AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I'm sure that this has been tossed around before, and I've had many people in the past ask for my opinion. But the other day I was speaking with a fellow player and they brought up a very interesting and valid point. I don't remember what the consensus was on this, since I'm not sure I ever saw it in a specific topic. So please bear with me if this already lying around here somewhere!

So the skinny on it is:

NPC leaders versus PC leaders:
Leaders being defined as those who control larger areas at their own discretion; for example the several ministers of Cordor (Which are PCs), or Lord Wiltun who is self-explanatory (Who is an NPC).

The point our fellow player raised was that many PCs who are left in positions of power often times tend to disappoint with their lack of IG appearance and activity, stagnating the progress for the rest of the area or faction of players that reside in said area. I do believe that in another similar conversation, an opposing point (From one of you lovely DMs I believe, but I can't remember who >.>) was that NPC leaders provide less room to move for the us PCs who want to make substantially large and permanent changes.

I can see the pros and cons of both sides, though I was wondering what the general consensus was. Perhaps raise some awareness to an issue that many of us are thinking about from time to time. Thanks for your time and opinions, guys

Last edited by That Guy on Wed, Apr 29 2015, 14:45 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Removed! Op fixed an error... Nothing to see here.

I'd like to see more NPC leaders in the main hub of Cordor. So far, all I know of are two governors and the Law Knights. I also notice that Cordor is as stagnant right now as a cow poop. I get on and walk around looking for something to do there and nothing's ever going on asside from a few odds and ends. I just feel like it could do with more DM intervention from more of the team than one person.

Wouldn't be the case for a smaller area say Bendir, but with Cordor, having the players do it all just doesn't seem to be working imo.

That Guy wrote:

Lord Wiltun is an NPC. Lord Avadon serves him. Many get that confused.

Ssshhhh. Don't tell them the difference!

On a more serious note, the situation you've brought up can be a difficult one. In my humble opinion, it has to be a combination of the two, and I'll use some general examples from my experience.

PC's cannot rely upon NPC's to lead properly and get things done. - The same disappointment that you described in absent PC leaders may actually double when relative to DM controlled NPC's, especially if that DM is on a leave, or decides he doesn't want to do that are anymore, or has gone completely inactive when they've got pc's chomping at the bit to get things done.

DM's can also not fully rely of PC leaders to drive all things for all factions. - There has to be some give and take and some cooperation between leader PC's and the NPC's that basically serve as the we blankets or the gate keepers to allowing your faction to cause changes to the environment of story.

Neither way is ever going to be in full balance, but the idea is that a faction works more harmoniously when it tries to be.

Also, don't like that your leader, pc or npc, is inactive or absent? Work through the DM team or your factions and overthrow them. Put someone in place that's going to keep your crew wanting to come back to play. - That's how I would handle it.

It's a double edged sword, and with all of those situations, it depends on the people involved. A truly active faction leader, such as Reddok or Avadon can make a faction work. However, if they choose to take weeks or even days off, it can be frustrating for some. As Gorgy said though, if a DM is running things, and they decide to take time away or change their mind it can be just as bad.

What's the solution?

Play. Just play. If your character would look to move up the ladder, have them do it. Maybe then you can be that faction leader that frustrates everyone makes playing this game worthwhile. It's never easy, and the reason finding the right balance of PC and NPC is so hard is that they're all played by the same thing: People. People make and people break this game. It's a social thing. Opinions and tastes change. Someone gets irritated, so others try to appease them, thereby irritating someone else. Wash, rinse, repeat. In general, people want to be happy, and keep others happy, it's just a very difficult thing to do.

I always find it amazing how these persistent worlds mirror real life.

Whether PC or NPC, I think the consensus is that the agency be active.

While it didn't last long, I enjoyed recent RP with Aurilites. Not much happened due to our shameless leader quitting us, AHRIMAN.

It was cool, because as a religious cult esq group, we left the clerical RP and tasks to be set by Ice Diamond in the temple of Auril, who would tell Ahriman what needs done, he'd relay it to us, we'd do it. We had a lot of fun but it was short-lived due to the inspiration dying in some of the group.

Though I enjoyed it a lot and found it to be very quick to get RP moving.

So sure, a mix, but I'm still not feeling PCs in really high up positions such as Speaker and maybe Governors.

Yossarin wrote:

Whether PC or NPC, I think the consensus is that the agency be active.

Yarg.

The problem is when you have both NPCs and PCs absent.

Then usurp their rule and install yourself as master! Muahaha. :twisted:

At the very least, if the issue is that you don't have authority to do things you want to, you can try to get them to sign off on temporary privileges until they come back. Being a faction leader/DM can be very taxing!

Personally, I realize how much of an issue this can be, so if I'm leading and intend on going away, I try to make someone else in charge so the RP doesn't suffer!

That Guy wrote:

Lord Wiltun is an NPC. Lord Avadon serves him. Many get that confused.

Yeah, that was my spelling mistake. I meant to have an example for both PC and NPC leaders

Sorry Gorgy, I know who really runs the game <3

But either way I do agree with a lot of you that there should a fine balance between NPC and PC intervention. The same example with Wiltun applies. I've seen both Lord Wiltun possessed by BOB and Gorgo on Lord Avadon working in tandem, and sometimes even together IG for bigger events. That kind of syncronization is really nice and DMs usually like to reward hard work and creativity playerside through their NPCs.

The biggest issue is indeed inactivity, and ThatGuy is right. We're all people behind the chacaters and we all have our periods of inactivity. Though I think that with a duo team, the inactivity of either NPC or PC can be remedied by the other picking up the slack. It's a good way to achieve equilibrium.

There are just a lot of the players in the community I heard voice concern over the inefficiency of PC leaders in their opinion, so thank you all for providing a different side to the solution.

Being patient with each other is just as important. RL can be sudden and unpredictable. So we need to allow for that, and be willing to give the benefit of the doubt before deciding to push a faction forward that seems to not have an active leader.

This is why you install a chain of command. Every faction I've ever run, that's basically the first thing I did. I'm one of those PC's that life tends to grab by the cahones and drag kicking and screaming out of Amia, often for long periods of time. I knew that going in, so when I took a position of authority, I really tried to train up the members and ensure a chain of command in the event of my absence.

Really though, making change across the server is about tenacity. If you want something bad enough, some area change or rising faction, you just have to go make it happen. Whether or not you have DM oversight all the time, or an active playerbase.

My biggest problem in leading factions was a lack of foresight. I tended to focus so much on getting to that leadership position, that I had very little idea what to do once I got there. I made things up on the fly, generally. Sometimes, that worked splendidly. Sometimes, I fell flat on my face, and was responsible for stagnation in the faction.

Make a plan, some long term goal, and just go out and get it. That's my advice. If you're willing to do that, every single DM will be willing to help you, provided they have the time.

Just taking control of a leadership position would work - if it would work. It doesn't seem 'possible' in a lot of positions that exist currently.

Chain of command is a good idea except when you go to the people under the leaders and try to get things done they say ask the leaders and your right back to square one.

Another problem is lack of communication.

If I try to set some thing up and make it public for months no one talks about it or ignores it and then I move ig to start making things happen I get told some one else has plans for something even though I specifically informed their player about my plans months ago and got no response. and what are their plans? No one else knows.

Participation and communication are two big parts in this. We also need positions that allow more openly for other character to take the lead.

Currently as a faction leader It's pretty tough to get things going as I play a leader of a new / small faction and a lot of others look to me to essentially help direct drive or spark it in some way- the problems I fall in to is when we try to research something and get told there is no lore for it when it's already been made an integral plot device to our pcs' stories.

The other bit is when players delegate to the point of causing some one to go in a big circle and end up where they started with no progress from the efforts.

Using Wiltun as an example, since I've established myself to run the NPC authoritah there, I mostly let the PCs continue to run the show and use the NPCs when it comes to keeping the setting square and keeping PCs in line with expectations for the Ruathym setting, so it actually seems foreign.

I do have a few back up plans to switch it back to active NPC leadership, rather than PCs serving Lord Wiltun and his law if it ever came to it, but some of them are just tasty GoT type power struggles. I like using the NPCs to keep things interesting, and make power in the region an expensive commodity bought with blood and sacrifice.

Edit: I tend to like to have a few dark horses running in the background just in case.

I will write my dissertation on this when I have a full keyboard, but as food for thought and a condensed version of my thoughts is this: The positions at the top are oft embroiled in mandatory roleplay to maintain function and progress, this detracts from time spent playing individuals own aspirations and joys as they are constantly catering to the mandatory onslaught of people's meeting. This I believe contributes to the high level of burnout in these pc players. Additionally I believe there is plenty of manipulatable power in positions beneath the top, which also afford us the luxury of shoving the real banal task of chore roleplay to mcguffins, however well dressed they may be.

These chore centric characters can be run by multiple dms to ensure fluidity and limit exposure to these ill aspects. As gor activity strained by the girth of the server and dm required activity, I believe this is a seperate issue which is answered by consolidating, especially in lieu of conversations about concentration and activity. The smaller the world the more violent and fast paced it becomes as pieces would vie for even more scarce resources.

Burningoutbright wrote:

Using Wiltun as an example, since I've established myself to run the NPC authoritah there, I mostly let the PCs continue to run the show and use the NPCs when it comes to keeping the setting square and keeping PCs in line with expectations for the Ruathym setting, so it actually seems foreign.

I do have a few back up plans to switch it back to active NPC leadership, rather than PCs serving Lord Wiltun and his law if it ever came to it, but some of them are just tasty GoT type power struggles. I like using the NPCs to keep things interesting, and make power in the region an expensive commodity bought with blood and sacrifice.

Edit: I tend to like to have a few dark horses running in the background just in case.

I really like your set up btw ~ It's a lovely compromise and with dm's every so often you guys share npc's.

After years, I would say that city leaderships and every municipal leadership should remain in the hands of the NPCs and the DMs. Most players who are involved in that rp, often burn out and turn away from their character. There are a few who actually like that role...but I can count them on one hand.

What I see in most cases that this municipal leadership rp is killing the essence of the game.
Your character is out there to seek fame, fortune and glory, like in a standard PnP campaign. However, as Shaw says very wisely when he is very well quoted in Kissinger's Diplomacy:

Quote:

"There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it"

This one line of wisdom influences the PC and the player at the same time.

For most people, once their character earn that fame and fortune, the game kinda loses its purpose and it stops being a game as most of their rp will be based on scheduled meetings or conflict management. AKA, the game will become a job or a second job in their life. Only few people wants that or find that entertaining as most people come here to get away from their job and have fun. Even if your character wants to be a king, it is probably not for him, nor it is for you as a player if you can't handle it.

They will start running around with alts and eventually that attitude will discourage everyone else to do the same. I can count the number of leader PCs on one hand who lasted more than a year or even 6 months, in a leadership position that actually demanded IG presence and responsibility.

I don't say that the DMs should take measures against PC leaders in the city. However, they should advise them about the consequences and give them a general outline what is expected from a PC who is taking a leading role in a city.

Lutra wrote:

After years, I would say that city leaderships and every municipal leadership should remain in the hands of the NPCs and the DMs. Most players who are involved in that rp, often burn out and turn away from their character. There are a few who actually like that role...but I can count them on one hand.

What I see in most cases that this municipal leadership rp is killing the essence of the game.
Your character is out there to seek fame, fortune and glory, like in a standard PnP campaign. However, as Shaw says very wisely when he is very well quoted in Kissinger's Diplomacy:

Quote:

"There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it"

This one line of wisdom influences the PC and the player at the same time.

For most people, once their character earn that fame and fortune, the game kinda loses its purpose and it stops being a game as most of their rp will be based on scheduled meetings or conflict management. AKA, the game will become a job or a second job in their life. Only few people wants that or find that entertaining as most people come here to get away from their job and have fun. Even if your character wants to be a king, it is probably not for him, nor it is for you as a player if you can't handle it.

They will start running around with alts and eventually that attitude will discourage everyone else to do the same. I can count the number of leader PCs on one hand who lasted more than a year or even 6 months, in a leadership position that actually demanded IG presence and responsibility.

I don't say that the DMs should take measures against PC leaders in the city. However, they should advise them about the consequences and give them a general outline what is expected from a PC who is taking a leading role in a city.

Q F T!

Yossarin wrote:

Whether PC or NPC, I think the consensus is that the agency be active.

That, and accessible.

Gorgometh wrote:

Also, don't like that your leader, pc or npc, is inactive or absent? Work through the DM team or your factions and overthrow them. Put someone in place that's going to keep your crew wanting to come back to play. - That's how I would handle it.

At times there is a problem of not having active DM either and back then one reply was from a DM "Deal with these issues IC:ly". While, yes, we can deal with everything IC, sometimes some OOC help would be very beneficial. I can say having done my fair share of trying to strike down inactive leaders in Winya Ravana, and whether players believe it or not, it was always based on IC activity. Not me trying to pursue certain players. Having taken IC actions to call out inactive characters resulted in seeing them post replies but no IG presence, granted, I might have been on wrong times. But when PC or NPC leader fails to show up in important events, it says enough for my PC.

OOC:ly. It was very tiring at times and through the actions taken IC:ly, I felt so alone. Most characters did not want to approach my char for IC reasons, which I understand entirely! However, ignoring RP is quite hard to deal with, your left there alone with almost no one wanting to interact with your character. At times, I received tells about my character and not with positive tone. While, they were OOC tells, it did not make the playing easier or me wanting to log in. My point is: The players should try to be considerate towards others, even when they are IC actions, you can demonstrate consideration through OOC tell or a PM in the forums if you feel tell breaks immersion.

Edit: In my opinion, it would be beneficial for a DM to make that call to have new elections or leaders. At least in certain times, instead of leaving it being handled IC. Inactivity does not generate RP, activity does. If a city has grown inactive, maybe it really needs a DM push to get started again.

Magiros wrote:

Gorgometh wrote:

Also, don't like that your leader, pc or npc, is inactive or absent? Work through the DM team or your factions and overthrow them. Put someone in place that's going to keep your crew wanting to come back to play. - That's how I would handle it.

At times there is a problem of not having active DM either and back then one reply was from a DM "Deal with these issues IC:ly". While, yes, we can deal with everything IC, sometimes some OOC help would be very beneficial.

What Magiros says was used be a very common kneejerk answer from the DM team.....in the past.

I would go forward in this. The PW is running on an OOC server, the devs are building things in the toolset with OOC with guidelines, we are playing by the rules that were also set OOCly. The same way the DMs OOCly are responsible for the continuity of the PW storyline, and the towns and cities are the quintessential pillars of the PW storyline.

Yes, it was in the past. So readers, note that it is not how I feel of the current situation with our DM's. It was just to demonstrate a point which was in the past and that OOC help is sometimes warranted.

Quote:

Most players who are involved in that rp, often burn out and turn away from their character. There are a few who actually like that role...but I can count them on one hand.

What Lutra said ^. Bendir has had a struggle with PC mayors over the past few years. I've been told IC that the role is 'social suicide' plenty of times and OOC the pessimistic sort along the lines of "You're going to burn out and leave". I can understand what they're saying having been there closely with the past four previous mayors. It took a lot careful thinking and I ended up spliting my reasons for Rosary becoming mayor on an IC and OOC level.

Quote:

In my opinion, it would be beneficial for a DM to make that call to have new elections or leaders. At least in certain times, instead of leaving it being handled IC. Inactivity does not generate RP, activity does. If a city has grown inactive, maybe it really needs a DM push to get started again.

Agreed to Magiros' opinion. The Dale elections took more than four months and I remember poking Hudson to get it moving whilst he was the Dale's DM. I was trying to do my part but there wasn't much of a response from the otherside, which was very reasonable since real life calls! In the end we did make a dramatic IC move although DM intervention could have sped up the process.

Also! The council of Elders for Bendir is there for a reason, DM advice about the consequences to make sure things don't happen badly... periods of rapid change by only PC efforts doesn't bode well. It's not something Bendir depends on too much, but if any DM would like to step on it. It looks like a light job. (I think!)

And to OP's question. A mix of PC and NPC leaders with a certain degree of influence.- Where both are fairly active.

Well, now you know why I never officially became a faction leader of anything and happily vacated any positions of authority I had been in.

You were a DM!

Lutra wrote:

You were a DM!

Speaking of leadership- I need to see you~

DMs could still be faction leaders. I just knew it was foolish!

I learned the same lesson, Yoss... And so I try to play a balance of being around enough, but not trying to carry a whole faction on my back and being clear about that I can't do it even if asked. Still, I think it is important to note that without any DM interaction it is difficult to keep a faction relevant to the setting. That's what I currently struggle with, as gorgometh pointed out. A balance is critical and DMs ultimately control an influence in a permanent way. Off what you said, gorgz, players can harass The Team all they want, but most of us don't enjoy harassment. So I've gradually stopped because I also hate harassing people as much as they hate getting harassed.

Estara wrote:

..players can harass The Team all they want, but most of us don't enjoy harassment. So I've gradually stopped because I also hate harassing people as much as they hate getting harassed.

This is a very relevant issue, in my opinion.

The question of leadership is really a dependent on the area. Tarkuul or West Cordor are sort of meant to be player controlled while the rest of Cordor could probably do well with less autonomy. It would make the rest of Cordor more inclined to gang up on us and create drama.

I like drama, I'm a thirteen year old girl trapped in a grown man's body. And Gerald gets along to well with the current government. It all really depends on the area you're playing in. And Cordor has been great about letting players have a ton of initiative.

No matter how much control you exert in an area as a PC you still need dms to oversee, cut out the middle man to expedite the process.

Not quite, then you just get the problem where the team takes the role if baby sitter, and every one resents each other for that

nothing gets into or out of the module without dm oversight, but i don't disagree with you in the sense that babysitting isn't good for anyone

I've been all over the place with this over the years, but I think my opinion these days falls closest in line with Lutra's.

I think the major cities(Cordor, Wiltun, Winya, Kohlingen, etc.) should be managed and led by DM NPCs. These cities tend to play central roles in all the major server plots, so I think the team should have a lot of say in how they react to keep the story moving forward.

Smaller towns like Bendir, Wharftown, Tarkuul, etc. don't have as much of an effect on the server and tend to be much better at reacting to things when they're given the ability to do so because they're not 'default' starting cities. The characters that linger around these places are generally more involved in the day-to-day lives and stories there, so I think PCs should be allowed to run these.

Tarkuul is a major city now I believe....I know it wasn't, but things have changed since 2008.

Lutra wrote:

Tarkuul is a major city now I believe....I know it wasn't, but things have changed since 2008.

True, but Tarkuul isn't just a normal default city. It's a starting base for generally evil PCs to pop out of and do their dirty deeds. My perception of Tarkuul lately has been that the city has a very dedicated core group that promote RP in the city, which is great, but I don't think the city is on the same level as Cordor with regards to how the city is used by PCs in game.

So..to summarize that rambling...

IC, Tarkuul is a major city.

OOC, Tarkuul has more in common with Wharftown or Bendir than it does with Cordor.

Honestly a lot of these are sound points. You all bring up good strong opinions and points on NPC leadership as well as PC leadership. I personally think it is about organization in the end game really. Were all out here to play the game for what it is. A game and to have fun with it. There is a lot of effort that goes into each persons character and there is an equal amount of effort that goes in DM side to keep everyone happy and things balanced.

But I also have to admit that leadership roles often takes much out of a person. Given this is a game patience is a necessity in such roles. Real life does effect people and some things you just cannot control. Like deaths in a family. Or even births which cut down time of playing. These are all things to consider which is why the one saying I have always liked is simple.

"Pass the buck."

If you are in a role as a leader and know you cannot be present and are unsure what to do. Then pass the position to another. There is absolutely no point in holding a role as a leader if you cannot be present. When there are so many players around that could climb to the occasion and challenge to take the role itself. Also share the responsibility evenly. We are people after all and having more to do as a team makes things progress and the game remain fun.

Now I know some would argue this but it is simple really. This is not saying you cannot come back and try to regain your former role. But do it in character and let it build up role play. This helps with boredom and gives you a challenge and goal to work toward. Anyways that is my opinion on leadership. Anyone can be a leader if they put time, effort and patience into it. After all we are all humans and it is in us to do so. ^.^

Quote:

"Pass the buck."

I'd like to echo this. Whether it's NPCs or PCs, there's always the option of delegation. With some vice- and co-leaders, the problem of one player being absent is smoothed out. When the Captain ain't on the bridge, the First Mate's word goes, and so on. If the First Mate does something the Captain himself doesn't agree on, then that can be handled afterwards. Part of the job of appointing your cohorts is being able to trust them to make decisions in your stead.

So if a DM/NPC can't be reached, there could be a PC or group of PCs who have leave to act if not given response in a certain time. They are still held accountable whenever the head honcho returns, but at least things aren't stagnated. The same can and is often done with PC run factions that I've seen. Hell, I've seen mutinies happen in PC factions along the same lines of the second-in-command doing more work than the leader, and thus a new one is appointed by vote of majority.

In my experience, it is more often that an NPC-lead settlement gets stagnated over a PC-lead one. And that's not to say there's no place for them; many good reasons for having them have been made in this thread. The only issue is when the DM vacates or goes on break and the settlement just shuts down. That's why I'm glad to see DM's branching out and handling plots in areas not particularly under their umbrella. While it's great to have one DM that knows every detail about a settlement, it become problematic when they are the only ones that know about it, or are willing to touch it.

Delegating responsibilities is something I'm learning that I have to do as the Wiltun faction continues to flourish with new interest and PC's.

In our setting, it's tough. We're a feudal jarldom and being a Lord in that Jarldom means the buck has to stop with you, whether you want to pass it or not. But, I'm learning, painfully so because I'm a control-freak, that passing it off is not only beneficial to your personal sanity, but it helps engage the members of the faction! That's the most important part because you give people a reason to want succeed and keep playing on your team.

Ambassadors to different settlements, master of specific avenues of trade resources, physicians, scouts, spies. Those are examples of roles that can be not only filled, but rewarded when progress and results are achieved. - That Guy sent me a pm one day as his pc Chance, and basically laid out what Avadon had really known all along, that he can't be everywhere or do everything by himself and that it was high time to pull trusted members in to take on some of the roles that he tries to do alone. It's brand new for us, but it's off to a great start!

I say all that to really just encourage other factions of the same. I bet the dwarves and fairdaddy would say the same thing. Splitting up responsibilities, leaving one leader to ultimately hold everyone accountable for what they are doing is the way to go for a sustainable model. - The hierarchy structure is something I'm still working on but we're getting there.

All of that. Besides, delegating responsibilities is a great way to ensure you don't burn out on your leadership role. It leaves you open to continuing your own PC's goals, be it with the faction or outside of it. It also allows a myriad of other PC's to step up and have their time in the spotlight, which improves playing time and player morale.

All said, unless the position -specifically- calls for it, delegating responsibilities to other PC's is just absolutely the way to go.

I full heartedly agree. I remember learning the hard way in the past some of these lessons and I can tell you it is a lot of work one way or the other. But having people you can count on and trust goes a huge way. In character as well as out. Sadly it can't all be done in character because we are not active 24 hours of every single day. But correspondence between those people with such roles is key and in truth quite fun to work with if you do it right.

Delegating responsibilities is most certainly one of the best ways to go. That and when push comes to shove there are a lot of people out there playing. So options are always open. All depends on which way you wish to go with your characters and how you go about achieving those goals. This also is a great way to draw more people in as players and DM's who are playing npcs. Keeps people up on their feet and working towards something which is important.

So I do like the way this talk is going and the suggestions given. Good job everyone!

Accessibility and delegation of the leaders is something I'm enjoying a lot more as a DM than I ever did as Cordor Guard Captain for some three years or so. It's why the Wiltun and Caraigh crews see my NPCs around to give orders or comment more often, such as Roland, Xavier, Arsant, and Oilanna, because of the setting--Gorgometh is correct, the buck stops with the order giver, because leadership is highly valued (almost as much as having a penis is) in that setting/society. The more accessible and varied leader roles there are that are active, the more inclusive we can afford to be--not everyone wants to talk to Arsant or Xavier, but they sure can talk to silly Roland or sweet Oilanna in lieu of PCs.

The actual leading part of leadership is kind of a hard thing to learn. Gerald was just going to be the guy who does stuff origionally and then I got put in charge. Even in the Living Guard I was awful about delegation, but I'm learning a bit now that I'm in Cordor. And doing it all by yourself seriously gets tiresome. Anyone in a position of authority in game should really learn to give orders, it gives other people RP as well.

When I play Tempo I actually play them more so as an organizer-- I ask certain members that I know are skilled in X area to complete and carry out certain tasks. This works actually really great!

As for-delegation no one is really over any one else in my faction aside from formalities. Sure Tempo seems to be designated the 'Leader' but they tends to act as the mouth piece and talk with other faction or city leaders and go out to get certain things moving. However it's been established that if Tempo isn't about to be the mouth piece, responsibility delegates to the officers. And as for certain projects each officer has a 'department' of specialty which helps spread tasks and activities more suited towards what a character is good at so we all work together like a team.

There's a reason why Tempo isn't the captain of the ship and they assigned thier naval officer as captain ! ;D

I very greatly believe in giving and making chances for other characters to get the spot light to shine and the ability to take charge.

Sorry about Cordor being boring right now. I've been understandably busy. It'll pick up once all my stuff is shipped off.

Eurgiga wrote:

Sorry about Cordor being boring right now. I've been understandably busy. It'll pick up once all my stuff is shipped off.

For shame! Don't use your absolutely gorgeous work as an excuse!

I love all the Wiltun examples, but gorgometh and Burning- you two are quite active on that stuff.

And gorgz, I hate to say it so bluntly, but every DM in Wiltun has allowed you a grandiose amount of say and sway and political capital that is not necessarily afforded to others or other places.

In fact, Cordor is most definitely not that way- and I don't hate that about it! It's just that.. well.. you have the ability to delegate real tasks in different ways, because you have the backing of who is in charge. Other DMs/The Team has not worked so closely with other people/factions.

We in Kohlingen had plenty sway and say in the city and how it shaped and developed, and in it's diplomatic ties. The treaty cities, allegiance with Waterdeep and development of the Mage Guard and integration of the Mystrans stand as a few examples.

Leaders and the Future of Amia

Who is online