[DGD] Feudalism

Sat Nov 19 09:33:07 CET 2016

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Schmidt, Stephen <schmidsj at union.edu>
wrote:

> I too think that having a player have a single consistent character is
> better, and it's better to have different characters rotating through the
> feudal positions. The important things are:
>

> 1) make sure the feudal position is automated enough (NPCs with AI) that
> someone can log on once a day and instruct the NPCs, and the game can
> carry on;
>

This is roughly related to the concept of having administrative buttons in
OOC land.

> 2) make sure it's fairly easy to replace a player who abandons a feudal
> position, so that they don't stay abandoned long;
>

> 3) make sure a player who goes on vacation can arrange a replacement, and
> maybe reclaim his position on his return;
>

> 4) don't have more feudal positions than your player base can keep filled.
> This may mean starting with a small land, adding more land as the player
> base builds, and closing sections of the world if the player base declines
> (perish the thought!)
>

If the NPC force pool is kept at a decent size, then I'm quite sure that if
the player base declines and the military thins out a bit, then invading
rivals may well handle this through IC means as their territory gets
forcibly shrunk because they can't field a large enough army to defend the
realm.

>
> Steve
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
> 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
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>