We reached the solution to your perceived problem within the first few posts, Phearnun, and it is clear that isn't going to happen. If I cannot get the playerbase to agree on something as simple as "to what extent do you want to be responsible for your own faction", then there is no way in hell you can get players to agree to work together and avoid unnecessary fracturing unless there is some existing convention (put in place by DMs) to encourage you to stick together through thick and through thin.
Which you've already stated you don't want.
Current discussion points out the futility of reaching a solution to your problem by pointing out what you are up against - the impossibility of getting people to focus on the collective rather than the individual.
No, we are now talking about how about implementing dm control in factions and the suggestions of frequent leadership changes, which I doubt have any bearing on the problem that I wished to bring up, meaning that due to the extreme spread out nature of factions in the geographical sense and the small bickerings which bring them apart bring forth lack of really active places.
The dm control didnt work very well with the Defenders. The dm control isnt working very well in Ultrinnan. The dm control didnt work well with the Eternal Order, so we just voted ic to put another in charge instead of the dm controlled temple father as it became inactive. Forced leadership changes are silly as well. If there is need for a leadership change, then the faction leader should step back on his own initiative or be voted out, not forced out by ooc rules.
One issue is that pvp is not fully encouraged as a way to further control of an area or true might. Factions are merely a banding of adventurers rather than a true political power. Somehow. It used to be different, but the times, they are a' change'n. What a faction can do, one person can do, it seems.
I tried suggesting something like this to the Mage's guild, about forming different political parties that get votes in the Mage council related to the number of members, up to a certain cap. This would get mages to try and persuade others to register under thier camp, influence Mage Guild Policy, and overall, build up the people within the mage guild, along with good conflicting rp.
Sadly it didn't take since many didn't want politics in the guild anymore.
_________________ "Freedom is the Right of all sentient beings."
-Optimus Prime.
Problem is the leader has to precieve the need for a leadership change. This can be done by letting them know the problems in a civil manner, and address how the problems formed as a result of perhaps some of thier actions. Or this can be done with blaming, flaming, and finger pointing.
_________________ "Freedom is the Right of all sentient beings."
-Optimus Prime.
No, we are now talking about how about implementing dm control in factions and the suggestions of frequent leadership changes, which I doubt have any bearing on the problem that I wished to bring up, meaning that due to the extreme spread out nature of factions in the geographical sense and the small bickerings which bring them apart bring forth lack of really active places.
And that is how they like it, else they wouldn't be doing it. Yes, it leads to their stagnation and death. But you will fail in getting them to change their behavior because you're missing at least one key element: motivation. That's my primary point with factional reform - to present a clear and present motivation (more in terms of reaching for positive goals than escaping negative consequences) for factions to do the things you say they ought to do: come closer together in a geographical sense and set aside the small bickerings.
Because they will not do it merely because you say so.
Quote:
The dm control didnt work very well with the Defenders. The dm control isnt working very well in Ultrinnan. The dm control didnt work well with the Eternal Order, so we just voted ic to put another in charge instead of the dm controlled temple father as it became inactive. Forced leadership changes are silly as well. If there is need for a leadership change, then the faction leader should step back on his own initiative or be voted out, not forced out by ooc rules.
DM control is no good. Term limits are dumb, too. Those have no bearing on my notion of genuine factional reform. As it stands, factions have the ability to do exactly what you say - vote out their unpopular, unsuccessful, or inactive leaders - and this works. Mostly. The only reason it doesn't work is when factions don't work out a seamless IC method by which their factional leader can be IC'ly replaced. From majority democratic vote to put the bastard's head on a pike.
Your task in reaching the solution, Phearnun, now lies with your ability to do more than tell people what they ought to do, and instead to give them a genuine reason why they ought to do so. And to pitch it, and make it stick.
No, no, Halen is right, they didn't want politics. I did, but I was getting out of the faction since I wasn't interested in it anymore and my PC had "served his term".
I kind of want to point at the faction and say, well, look at where not adopting a unique and potentially fun system of inner politics got them, but it would be my opinion, and probably an unfair one, at that.
If there is need for a leadership change, then the faction leader should step back on his own initiative
That has pretty much never happened, from what I know.
Phearnun wrote:
or be voted out, not forced out by ooc rules.
What you are suggesting means a time limit. That just makes no sense.
A set time limit isn't good.
But perhaps it would be good to allow a faction poll in order to determine if there's still support for the current faction leader after a certain amount of time.
Faction leader changes make sense when the faction is set up to be ~able~ to replace it's leader in a way that makes sense, and it follows it.
For instance, a faction formed by one person stepping up and saying "Follow me" is always going to be lead by that person who started it unless every decides to follow a different person. That's how things are.
The mage guild started this way, when Halen said "Let thier be Guild." and got the support of a crazy amount of mages.
A guild that votes in it's leader has a fully built in method of removing said leader by way of vote. This is very similiar to the first method, except that it doesn't involve dissolving the faction and it's assets to form a new one. Typically there is some way to call up a vote. Halen, in his infinite wisdom put in a process by which any leader of the tower could be removed from power, including himself. Bad feelings arose when the process was entirely ignored for ooc ranting, flaming, and blaming me for the friends I kept, but it was there to be used. It failed ICly, but eventually I found an IC reason for Halen to step down.
_________________ "Freedom is the Right of all sentient beings."
-Optimus Prime.
If there is need for a leadership change, then the faction leader should step back on his own initiative
That has pretty much never happened, from what I know.
Phearnun wrote:
or be voted out, not forced out by ooc rules.
What you are suggesting means a time limit. That just makes no sense.
A set time limit isn't good.
But perhaps it would be good to allow a faction poll in order to determine if there's still support for the current faction leader after a certain amount of time.
Who the hell whats to stay a faction leader if all the players want him removed ooc and voice that concern? >.>
If there is need for a leadership change, then the faction leader should step back on his own initiative
That has pretty much never happened, from what I know.
Phearnun wrote:
or be voted out, not forced out by ooc rules.
What you are suggesting means a time limit. That just makes no sense.
A set time limit isn't good.
But perhaps it would be good to allow a faction poll in order to determine if there's still support for the current faction leader after a certain amount of time.
Who the hell whats to stay a faction leader if all the players want him removed ooc and voice that concern? >.>
But perhaps it would be good to allow a faction poll in order to determine if there's still support for the current faction leader after a certain amount of time.
There already is, and it is even better: there's no time limit. It can happen at any time.
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
Haha. You'll never get certain people to step down gracefully. Though I share the belief that we need to find a way to fix things like this. Too many leaders sit on their hands and do nothing for the faction, allowing it to die off. It really is a shame.
What more fixing do you need than for the majority of the faction to say, "We don't want you as our faction leader." Because they can. To me, the problem is that they haven't got the nards to do it, and would rather just complain than open themselves up.
I realize that this topic has run through a number of issues and concerns but it is supposed to be all about why the server is losing it's player base, right?
I have played on a number of servers that have slowly dwindled down the player base until those servers packed it in. All of them were fantastic servers with exceptional RP and communities.
Amia is by far the largest in shear mod size and player base to all of the others.
I think that the discussion of how to make the server a better place to play is important and necessary but I think we should look at the larger picture.
One of the reasons players are leaving is that they have been playing here for months (perhaps years) and they are simply moving on to other things in their lives. Not another server but away from PC games or RP games or whatever. Simple attrition of players is expected and normal.
New players are going to be the prime reason that a server lasts as long as Amia has. You get players from other servers for whatever reason and you get players that are discovering NWN for the first time through whatever means (word of mouth, internet, etc).
It's the new players that concerns me here because there just may be nothing inherently wrong with Amia. There just may be that fewer gamers are attracted to a system, graphics and game mechanics that are what, 6 - 7 years old? Sure, you can argue that the game itself has nothing to do with the RP and fun you can have but I'm not sure that it will last forever.
You can fix Amia all you want but if the pool of new players is dwindling then no amount of Amia goodness will stop it from shrinking.
Do you want to be a druid? You have the possibility of going to: a) the Grove, b) the Hidden Glade, c) the Glade if Forstakkrr and now starting these days d) the Grove in Caraigh.
I'm...sorry this actually made me laugh but not for the reasons that you may think and heaven knows not for mean spiritedness. It made me smile out of joy and warm glee. The Grove is in Amia forest and that's pretty much it. The Forstakker Glade is (as far as I know) being led by two Hidden Glade members Riol and Valygar. The Wildman Corps if that's what you're referring to is Valygar.
The Caraigh group is still at core Hidden Glade members who find Caraigh preferable to Amia forest at this time as well as those who routinely move between the two. Then there are Hidden Gladers who enjoy the cities and remain in Amia forest.
So...it's still only the choice at the moment of Grove, Glade or independent. The Glade just happens to be more spread out as far as locations that they ICly 'patrol' or call home. Home of the moment btw being Caraigh. They just acknowledge the apparent disappearance of Grovites and some stay in Amia forest to try to help. At the end of their day though, they go to their new (soon to be, we're working on it!!) home on Caraigh.
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
Yossarin wrote:
What more fixing do you need than for the majority of the faction to say, "We don't want you as our faction leader." Because they can. To me, the problem is that they haven't got the nards to do it, and would rather just complain than open themselves up.
Indeed true. Lord knows I don't shy away from saying "you're not being a faction leader, faction leader". But I'm just one person.
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Location: On a Disk, carried by four elephants, which stand on a gigantic turtle.
To be honest, I'm not sure where this attitude of "I want to be the faction leader!" comes from. Quite honestly, in every faction I've been in I've NEVER wanted to be the faction leader. Being a faction leader is a terrible job for the most part. You don't get to make the choices on your own, you have to make choices based on what others want, what will makes other happy. It's a job of slavery almost.
Hell, being a faction leader is like being a DM, but without the reward and the extra powers of creation. Why the hell would anyone want to be one? I actively avoid being a faction leader, second in charge I can do, but never leader.
_________________ I keels u with my axe!
"Do ye know where the Holy-Flamin' Frost-brand Gronk-slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' woundin' an' returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-out-yer-bum is?"
Depends on the character for one thing. OOCLY lords no.
But what I want oocly never really transaltes to the game well, otherwise all my characters would be snuggle-bugs. :3
Halen is a devout of Mystra and rumored son. So great was his devotion that he one day, after praying to Mystra for guidance, was driven to create a guild for mages. And so he did. A glorious, and huge guild of mages for which he procurred a tower to house.
Always trying to get others to fulfill thier potentials, Halen experimented with ways to bring others up into the process of governing the guild rather than try to run it alone. Thus the council. He's now resigned after finding himself unfit for the positon of leadership. Certainly a faction leader.
Take my ninja drow, Oni. He doesn't want to lead. Anything. Ever. He does well with orders from those he respects, but if left to his own devices knows he gets into trouble. He doesn't want to lead and knows he's not qualified to. Not a faction leader.
Saris wants to rule everything. If that means he's got to lead a clan he will. But If he could have this without doing so, he wouldn't. He's often leading by example or by his charisma, but not nessicarily an official faction leader.
Having been a faction leader? It can be very rewarding. When you create. When you build and drive forces of rp, it's very satisfying. But you can do this without being a faction leader. It's just another oppritunity. And just like every oppritunity it has it's risks. Being the target for criticism founded or no is one of them.
_________________ "Freedom is the Right of all sentient beings."
-Optimus Prime.
If there is need for a leadership change, then the faction leader should step back on his own initiative
That has pretty much never happened, from what I know.
I did it twice as a player (Melee-Magthere and Arabett), and Phearnun has done it at least once, as well. And we're not the only ones; these things happen, though not as often as they probably should.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
In a lot of factions, voting out an inactive or bad leader is simply not possible because the faction is not set up as a democracy.
This goes for any divine based faction really, where the high priest or imperator is ''chosen'' by the deity. If you oppose Darth who was chosen to lead the church by his god, you are being a heretic by not respecting the wish of Bane.
Or the grove and archdruids for example, they are chosen by ''the duir'', so if members get together and try to vote them off, they'll just say, I won't step up until the duir asks me to. Which in this case really means DMs.
Ditto for lolthites, where the high priestess was immune from disposal because she had Lolth's backing for the longest time.
Deities don't back PCs up unless the DMs specifically state so. Which we rarely (if ever) do. Churches are mundane organizations full of politics, and it's very possible to overthrow your leader. If a democratic way or negotiation is impossible, a violent coup or a propaganda war is another way. It's up to the resourcefulness of the members, and how willing they are to do it the hard way. If you're not willing to drag your high priest out by the hair and cut him into little pieces (or just force him out in general), and diplomatic ways fail, I guess you're stuck with your leader and that's it. But it's an IC choice.
It's hardly fair to make an OOC issue of "I want the faction leader gone, but my PC won't do anything about it."
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
To be fair, Iron if High Priest Sucky Leader can still cast divine spells, characters are probably going to assume he still has the backing of the Big Guy.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
You can't really PVP someone out of their post though, seeing that if you ''drag them out by the hair and cut them to pieces'', they'll just raise and will still be in power.
For the druid example, in PNP lore a druid could challenge the archdruid to a fight to determine leadership. Again this can't happen here - rightly so, having a strong build should not be the way to take over a faction - but it does lead to ''forceful takeovers'' not really being viable.
True. It's a difficult situation IC. But then: if his opponents can cast spells, too, it's probably safe to assume the god isn't out to stop them.
And either way, it's an IC problem. I don't think it's right to demand a faction leader to step down OOC, because you can't challenge him IC. That's sort of the trouble with religious organizations: on one hand, you suffer IC because of poor leadership, but on the other, you risk heresy if you openly challenge your leader. It's a dilemma not to be taken out of game, IMO. On the contrary, it's great material for character developement. Just look at the great revolutionarists in religious history. Paul, Luther, the prophets of the Old Testament, Muhammad, pietistic movements, etc. They all had to take the risk, question religious authority and create something new. Sometimes within the old faith, sometimes outside of it.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
You can't really PVP someone out of their post though, seeing that if you ''drag them out by the hair and cut them to pieces'', they'll just raise and will still be in power.
For the druid example, in PNP lore a druid could challenge the archdruid to a fight to determine leadership. Again this can't happen here - rightly so, having a strong build should not be the way to take over a faction - but it does lead to ''forceful takeovers'' not really being viable.
That's where democracy comes in: it's all up to whether faction members will have the leader back. You can PvP someone out of a position easily, if IC the faction members are convinced by said PvP to embrace new leadership. PvP alone isn't enough, you need the support of your faction to lead a faction. That's all there is to it, really: faction is nothing but a group of people, and leadership means nothing but those people listening to you. If they don't, you're not a leader no matter how hard you try to tell you are.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
There are several factions where player's characters would still stay loyal to the current leading character, even though they OOCly do not support the leading character or the player who plays it.
The Church of Bane is a primary example of just that, and it's something the Banite faction has had huge problems with in the past.
There are probably several other factions which this could apply to as well. Such as the Defenders/Triadic Knights, for example.
Yeah, but what can you do? "There's no IC reason to remove you, but we don't like you so go away."
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Yeah, but what can you do? "There's no IC reason to remove you, but we don't like you so go away."
More like... "My character is lawful evil, in a faction that has brainwashed me to be extremely loyal -no matter what-, and as long as you don't commit heresy, you have every right there is to remain in your position. Should I attempt to challenge you, my character would be branded as a heretic and excommunicated. However, OOCly you're a shitty leader. You're never active, you consistently make the wrong choices for the faction on an OOC level and you are the cause of a looooooooot of OOC drama, aggravation and irritation."
Well, DMs can step in at that point if the leader refuses to leave gracefully, I guess.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Yeah. But I ask again: what can you do, other than refuse to obey IC? Can you OOCly tell another player to stop behaving like an authority figure IC?
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Most players who are displeased with their leader hold it to themselves, often out of fear whilst trying to avoid conflict and OOC drama.
If there's not enough OOC support for the leader, then that's a pretty big heads up.
Give the leader some time to shape up, or step down. If neither happens, then the DMs step in with IC measures, whatever they may be, so that the leader can ICly be removed and a new one take its place.
Sounds like something a faction could adopt on their own. Not a bad idea, at all, but I doubt it's something we should force on factions who don't need it and don't want it.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
I suppose the faction knows? Hence them adopting it voluntarily.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
