[DGD] Feudalism

Thu Nov 17 17:23:17 CET 2016

This depends on if the character is tied to a role or to a person.

When looking at a character which forfills a certain role, it seems quite
reasonable to have multiple people take turns playing the character.

Bart.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:09:54 -0800, Raymond Jennings wrote
> the thing about having transferable characters is making sure that IC
> knowledge is properly passed with it.
> 
> SkotOS does this pretty well by having commands that can be used to manage
> a character's memory.  But there's also plenty of social background stuff
> that does NOT carry quite so easily.
> 
> This is the main reason I prefer a strong bond between a character 
> and his player.  IMHO, positions important enough that a vacancy 
> would break the game are often best as staff run NPCs anyway.
> 
> What do you think steve?
> 
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Schmidt, Stephen 
> <schmidsj at union.edu> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> >
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
http://www.om-d.org/