[DGD] Feudalism

Tue Nov 29 23:41:23 CET 2016

So I'm still a bit curious here.

How much detail should be here?

I know that knights with serfs under them swear fealty to barons who in
turn supply them as soldiers for the king...at least according to the
multiple sources I've researched.

Stephen...is that pretty much accurate?

And on the side, what's a good level of detail to present?

And relatedly, how much of those lower roles should be NPCed or PCed?
Maybe it would be a good idea to allow players to act as the serfs, and
maybe not.

How much detail should go into a lord's management of his lackeys?  should
the knights be NPCs?  Should the serfs be NPCs?

At least on ICO, PCs act as "representatives", and the jobs people work for
their guilds generate tokens that represent resources and influence with
NPCs in the same trade as the PC.

Do you think it would be a good idea for PCs to act as "delegates" of a
sort for the various pools of NPCs that surely exist in the world along
side the characters?

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>