Conflict and the surface.

[Flower Power]

My input on terminology:

"Social RP" is RP that does not focus on conflict (defined later) but instead focuses on providing any number of other things to its participants (whether it's escapist wish fulfillment, personal gratification, kudos, or simply stress and risk free entertainment.) It tends to be deemed as "RP-lite" by a lot of people, because it's usually divorced from the creation or advancement of any sort of larger narrative beyond the personal scale.

"Conflict" is any sort of narrative building that follows this rough formula:

A Player or Group desires __________ (whatever their motivation is); they cannot immediately or freely obtain it because of ___________ (whether it's because it doesn't exist yet, because someone else possesses it, or because someone else is trying to stop them from possessing it, or any other number of obstacles.) They attempt to obtain <goal> by doing _________. Conflict is this, plus all of the ramifications, fallout and reactions that follow their attempts to achieve what they want. It does not have to focus on PvP, but violence and force are two very common forms of conflict resolution.

"Movers & Shakers" is a loaded phrase with no set definition that both sides of this argument feels applies to themselves and argues over, often to the point of pedantry. Social RPer's feel they're moving things along, it's just the things they want to be moved along, and feel affronted by the insinuation they aren't. Conflict-driven individuals, well, are the ones pushing along narrative arcs that force people out of their comfort zone and into situations where they're forced to come to grips and react to something.

Conflict is the key component of storytelling, a story that does not involve some sort of conflict - some sort of oppositional struggle, or an effort to overcome something to achieve something else, is almost bound to be universally panned as either lacking in substance or being incredibly boring. Conflict is what drives narrative.

It's entirely possible to have Conflict without PvP (I've done it in Cordor via political scheming, maneuvering and machinations, forcing people to react and oppose me in a fashion that allow for direct violent confrontation to be socially permissible.) It's also entirely possible to have PvP without it being an unfair grinding slogfest: I attempted to organize intersettlement wargames a few years back, recurring events that would involve a number of events and trials - some of which were highly regulated individual and small-group PvP - with the losing party having to give up some sort of battle standard, flag or symbol to the victor to be held for a year until it could be challenged for again, and the victor having to organize a feast to honor the defeated. But the ideas of having to arrange for an equitable and even contest of arms (a lot of people refuse to take any sort of risk unless victory is OVERWHELMINGLY ASSURED, it's part of the "I must win and I'm afraid of losing" culture we discussed becoming prevalent earlier) and having to actually give up something (even if it's just a friggin' fixture) if they lost spooked so many people that the idea failed to gain any traction with other settlements and didn't go anywhere.

Social RP is not inherently bad. Demonizing individuals (especially on an OOC level, which happens a lot) for creating conflict (which, again, is what drives narrative - and the entire purpose of tabletop roleplaying is collaborative narrative building) so that Social RP can become the dominant, unimpeded force is.

[Nekonecro]

And often - if I'm being very cynical, I wonder if some of this shutting down isn't a 'meta' way of 'winning' a situation. To explain...

'Ok so the Banites keep doing nasty things.'
'Yeah.'
'They're spoiling for a fight! They want [insert faction/group here] to respond right? They want us to fight back yeah?'
'Uh huh yeah. And we should right.'
'No.'
'No?'
'No. Because that just gives them rp, conflict, response. If we fight back, some of us will loose. And that means WE loose, get it?'
'I... guess so?'
'Ok so what we do is just ignore them.'
'Ignore them?'
'Ignore them. They thrive on conflict. If no one responds, if everyone just ignores their attempts at stirring the pot, then they'll get bored eventualy as players and we can claim we didn't loose any conflicts at all! I'm known as a successful leader! Huzzah!'

The above is, in my opinion, pretty dreadful and should be avoided. But I do wonder if it's one (hopefully small) reason for lack of conflict. People don't want to loose, or be seen as loosing and - if you don't play, you don't loose!

It's a sad thought that I hope isn't true.

Unfortunately from my personal experiences it's very much true.
Also it goes a step further in that they tell their friends OOC to spread about how the player of your Banite example there is a bad player and folks should not RP with them.

The levels of demonizing people who disrupt the status quo on an OOC level has become beyond draining to intolorable.

But the discussion in this thread is on conflict-averse characters & factions in positions of power, and the idea of them favouring non-conflict RP to such a degree that they use their vast resources to snuff out conflict before it has a chance to impact the game world (and, usually, them and their allies). And I think the responsibility here really falls on a select few people: settlement leaders, and the leaders of important factions.
This is a sandbox world where lots of people want the opportunity to tell different stories, and I'm firmly of the belief that faction leaders/settlement leaders have a special responsibility to use their resources to facilitate the stories of characters that want to interact with their faction/settlement.

My hot take: If you are a faction/settlement leader who is actively shutting down stories, even ones that would impact your faction/settlement negatively, you shouldn't be a faction/settlement leader. You are in an advantageous position with lots of resources and connections. Those things should not be used to make other players unable to tell stories. You can absolutely oppose the cult edging in on your territory, your clan can totally end up being the one to take down the evil necromancer. But if you don't give the other side something to work with, some kind of chance to RP and be in the spotlight, you are misusing your power.

For settlement leaders specifically: If you don't want to be involved in conflict RP at all, don't lead a settlement. Simple as that. Because conflict RP will be forced upon you; it's the nature of the position. And when it does happen it'll be up to you to decide whether the aggressor gets a chance to have some fun or whether you grind them into paste and exile them.

Man I love you lot with how well you're hitting the nail on the head for me in this thread.

[Irongron]

I think the more 'social RPer' are essential for making Arelith feel genuinely alive and inhabited, personally. Building a home in this world is core to its appeal for many players, and they should absolutely not be publicly shamed for doing so.

As, at best, a very casual player I am somewhat envious I don't have that option. Some of my most enjoyable moments on Arelith were simply spending time in conversation with other characters. There is a tremendous sense of belonging involved in those communities, which is quite simply magical.

[PEST CONTROL]

I keep hearing the words "Movers and Shakers" to name those players who run factions or head of settlements.

I like to think I am one of these Movers and Shakers. With that in mind, I don't like hearing about what new "rules" that need to be put into place for things to work better. I think they work just fine. I know playing a Banite is difficult, and I will be killed and banished for showing up in settlements. I want it to be difficult, not easier to play a Banite. Some of us enjoy the higher difficulty of playing certain PC's.

I find enjoyment starting factions seeing them rise and then die. The more difficult the challenge the better, and that takes time. Manipulating server rules to make things more easy would ruin that for me. Granted this is just me, but I like to think some of the others agree.

I guess what I am trying to say is, some of us want things to be hard, really Hard. If I want to play an open infernalist, I expect to be an outcaste and hated. I expect to have my stories attempted to be wiped out, believing I have the ability to overcome that. I like to think what I have come up with will stir the pot and get others involved, while also having my PC hated. Then when things are at a fever pitch! I will kill my PC off and watch everything blow up. That is how I enjoy playing.

In my mind, If you make things too easy by altering game and settlement mechanics it ruins the legitimacy of what a player like me wants top accomplish. I am proud of past accomplishments. If and when I decide to play a Banite I don't want it so easy that is cheapens things.

So whatever comes from this thread, just understand some players enjoy playing with high difficulty. Going against stagnation is exactly what we want to do. As well as, that it takes some of the Mover's and Shakers time before we can come up with major plot lines that reach across the server. It does happen though. You almost need a period of not much going on, like a big server-wide deep breath, before the next big 'thing' comes up.

In conclusion, just keep in mind some of us like things the way they are. That is why we play here. Changing things might not be needed when just sitting back and giving it some time will work.

[Flower Power]

I think the more 'social RPer' are essential for making Arelith feel genuinely alive and inhabited, personally. Building a home in this world is core to its appeal for many players, and they should absolutely not be publicly shamed for doing so.

As, at best, a very casual player I am somewhat envious I don't have that option. Some of my most enjoyable moments on Arelith were simply spending time in conversation with other characters. There is a tremendous sense of belonging involved in those communities, which is quite simply magical.

I think it's important to recognize, however, that the vast majority of people don't have an issue with Social RP. It has its place, it makes its contribution, and it doesn't really inherently detract from anyone else's ability to play the game. Usually.

The issue (and genuine problem) that's being discussed is the creation (through both IC and OOC methods) of unassailable and unimpeachable institutions that, by their nature, strive to suppress and obliterate all attempts to generate genuine, nuanced conflict (beyond "I'm a monster/I work with monsters and I want to kill you from my Underdark lair") or even just change in general, for the advancement of Social RP above all other forms of RP.

[Gouge Away]

My takeaway from this thread is that since we're all improvising together without a shared vision we'll always return to certain defaults. If this movie's plot is going to change course it will require the director to step in and force it on us, it's not going to emerge from the community mass-mind.

[-XXX-]

My takeaway from this thread is that since we're all improvising together without a shared vision we'll always return to certain defaults. If this movie's plot is going to change course it will require the director to step in and force it on us, it's not going to emerge from the community mass-mind.

^That is a valid point.
Surface cataclysm when?

[Irongron]

I'm not actually sure threads like this require any mechanical update, the discussion itself is productive.

I do understand the frustration with leaders who actively ignore antagonists. Years ago I played a noteworthy villain and I relentlessly harassed the surface settlements and factions. It was always my intention to end the character as a prisoner, or possibly being executed in Cordor, but nothing I did fostered any reciprocal roleplay, aside from the obligatory PvP. It was almost certainly my error too, as I never indicated I wanted that storyline to develop, ooc. I've never in all my time here particularly bought into that philosophy of collaborative roleplay, especially pre arranged set pieces. In conflict I try to win, but eagerly anticipate bring thwarted.

I think, more broadly, the reluctance to allow threat storylines to develop can sometimes stem from paranoia that someone is TRYING TO TOUCH MY STUFF! , sorry, that ones position and one's faction is being threatened. Especially in the racial settlements I've seen players get almost rabid if they feel anyone wants to usurp their continuous rule, and quickly turn highly toxic, OOC, to anyone seen to be trying it. Back in the day I saw this from Benwick too.

Players are naturally enormously invested in these locations where they've often centred their roleplay for many RL years and can turn neurotic if they feel that is under threat. As a developer I personally feel this is best tackled by much larger (and fewer) settlements, where it simply isn't possible to stake a perpetual claim in this fashion.

[torugor]

Ok there is a lot of discussion on Social RPers.
I want to add here some science to it. Because Social Gamers really exist in a taxonomical way for game developers.
They aims and goals are already defined and pehaps you guys want to know more of it. Because conflict between many different kind of gamers exists.
Here is a video about Bartle's Taxonomy of Players
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow

If you dont want to see this 6 minute video i will summarize.
There are the archievers who want basically to max their xp and collect the most gold
The explorers want to look all that is new in the game. They are looking the map and looking for new places to go.
The socializers want to make the community and meeting each other.
and the killers who are here for the pvp.

The best game will give things for all players. Arelith is great because it gives space for all of this kinds of players. None of the gamers above are wrong.

Hope it helps on the discussions and to make arelith even better.

[Xerah]

I really do think "social RPers" are fundamentally important to a diverse setting and don't want to see that against the rules. I don't think anyone is spurting vitriol (or whatever else is being claimed) in their direction unless they are reading into more than what is said.

The issue (and genuine problem) that's being discussed is the creation (through both IC and OOC methods) of unassailable and unimpeachable institutions that, by their nature, strive to suppress and obliterate all attempts to generate genuine, nuanced conflict (beyond "I'm a monster/I work with monsters and I want to kill you from my Underdark lair") or even just change in general, for the advancement of Social RP above all other forms of RP.

This was certainly an issue I had to deal with recently. To the credit of the faction runner, it wasn't them that shut things down but everyone else involved in that faction on an IC and OOC level.

This has lead to a lot of "Well, I'm going to try this and see what happens" which is usually on the negative side and I end up shelfling or wanding around bored trying to figure out a new plan, which worked really well with Katernin for example. Sometimes you did find a way to weasel into something fun and different, but it does tend to create a lot of lame characters in the process.

[Irongron]

The best game will give things for all players. Arelith is great because it gives space for all of this kinds of players. None of the gamers above are wrong.

I very much agree. I've always tried to cater for many different play styles, and not lose sleep over trying to encourage it to be played a certain way.

[torugor]

Well...if any of you saw the video above...
I suggest this second one also
It explains how to find balance between the 4 kinds of players
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow

Again to summarize.

If the game is giving too much power for the socializer player...best solution to solve it is to give more features for the killer group. Its not me saying it. It is the knowledge obtained from the research.

[Emotionaloverload]

I keep hearing the words "Movers and Shakers" to name those players who run factions or head of settlements.

I like to think I am one of these Movers and Shakers. With that in mind, I don't like hearing about what new "rules" that need to be put into place for things to work better. I think they work just fine. I know playing a Banite is difficult, and I will be killed and banished for showing up in settlements. I want it to be difficult, not easier to play a Banite. Some of us enjoy the higher difficulty of playing certain PC's.

I find enjoyment starting factions seeing them rise and then die. The more difficult the challenge the better, and that takes time. Manipulating server rules to make things more easy would ruin that for me. Granted this is just me, but I like to think some of the others agree.

I guess what I am trying to say is, some of us want things to be hard, really Hard. If I want to play an open infernalist, I expect to be an outcaste and hated. I expect to have my stories attempted to be wiped out, believing I have the ability to overcome that. I like to think what I have come up with will stir the pot and get others involved, while also having my PC hated. Then when things are at a fever pitch! I will kill my PC off and watch everything blow up. That is how I enjoy playing.

In my mind, If you make things too easy by altering game and settlement mechanics it ruins the legitimacy of what a player like me wants top accomplish. I am proud of past accomplishments. If and when I decide to play a Banite I don't want it so easy that is cheapens things.

So whatever comes from this thread, just understand some players enjoy playing with high difficulty. Going against stagnation is exactly what we want to do. As well as, that it takes some of the Mover's and Shakers time before we can come up with major plot lines that reach across the server. It does happen though. You almost need a period of not much going on, like a big server-wide deep breath, before the next big 'thing' comes up.

In conclusion, just keep in mind some of us like things the way they are. That is why we play here. Changing things might not be needed when just sitting back and giving it some time will work.

+1


-S

[Bunnysmack]

One thing I'd like to encourage for surface players reading this thread: Be less focused on victory, and more focused on story. Make RP decisions that are better for the RP health of the community, rather than simply for the wealth or status of one's own faction. In the end, we are all trying to tell a story individually, but also as a collective. Our fellow players should be viewed more like co-stars on a show than as competitors (Competition from the character perspective, however, adds to good story, but I caution bleeding the character's mindset into the gameplay mindset).

As for additional ways to seek conflict RP on the surface, I've recently found that one area that is rather available is to be the goodly PC that tries to reign in the righteous zeal of their peers. Recognizing that a constant mindset of "kill it with fire" leaves a community poisoned with a persistent amount of spite, and trying to instead focus on defense rather than offense in securing the safety of various settlements. The OP discusses how trying to make everyone happy is the norm, but I've actually found that when you try and tell people NOT to raid the underdark, NOT to kill drow on sight, and NOT to convict without evidence: A lot of pushback occurs. It's challenging norms in a different way, and I don't feel like the resulting RP is stagnant at all.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Many, many years back, one of the main reasons I moved as a player from City of Arabel to Arelith was that City of Arabel Dms started 'cracking down' on all social rp.

First I want to say "who were you and why am I just now finding out you were a CoA player?" Chances are we interacted at some point or another, I was a fixture there when this stuff happened.

Second, I want to highlight this bit of history because it was what I was trying to get at on discord last night, but the conversation shifted to how toxic private discords are.

CoA was once great despite its many flaws, similar to how Arelith is now. I've actually said to my friends from CoA when describing why I play Arelith now that "It reminds me of CoA 2005/2006 in a lot of ways." We had a diverse player base ranging from kids trying to learn how to rp to some of the best rpers I have ever seen on NwN, with play styles that ranged from sitting around bsing (social RP) to people always trying to stir the pot. We had dungeon runners that got to the max level (12 soft cap) in a few days, and we had people who wore their slow to level play style as a badge of honor. And there was plenty of tension between all of these groups.

Now before I get into the effect that the push to try and get EVERYONE to be like a certain subset of player had on our server, I do want to point out that that was not the only thing that lead to our decline. The formation of EFU by former CoA players created a rift for a few years between our players thanks to some long forgotten bad blood, and by the time it became a thing that these two servers could actually cooperate the damage was done. There were also a string of poorly executed setting changes to shake things up that while I still think were necessary to try in some way or another to fight stagnation were taken too far and ended up loosing a part of what made coa so popular to begin with. But there was also what grumpy is referring too, which probably was the most damaging to our server because EFU was more appealing already to people who constantly want to shake things up as the more hardcore version of our style of server.

Here's the thing about it though, having talked to the main dm behind pushing for a more "mover and shaker" style playerbase about this years later. He never intended to push the RP focused players out of the server, he just worded what he was trying to say poorly. They were envious about how EFU felt like a living world because of how things on the server adapted to what players were doing, and they wanted to promote that on CoA. But because the wording was chosen poorly, they ended up alienating a large portion of our playerbase in the process, and now instead of 55/55 for most of the day with another 20 players "banging on the wall" to get in we were now maxing at around 40. And those 40 or so people on at any given time were all so busy trying to do something huge to shake things up that no one took notice of what anyone else was doing, because the truth of it is that the rp crowd was great for reacting to what movers and shakers did. Someone above said "I love rp players because they scream the best" and while that's a funny line, its also very true. The two sides of the coin need each other in a sometimes contentious symbiotic relationship for the server to feel real.

And really, that's the lesson in this little trip down memory lane. Different playstyles are going to crash into each other from time to time creating lots of tension, but we all need each other. You may think that new guy who barely rps is not worth your time, but the truth is when your current friends move on with their lives and that new guy is now one of the best rpers on the server you are going to regret treating him like he didn't matter back in the day. You may think that that group of social rpers are slogging up your attempts to shake up the world, but while you may not believe me I can promise you that when that group decides they have had enough of feeling like a second class play style, you will miss them when they are gone. And as a social Rper who just wants to log in and live a simple fantasy life that gets annoyed at the shakers, trust me without them the server will get old and stale real fast.

Also, a bit off topic but I got the sense this ties into some of the frustration going on in this thread from the previously mentioned conversation I had on discord last night. Don't be a ooc dick in private discord chats. If you have an IC issue with a character, treat it as IC and don't carry over your hate for players from character to character. No matter how bad a player may or may not be, the minute you do this to them you completely expunge them of all responsibility in the beef and you instantly become the jerk yourself. The way I've gone about things on Arelith over the past almost 4 years of playing here, constantly changing my name and not making many ooc connections that last beyond a character, I can say I have played with most of you at one point or another with great confidence. And I can tell you that while there have been things along the way that have annoyed me from time to time, I have yet to find a truly awful person and most of you range from reasonable to straight up awesome. That tells me that there is no way in hell that anyone should feel targeted by a player or group of players, and really it needs to stop. But the only way it does is if someone within these circles realizes stuff has gotten out of hand here and helps shut it down, since echo chambers don't change from the outside in. Be that hero!

[-XXX-]

The best game will give things for all players. Arelith is great because it gives space for all of this kinds of players. None of the gamers above are wrong.

I very much agree. I've always tried to cater for many different play styles, and not lose sleep over trying to encourage it to be played a certain way.

Hm, I wonder if this might not actually be the root of the problem.
Since Bartle has been repeatedly brought up, let's try to break Arelith down through the coined terminology. The server offers great toys tailored for every playstyle, but maybe they've become too good:

- Achievers get to sit on millions, live in fancy castles, get to play all the special snowflake 5% award races etc. Accomplished achievers seem to be almost unreachable at their game at this point, and pretty much any IG events can only ever translate into a minor inconvenience for them.

- Killers have their vetted builds with complex and nuanced interplay that can seem so unintuitive and incomprehensible to anyone who isn't into that sort of thing that competing without a real dedication to this aspect of the game can appear almost impossible.

- Socializers have the settlement system that allows them to simply ignore everyone who doesn't conform to their expectations and they can gang upon anyone who'd dare to push the envelope.

- Explorers are probably left a little behind atm. (I know, big city update upcoming, takes a lot of DEV attention - this isn't meant to be any sort of criticism). While the server has much to offer in this regard, most players a) have either explored it all already, b) are Socializers or Killers who are not interested in that sort of thing for the most part, or c) are Achievers who are perfectly content circlegrinding Orclands or the RDI for the 367th time in a row. So explorers are left alone to their soloing adventures most of the time.

Pretty much everyone gets to live in their bubble without the need to ever leave their comfort zone, so it's not just the socializers.
The criticism appears to be more aimed at those who are actively pursuing this.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

The best game will give things for all players. Arelith is great because it gives space for all of this kinds of players. None of the gamers above are wrong.

I very much agree. I've always tried to cater for many different play styles, and not lose sleep over trying to encourage it to be played a certain way.

Hm, I wonder if this might not actually be the root of the problem.
Since Bartle has been repeatedly brought up, let's try to break Arelith down through the coined terminology. The server offers great toys tailored for every playstyle, but maybe they've become too good:

- Achievers get to sit on millions, live in fancy castles, get to play all the special snowflake 5% award races etc. Accomplished achievers seem to be almost unreachable at their game at this point, and pretty much any IG events can only ever translate into a minor inconvenience for them.

- Killers have their vetted builds with complex and nuanced interplay that can seem so unintuitive and incomprehensible to anyone who isn't into that sort of thing that competing without a real dedication to this aspect of the game can appear almost impossible.

- Socializers have the settlement system that allows them to simply ignore everyone who doesn't conform to their expectations and they can gang upon anyone who'd dare to push the envelope.

- Explorers are probably left a little behind atm. (I know, big city update upcoming, takes a lot of DEV attention - this isn't meant to be any sort of criticism). While the server has much to offer in this regard, most players a) have either explored it all already, b) are Socializers or Killers who are not interested in that sort of thing for the most part, or c) are Achievers who are perfectly content circlegrinding Orclands or the RDI for the 367th time in a row. So explorers are left alone to their soloing adventures most of the time.

Pretty much everyone gets to live in their bubble without the need to ever leave their comfort zone, so it's not just the socializers.
The criticism appears to be more aimed at those who are actively pursuing this.

Excellent break down of the playstyles on the server, but I don't think that they all exist together is the root of the problem. A perfect Arelith would have each playstyle rely on the other playstyles to survive. For example, socialites run the settlements, but need the killers to protect it and the achievers to find ways in game to bolster support by achieving things. Killers need the achievers for work in between protecting settlements because of course achievers are targets for villainy or whatever, but the achievers need the socializers to be ok with them so they can enjoy the benefits they get in the previously mentioned socializer controlled settlement. This is where the slightly more dynamic server I have been pushing for a few years now could do wonders, because the level of stability on arelith is what lets people get in the comfort zones you mentioned.

[Kuma]

I really do think "social RPers" are fundamentally important to a diverse setting and don't want to see that against the rules. I don't think anyone is spurting vitriol (or whatever else is being claimed) in their direction unless they are reading into more than what is said.

The issue (and genuine problem) that's being discussed is the creation (through both IC and OOC methods) of unassailable and unimpeachable institutions that, by their nature, strive to suppress and obliterate all attempts to generate genuine, nuanced conflict (beyond "I'm a monster/I work with monsters and I want to kill you from my Underdark lair") or even just change in general, for the advancement of Social RP above all other forms of RP.

This was certainly an issue I had to deal with recently. To the credit of the faction runner, it wasn't them that shut things down but everyone else involved in that faction on an IC and OOC level.

This has lead to a lot of "Well, I'm going to try this and see what happens" which is usually on the negative side and I end up shelfling or wanding around bored trying to figure out a new plan, which worked really well with Katernin for example. Sometimes you did find a way to weasel into something fun and different, but it does tend to create a lot of lame characters in the process.

it's precisely this. "Criticism of social RPers" is a bad shorthand for what is basically just clique-based reactionary OOC bullying by people who get very upset if you decide to set up in their toybox (which is actually everyone's toybox).

[LichBait]

But the discussion in this thread is on conflict-averse characters & factions in positions of power, and the idea of them favouring non-conflict RP to such a degree that they use their vast resources to snuff out conflict before it has a chance to impact the game world (and, usually, them and their allies). And I think the responsibility here really falls on a select few people: settlement leaders, and the leaders of important factions.
This is a sandbox world where lots of people want the opportunity to tell different stories, and I'm firmly of the belief that faction leaders/settlement leaders have a special responsibility to use their resources to facilitate the stories of characters that want to interact with their faction/settlement.

My hot take: If you are a faction/settlement leader who is actively shutting down stories, even ones that would impact your faction/settlement negatively, you shouldn't be a faction/settlement leader. You are in an advantageous position with lots of resources and connections. Those things should not be used to make other players unable to tell stories. You can absolutely oppose the cult edging in on your territory, your clan can totally end up being the one to take down the evil necromancer. But if you don't give the other side something to work with, some kind of chance to RP and be in the spotlight, you are misusing your power.

For settlement leaders specifically: If you don't want to be involved in conflict RP at all, don't lead a settlement. Simple as that. Because conflict RP will be forced upon you; it's the nature of the position. And when it does happen it'll be up to you to decide whether the aggressor gets a chance to have some fun or whether you grind them into paste and exile them.

I can't agree with this enough.

[Gouge Away]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

[Kuma]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

This isn't a bad idea actually.

[Scurvy Cur]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

This isn't a bad idea actually.

While we're at it, reduce the ability of the elected PC officials to mechanically exclude people, by reducing exile to:

1) Can't own property
2) NPC vendors won't sell to you
3) NPC guards sneer at you

I'd hazard a guess that 90+% of issued exiles are cases that really ought to be handled through interactive roleplay/enforced in character, except that you've given one side a big ol "I win" button, and like every human being that has ever had an unassailably strong strategic option with which to club an opponent into submission, they're using it to avoid a conflict in which unpleasant things like loss might happen to them. In these cases, exiles are used to circumvent RP/stifle boat rocking rather than to encourage it.

In the 10% or fewer cases where the exile is legitimately stopping griefing, then the exile mechanic is basically doing work that is properly the purview of the DM team. If you genuinely think someone is so bad and awful that you literally CANNOT roleplay with them, chances are you should talk to the DM team. Either you're right and the person needs to be gone, or you're being too delicate about people doing things you don't like in the communal sandbox and (hopefully) the DM team can explain to you that doing a thing you don't like isn't griefing.

We used to not have exiles, and the server survived.

[torugor]

As i said, played in an ultima online server where this was implemented. Worked like a charm. Because with multiple elections each leader can have different views. It ends up cause more politics and more good role-play.

Would love to see it in this game. I remember i used to be one of the leaders and got killed because by the other 3 leaders after one who was supposedly on my side betrayed me. Politics...
=P

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

[Royal Blood]

As i said, played in an ultima online server where this was implemented. Worked like a charm. Because with multiple elections each leader can have different views. It ends up cause more politics and more good role-play.

Would love to see it in this game. I remember i used to be one of the leaders and got killed because by the other 3 leaders after one who was supposedly on my side betrayed me. Politics...
=P

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

That's how the Devil's Table was and they removed the system. Idk, I am still in favor of a multiple leader settlement. It makes for good fun imo. Ultimately though, itcan still be plagued by the same pitfalls as a single leader settlement. What's more, is having sticks in the mud hold back someone who might have otherwise changed things. (And by change I simply mean progression of story not that it's a change for 'good or 'bad')

[Royal Blood]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

This isn't a bad idea actually.

I tend to like this idea too. The issue is Arelith's player base has a bad habit of cudgeling their DMs to death. It'd take a complete culture change to give DMs that kind of pull IG and I can tell already the accusations of corruptions etc would be endless...

Still, I think this is the -best- way to run things. It allows DMs, who are a third party, to move along a story players may otherwise not move along out of fear or lack of desire to. I really, really think Arelith misses - a lot- by reserving their DMs to primarily paper work and occasional small plots. But, I don't think Arelith would function atm with a more active DM presence IC. The culture just isn't up for it.