[DGD] Feudalism

[Schmidt, Stephen]

I'm thinking at three levels - players, characters, and feudal positions.

The feudal positions are fixed. "Duke of Bananaland" is a feudal position,
and it always exists; feudal positions are not created or destroyed.
Below this there are two options.

Option A:
The characters are also fixed, and each is in one feudal position. Thus,
"Sir Carmen Miranda Chiquita" is a character who (always) fills the
position of Duke of Bananaland.
The players can change characters. At any moment in time, one player has
the character "Sir Carmen Miranda Chiquita" and as such fills the position
of Duke of Bananaland. But if that player doesn't log in for a while, or
gives up the character, or has it taken away in some way, then another
player can become "Sir Carmen Miranda Chiquita" and as such, also becomes
the Duke of Bananaland.

Option B:
The characters are not fixed. Each player is connected to a particular
character; that is, Steve Schmidt would be "Sir Carmen Miranda Chiquita".
Different characters (players) could occupy different feudal positions over
time. But Steve Schmidt would always be "Sir Carmen Miranda Chiquita"
unless he deleted his character and created a new one.

Under option A, Sir Carmen is always Duke of Bananaland, but different
players play Sir Carmen over time.
Under option B, Sir Carmen is always Steve Schmidt, but might occupy
different feudal positions over time.

My thoughts were running towards option B, but option A is also viable
(probably) and seems closer to what Raymond has in mind.

Steve



On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So basically, rotating puppeteers (players) controlling the same puppet
> (character)?
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Schmidt, Stephen <schmidsj at union.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I wasn't thinking so much about canon characters - the level of control
> > that requires admins to have over players worries me.
> >
> > Rotating pack of players occupying a number of pre-defined roles is more
> > what I have in mind.
> >
> > I was thinking more in terms of there being a set number of positions,
> > which players fill in rotation. If you manage to become the Duke of
> > Bananaland, then you gain control over some NPCs (automated) which do
> your
> > will when you're not around. If you don't log into the game for a week,
> > though, the position becomes vacant and a new player (who may need
> suitable
> > qualifictions such as some kind of player level, or experience in lower
> > level positions) can take over the dukedom. There would be some default
> > settings for the NPCs to use during times of no duke.
> >
> > One could also make the Duke of Bananaland a fixed character - Sir Carmen
> > Miranda Chiquita, Duke of Bananaland - and allow different players to
> play
> > that character. But that's more structure than I had in mind. I was
> > thinking that there's a position, different characters can occupy the
> > position, each player runs one character. I think that'd work too, but my
> > thoughts had been running the other way.
> >
> > I was really thinking there'd be a fixed number of castles, and "duke"
> > means you control one of the castles. If you don't log in you lose
> control
> > of your castle, someone else takes it over, and becomes the new duke.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Schmidt, Stephen <schmidsj at union.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > been toying with a version of this for many years myself... but got
> > > > sidetracked into wargames  :)
> > > >
> > > > The problem I ran across was that players are not active 24x7. If
> > players
> > > > are lord-vassal relations to one another, then what happens when your
> > > lord
> > > > is logged out? Or if there's a high position - duke, or something
> like
> > > that
> > > > - is it empty most of the time, when the duke is not logged on?
> > >
> > >
> > > My assumption was that the role was mostly bluebooked with some
> > > administrative buttons in OOC land.
> > >
> > > Interestingly enough though ICO just posted a public message on their
> > forum
> > > about having a problem with patrons going poof for extended periods of
> > > time, but still having the characters mop up favor points even without
> > > being logged in.
> > >
> > > Their solution was having patronage relations between characters
> dropped
> > if
> > > one of them went offline for more than a month or so...maybe something
> > > similir would apply here.
> > >
> > > Basically, make the relation between lord and vassal a real one, but
> keep
> > > it mostly bluebooked unless RPed, give both sides some relevant buttons
> > to
> > > push, and have an arrangement to have the relationship broken if one
> side
> > > goes awol for too long...or maybe have the vacant role "eschated"
> > (snicker)
> > > to game staff?
> > >
> > > you do make a point about maybe having noble roles be interchangeable
> > masks
> > > that different players could occupy.
> > >
> > > Some RPs have this sort of thing with the concept of a "canon"
> > character, a
> > > position that can be occupied by any trustworthy player, with
> guidelines
> > > and supervision.  I think this sort of thing also came up once before
> on
> > > this very list.
> > >
> > > Is that what you were suggesting?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Or can any
> > > > player who happens to be logged on take the job of the duke, if he's
> > the
> > > > highest-ranking player currently logged in?
> > > >
> > > > A feudal system requires long-term relationships between players.
> That
> > > may
> > > > be hard to model in a traditional MUD environment where new players
> are
> > > > created frequently, old ones disappear without warning.
> > > >
> > > > I came to the conclusion that it would have to be the other way
> around
> > -
> > > a
> > > > player could take any role in the feudal hierarchy that happened to
> be
> > > > vacant at a given time. So someone would always be Duke of
> Bananaland,
> > > one
> > > > player replacing another in the role as people logged in and out of
> the
> > > > game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Would this be an NPC puppetmastered by a rotating player base, or a
> > > rotating pack of characters occupying a single role?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > That raises some continuity problems of its own, though - the person
> > > > to whom a vassal owes loyalty may change frequently.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't get very far through that thought process before I gave up
> and
> > > did
> > > > wargames instead.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Raymond Jennings <
> shentino at gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey, would it be feasible to use a feudalism hierarchy to organize
> > > > > characters?
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe a vassalage system, where each noble PC can have an optional
> > lord
> > > > and
> > > > > zero or more vassals, and then they can be given buttons to push
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > land they have.
> > > > >
> > > > > There could well be PCs or NPCs as serfs at the bottom.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been bouncing this idea around in my head for awhile, why not
> > ask
> > > > the
> > > > > dgd list about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm thinking of a game world geographically as large as England,
> > > possibly
> > > > > with some constraints to discourage the "players go spread out as
> > much
> > > > > wilderness as they can, but then spread too thinly to socialize"
> > > problem
> > > > > cited in one of shannon's skotos articles.
> > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > > ____________________________________________
> > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> >
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd