|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 21, 2016 20:41:41 GMT -5
I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter and since we don't have the old wiki, I may have forgotten a subtle yet vital nuance regarding the difference between support and political:
First and foremost, staff pcs cannot be political. That will not change.
From the old, old wiki -> Support dips a toe into the political game without diving in. Support players may hold territory, engage in PvP shenanigans, and pursue plot freely, but are allowed OOC input for major events (such as the character becoming bloodbound) and are given the benefit of the doubt if they trip up over the intricacies of in-character rules. They may be involved in IC politics, but will usually be members of a coterie rather than the leader. Most ghouls are Support characters
Political is the political game - vying for city positions and status, seizing territory, ferreting out the weaknesses of other Kindred and exploiting them for your own gain in glorious back-stabbing PvP which occasionally might get physical or even fatal but is usually focused on social standing and influence. Political play is a privilege, not a right. Players at this level are expected to maintain a certain level of weekly activity, to know the rules of the various groups to which they belong, to take responsibility for the group in which they are a keystone member (be that Clan, Covenant, or City governance), and to promote a pleasant OOC atmosphere. Political players are up for anything the storytellers or other players throw at their: their consent is never required. A given player may only have one Political character."
Support
Can hold 1 territory
Can hold lower political roles (whip, hound, keeper of elysium, Prince's harpy, etc)
Have some sayso in what happens to their character
Have some 'whupsy my bad' ignorance factor over rolls, rules and whatnot
Political
Can hold more than one territory
Can hold higher political roles (primogen, priscus, prince, sheriff, seneschal, etc)
Are willing to have their players mucked with by the storytellers
Be a good sport in whatever negativity may happen to their character
I know there was more to it, if you remember please put the information on this thread so we can get this settled. I do have a copy of the old support and political applications that I'll be putting up after we get this ironed out. Please give me your thoughts.
-Utz
|
|
|
|
Post by gregory on Mar 21, 2016 20:52:16 GMT -5
Hound and Harpy should both be political characters. The reason for Hound should be obvious, as that's a position that may well be involved in life and death struggles at some point. Harpy is the backbone of politics, as they award laurels, and thus should be willing to accept the dangers of such a position if they want to fill it.
Under the previous rules, no one could hold more than 1 territory, it's just that political players could be in governance of burroughs and districts, which gave them an heirarchy of sorts.
Support accepted that storytellers might much with their characters some, but would get a conversation first. There are no take backs for support, only for civilian, support is expected to accept consequences but with the exception that consequences involve their input and are worked to make them comfortable with them. Political accepts that they have little control of their fate. In either case, character death and other situations which meant the character would be unplayable were always the final recourse.
|
|
|
|
Post by casamir on Mar 21, 2016 21:09:26 GMT -5
I always thought that support was for characters who did not wish to have any territory or titles. They would be fine working with or for others to help them with their territory, and definitely not to hold any sort of title. It's quite simple, you want a title or territory and you should just go political. The last option which was civilian means to me that you can't really be killed or messed with. Supporting characters shouldn't be as open to attack or negative effects as a person holding a title or territory but still they could , if they put themselves into this situation.
|
|
edwin
Tasty Mortal
Posts: 1 
|
Post by edwin on Mar 23, 2016 18:39:01 GMT -5
I agree with no territory for support characters. They can still own sites within territories given permission by the regent but having a territory inherently exposes you to politics.
As for some of the roles, maybe the wrong place for it, but I highly suggest keeping the Harpy as an NPC. Use some artificial mechanism like surveys/voting etc, but don't put a person in that spot. Any sign of bias from a Harpy inevitably ends in massive drama rather its real or perceived. Also there are the logistical implementations of a player not being able to perceive the city's comings and goings as well as their characters should be capable of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manon on Mar 23, 2016 23:30:37 GMT -5
I agree. No territory for support characters. IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2016 23:15:00 GMT -5
So that means zero territories for any staff PCs as a support char, Maybe Koug will be okay with Political staff PCs as long as we don't hold any titles but then again, some players are leery of staff PCs having any sort of power at all even if it's just scrubbing the floors as keeper of the elysium so I'll need to hear your opinions of that
And to be honest I completely forgot about civilian even being an option, maybe that can be set for mortal only while they are feeling their way around as a way to not get swooped in and turned into a ghoul or thrall their first week, hell their first day? A safety net as it were?
As far as the whole breakdown of the map system for icness, it all depends on what koug wants to do and what the prince wants to do too, some happy medium or the same, we'll come up with something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ancient on Apr 3, 2016 13:24:48 GMT -5
Originally, Civilian existed for those that just wanted to play socially while Political existed for those who want to engage in Vampire politics. Support as implied by the name support, was designed in order to enable an option for those who want to be useful to the political players without having to worry about being arbitrarily killed or bloodbound or similar terrible fates.
Due to some players perceiving the support playstyle as being used as a shield, one of the more notable changes we made was make it so you can only play support with a defined political character you are supporting and is responsible for your actions. This was how most support characters already worked (most of them were ghouls) but it reigned in certain mortals.
The way consent was intended to work in regards to support characters was that if a support character decided to do anything that could cause a serious reaction (Such as death etc) then they had the right to receive an OOC warning which they could opt to waive at which point they could suffer consequences the same way any political character would.
As for mortal characters, I was at some point seriously considering lobbying for a rule that you're not allowed to thrall/ghoul any character during their first month because seriously <.< >.>
|
|
|
|
Post by jaeger on Apr 14, 2016 11:28:52 GMT -5
As for mortal characters, I was at some point seriously considering lobbying for a rule that you're not allowed to thrall/ghoul any character during their first month because seriously <.< >.> I am totally behind this, because.... seriously!?!?! Mortals get picked up within a week of coming on grid. There is no courting or dancing with them and having them discover everything. There is no OOC discovery of whether those two people mesh well together. It's just insane. Mortals are first come, first serve. It's rather yucky, imo. If someone wants to app in a mortal and have the ghouling happen on grid with a specific vampire (because the two worked it out), have them app in as a ghoul, then RP the ghouling in private scenes or something. |
|
groth
Tasty Mortal
Posts: 9
|
Post by groth on Apr 15, 2016 9:07:35 GMT -5
As for mortal characters, I was at some point seriously considering lobbying for a rule that you're not allowed to thrall/ghoul any character during their first month because seriously <.< >.> I am totally behind this, because.... seriously!?!?! Mortals get picked up within a week of coming on grid. There is no courting or dancing with them and having them discover everything. There is no OOC discovery of whether those two people mesh well together. It's just insane. Mortals are first come, first serve. It's rather yucky, imo. If someone wants to app in a mortal and have the ghouling happen on grid with a specific vampire (because the two worked it out), have them app in as a ghoul, then RP the ghouling in private scenes or something. That sounds like a sensible way to go about it to me. Either they app in as a ghoul and just play out their ghouling on grid (I did that with my first ghoul) or they should get a reasonable amount of time to actually meet people first. |
|
|
|
Post by Baptiste on Apr 17, 2016 15:05:59 GMT -5
We allowed Support characters to have one territory when we started limiting all PCs to one territory -- there are 40+ territories, so we need to be able to fill those spots. If people can hold more than one territory, then the need goes down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2016 19:32:05 GMT -5
I think it is best to keep it where support is able to hold a single territory. If in the future we get 'huge' again, we can see about revisiting this but in theory it will be sorted out icly anyways because the political characters will either be more powerful and/or have the support of the support characters anyways and will charge 'rent' to own sites or the territory itself from political characters
|
|
|
|
Post by gregory on Apr 19, 2016 0:51:25 GMT -5
I definitely agree that support should be able to hold a territory, or even some amount of territories if the Prince's plan allows for such things. But Support is 'political enough' to have access to the territory game, if perhaps in a more limited fashion of smaller amounts available or like in the past, not allowed to hold burroughs or districts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baptiste on May 15, 2016 20:08:21 GMT -5
Late to this party, but people need to be aware that the Harpies are the second-most politically powerful characters on the game. The Prince has the most political power, followed by the Harpies.
I don't think the Hounds are terribly important. Support Hounds seem just fine to me, frankly -- the Hounds mostly end up being a role for people to engage in combat against NPC antagonists, and provided we still have the "you must be supporting a person" rule then the limitation isn't a big deal.
Or are we getting rid of the "you must support a person" rule?
It used to be that you could be Civilian, at which point you had to stay away from conflict of any sort, or Political, which was no holds barred conflict, or you could be Support -- you can engage in conflict, but you have designated a political character who you support. They're responsible for you, even if you invoke your playstyle to avoid consequences.
So a ghoul might be support, and might invoke their support playstyle to avoid another vampire killing them when they mouth off -- but then that other vampire goes after their Political regnant, who has no such protections. Support characters also don't have a playstyle defense against their principal.
That was the rule we adopted last summer. Are we abandoning it?
|
|
