concept, but I do have one question for clarity's sake: where is the player-visible bar for "50 on the GL approval ratings" as mentioned in the original post?

If 50 is Neutral and the scale is 0-100, then I vote the bar be moved to 25 or lower. It would be too easy to time coups with the code autoreset on support's expiration or one vacation week when a GL's approval is automatically reset to Neutral.

Maybe it actually make some sense for even an ICly loved GL to just get a hit of bad timing and BOOM challenged, but if that's not the original intent then IMO it makes sense to lower the bar for when this would be allowed.

[Geras]

I agree with Applesauce here. Getting turfed at 50% support would be pretty rough. Some turnover is good for the game, but too much would be a problem IMHO.

[Cellan]

Yeah... agree with Applesauce and Geras: that really is rough. If the whole point is to get rid of inactive GLs without waiting weeks for it, I'd suggest the bar be lowered to 'Hated'. That seems to be better than tossing them out at, like, Neutral.

I don't think this idea at all, though.

[wimple]

Increased turn over for no real reason - if the person is at neutral, then that's really no proof their ineffectual. I don't find turn over to be great for the game or RP. People can already support/rumor people out of office and when that happens, it would theoretically be possible for someone in the guild to take over. So I don't see the function of this at all. More detrimental than helpful.

[Temi]

I don't look at this as a mode to just get rid of someone who isn't liked or isn't active, but instead as a method to replace them with someone who has more popular support. Initiating a coup doesn't mean you lose your GLship, it just means you have a chance to defend it, and if you're a great GL, people will surely rally behind you. It could create some great RP. I'd even say if the GL is below 'Approved' then they could potentially be in a position where they might need to prove themselves and answer the question 'Well, what have you done for us lately?' No, people don't want to get rid of a neutral GL, but they sure might like to replace them with someone they actually like.

I like it because it is built in with a replacement that makes IC sense, which is something that can be a bit tough in other situations.

I believe 50 is at neutral, though not actually the turning point in t.

[wimple]

Yeah, it promotes RP, and it doesn't actually kick the person who was GL out of the guild (perhaps that should be revised, and to be ousted you just go to a retired rank in the GL or whatever you had before, instead of having to leave the guild altogether if that's what happens).

But it can also lead to a lot of ridiculousness. An apprentice could come in and oust a Grand Magnate. Hopefully RP wouldn't let it happen but I wouldn't really be surprised if it did. Certain GL Positions - Queen, Cardinal, Justiciar come to mind - shouldn't have this be an option, because those are appointed by NPC counsels or are Great Lords, etc. A Hillman or a Charali character could come in, use the command, and take over a guild that ya'll don't want them to take over.

If you're going to go this route, then I think you have to be prepared for anyone being able to become anything, with the right IC support.

[Gavin]

We had this happen before, when Dagerian was Proconsul, and I think the Justiciar position was vacant. I remember someone telling me (or I could be totally misremembering, which means this is a decent question to consider, since @wimple brought it up) that Dagerian could not become Justiciar because it was unthematic for a Charali to be one.

But, at the time, I think he could have won with the "coup" command, because he was popular.

This is the problem: by leaving things up to code, when guilds have small numbers of people (and how many active Reeves are there, ever? like 4-5, tops? the same goes for knights, Orderites), you only need a friend or two to pull of a coup, and, blammo! The most popular page in the Keep is next week's Earl Marshall.

I've already said my piece on this about how I don't like the command, but I'll reiterate my belief that, were the highest ranks basically unobtainable (on a regular basis) by NPCs, it'd be kinda cool. Perform coups all the time to be knight-commander of Lithmore, senior magistrate, high inquisitor, and master bard; but not, say, cardinal or queen (since those would be filled by NPCs or selected PCs).

[wimple]

Right, Charali can't be Justiciar. I think for a lot of players, even Proconsul is a stretch.

And if that's theme, it's fine. But in this system, that wouldn't work, unless you have rules that it can only work in covert guilds for certain races.

I imagine the problem with the NPC route is there's always going to be someone who wants to go to the top to get some conflict taken care of, which means that NPC guild leaders are essentially the immortals. Which is what they've been actively trying to get away from by opening the monarchy up.

[Leech]

The most popular page in the Keep is next week's Earl Marshall.

On second thought, I approve of this system. Let's do it.

[Geras]

I'd just like to point out that for some guilds (cough nobles cough cough cough) replacing the first GL is not a simple thing. It would involve kingdom-wide warfare.