Review of Chancellor System

Everything about Illarion that fits nowhere else. / Alles über Illarion was inhaltlich in kein anderes Board passt.

Moderator: Gamemasters

Post Reply
Teflon
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:53 pm

Review of Chancellor System

Post by Teflon »

Dear all,

We are currently reviewing the chancellor system in Galmair and would like to have your feedback, thoughts and ideas.

We have the following town leadership structure so far:
1. Don
2. Right & Left Hand
3. Three Chancellors
Chancellors are elected for two IG years so far. The setting for the election is as follows:
http://illarion.org/community/forums/vi ... 62#p695862

Code: Select all

Each candidate for Chancellor will have to pay a 25 gold entry fee and must be ranked at least as Patrician.

Every citizen is allowed 4 votes. Three votes for Chancellors and one against a candidate.

Each vote costs a minimum of 5 gold coins, but may be extended to 20 gold coins.

The three candidates with most money voted for them win.

If a chancellor is not fulfilling their role for a term of 2 Dwarven weeks without notice they will be replaced by the Don. If they give notice and are gone for a Dwarven month, they must appoint a deputy or one will be appointed by the Don.

Half of the election proceeds will be split between the chancellors in seasonal payment. Money received shall be accounted for in a public manner. If a chancellor misses proper documentation or is replaced, the balance is due back to the Don. 
First ideas are:
- reducing the time in office from two to one IG year again
- removing the nomination fee by replacing it with a withdrawal fee. Any qualified citizens, therefore, would be potential candidate and could be elected.
- adding an additional requirement such as proven experience or engagement through running IG roles such as for instance: http://illarion.org/community/forums/vi ... 91#p676091
- removing chancellors totally and moving back to the position/job system we had before.
- removing chancellors and filling the Hands completely with player chars. They would be elected as chancellors but might be Hands until they resign or are removed due to inactivity, ill performance or referendum.
- giving them more responsibilities such as leading meetings & events although the Don is attending. Currently the Don would run them.
- your idea here
Any ideas or feedback is appreciated as long it is constructive. It can also be something completely different to our current structure. Ideas should always address why & how. For all our trolls, ideas such as "your player char" instead of the Don are not ideas but madness. ;)
We are open to listen to your thoughts. Feel free to send us a pm if you don't want to post here. Please note, we may not adopt any.

Thank you!
German will hopefully follow soon. If someone can help with a translation, it is appreciated and will go faster. Thank you.
User avatar
Kyre
Posts: 1257
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Kyre »

I believe roughly a year ago or so Evie and Kyre presented a request to revamp the Chancellor system but I couldn't find a copy.. it is in the past anyway.

Over two years ago Vilarion did a survey and found out most players prefer to have less GM and more active part of the game. As a result of this all towns changed subtly in their own way and seemed to change "like" the town following the roleplay of that particular area.

The Archmage and Bearers, the Queen and the Nobility with houses, and the Don with Hand and Chancellors. I look on the Chancellors of Galmair as part of the change to redefine the role politically and allow more players to get involved. I see the role fluctuating and not a stagnant function. I also see this as part of the town and more an in-town event involving the citizens to discuss openly and not so much an ooc event because it is significant to the town of Galmair only in my opinion.

Since this seems to be an ooc event, whatever is decided I think to keep that idea open with player involvement, the Chancellorship ideally continue in one form or another.

(( apologize I can't manage German in order to put this in both languages ))
Teflon
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Teflon »

Since Galmair isn't a direct democrazy or hasn't such elements, it isn't necessarily an IG event or could easily exclude characters/players from their participation. Furthermore, we are interested on a player perspective, free from character's point of view and ig-events. We can't achieve that with IG events. Some ideas might be more than understandable from an IG perspective but would break the game or be just not realistic and not constribute to a constructive discussion about where we are and what should be changed. How we continue from here isn't decided since this is more like brainstorming. If you have feedback and ideas for the chancellor system or political system in Galmair (Chancellors are not set in stones), please share it with us.
User avatar
Uhuru
Posts: 924
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:56 am
Location: In time out, where else?

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Uhuru »

From my perspective, it isn't going to matter so long as whatever is put in place isn't supported. Uhuru's decisions were never supported. Not one. If that is still a problem, years later, then nothing will work so long as the Don still refuses to give up control. If the Don won't give up control, then the only solution is no system.

Even the appearance of giving up control isn't the same as doing so. The Don should only step in if the Chancellors are unable to make a decision for some reason.
User avatar
Juniper Onyx
Master NPC Scripter
Posts: 1557
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:13 am
Location: Columbia, MO USA

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Juniper Onyx »

Personally, I dislike elections and votes and such democracy for Galmair. It smacks of modernism when all the history of Galmair makes it focused on money, wealth, etc. Three years ago, there was the Don and a "Hand'...that was it. It was like the "Don Colione Family" or Mafia. Everything else was job assigned by them. Seemed to work alright. I get back and we got elections? But now having read the way they work, now I think they are clever ways to raise money by the Don, so they don't seem so bad. You pay, you vote! I like it. I'm ok if the current system stays.

However, in the interest of more player involvement and true Galmair Atmosphere, what about 'selling' various positions like the Hand, Chancellors or whatever? The Don's allowed to do what he wants right? Why not have "Auctions! Can you imagine the 'money sink' if we bought and sold titles? It might be like electing a US President!

"Make Galmair Great Again!"

LOL!!

Bidding could start at the last amount paid for the post, so it would keep getting harder and harder to buy - and if someone pays that much and meets the current qualifications, they are sure to be loyal and do a good job! It will certainly encourage making money and paying your taxes! :wink:

Honestly, isn't "The Hand" worth 100+ Gold? If someone later offers the Don more money and meets the conditions, why not make them the Hand instead? Money talks, BS walks! :D

Of course, who wants to spend 100 Gold only to have someone else buy them out for 105 Gold? So we would have to come up with some 'guarantees', like the job won't be resold for a minimum of 1 year IG unless you are inactive for 2 weeks or doing a poor job, and you have the job until it is bought by someone for more, and maybe offer a 1 month IG chance to match or bid more money for your job? That's a RL week. Plenty of time to decide to outbid or withdraw.

Just my 2 coppers! :D
Kraex
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Kraex »

At its core the chancellor system is a solid player-based governmental system that stimulates player cooperation, responsibility, and purpose. While I am sure this topic is more geared toward Galmair specifically I have always believed that a form of this system should be imposed on all factions.

Required features for all factions:
  • Rotation of Power: Regardless of what it is called (e.g. Houses, High Council, Chancellors) governmental power by players needs to have the "option" to change more easily.
    • Why: To avoid stagnation and demotivation of players who'd like to lead. Motivate players to achieve requirements to be eligible to become a chancellor (or whatever it will be called in said faction). Faction leaders should not want rivals for their power, cycling through eligible leaders would bring variety and a system of checks and balances.
    • How: Character votes, OOC votes that would be enforced by the faction leader, or perhaps failure to meet a certain IG requirement.
  • Balance of Town Rank: I believe each faction should have the same number of level 7s, 8s, and 9s. If each faction does not have an eligible person to rise, no one rises. But at the same time just like "chancellors" there should be clear criteria to be elligible for the next rank (which would probably be a different proposal all together).
    • Why: Clear lines to motivate players to achieve that next town rank. Limit the "perception" of bias.
  • Job Requirements: These can be set by the faction leader or part of the player's campaign to become "chancellor"
    • Examples: Public building projects, a new college for mages, better diplomacy with another faction.
  • GM Oversight: Limited, thats right let the players control day to day operations until there is a problem.
  • "Chancellor" Criteria: Written IG and/or OOC rules that must be met in order to be eligible to be considered for "Chancellor".
Purposed Governing Systems:
  • Election/Selection:
    • All: Once elected/select as a "chancellor" you receive a town rank of 7.
    • Galmair: IG vote every 1 IG year.
    • Cadomyr: Meet criteria of noble service, 3 eligible nobles rotate on the Noble Council.
      • [Example of noble service] Town rank of 6, being in a town job for X number of months/years, recommendation from a noble, notable honorable deed for the realm, tribute cost.
    • Runewick: Whatever you back-woods-hillybillies do or want, I know nothing of Runewick.
  • Old/Previous "Chancellors":
    • All: Town rank is kept and players are either re-elected or rotated based upon the type of "Chancellor System" implemented.
Other Positions of Power within Factions:
Now since each faction leader is a sovereign I would also purpose other positions within factions, like Galmair does, to give players a purpose within the town. The could even be used by the faction leader to bring balance of power. Help players get into a spot to be eligible for "Chancellor".
Teflon
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Teflon »

Thank you so far! More ideas and feedback are appreciated.

Uhuru, could you please elaborate your suggestion of more support? Could you please share 3 or more examples where you would have wished more support for your char, what kind of support and why? Support is such a broad term and I don't think your char wishes that the Don holds her hand. :D

Uhuru & Kraex, could you please explain more detailed what kind of problem would justify the intervention of the Don and where you see the borderline until which he should stand out?
Kraex
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Kraex »

Uhuru & Kraex, could you please explain more detailed what kind of problem would justify the intervention of the Don and where you see the borderline until which he should stand out?
The line in the sand for me is "anything" that goes outside the background story of Galmair, sovereignty of the Don. Examples:
  • If the chancellors created any type of contract or pact that did not first profit the Don.
  • Formed a party that threatened the Don's control.
  • Abusing the ban system.
  • OOC abuse or a threat to the RP environment of Galmair.
    • Doing things that only profit/encourage a select few players/characters.
User avatar
Djironnyma
Posts: 3221
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 4:34 pm
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Djironnyma »

I want give a hint from an outstanding position. Every kind of goverment which will be "voted" or otherwise regulary change may have the problem to be taken less serious. I can rember more as once that we were unsatified with a chancellor but just ignored him and waited till the next election. I would advise to not change the chancellors on a regular system, as long as they are active and no other person with more money/supporters/whatever tries to get in power theres no reason for a change.
User avatar
Uhuru
Posts: 924
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:56 am
Location: In time out, where else?

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Uhuru »

Teflon wrote:Thank you so far! More ideas and feedback are appreciated.

Uhuru, could you please elaborate your suggestion of more support? Could you please share 3 or more examples where you would have wished more support for your char, what kind of support and why? Support is such a broad term and I don't think your char wishes that the Don holds her hand. :D

Uhuru & Kraex, could you please explain more detailed what kind of problem would justify the intervention of the Don and where you see the borderline until which he should stand out?
I don’t think it’s about more support but rather less direct counter support. Uhuru decided to fine someone for an issue and the Don said we can’t do that. But why? I mean, it seemed contrary to everything, but especially to who the Don is supposed to be. Uhuru pushes to keep trade routes open, I don’t remember the specifics of the issue, but the Don was seriously upset by this for some reason.

Uhuru couldn’t make even one decision that the Don liked. Not one. It got so bad that it stifled her ability to make a decision at all and she started deferring everything to the Don.

Why should Chancellors be making decisions if the Don doesn’t trust in their judgement and let them run the town, backing what they do and how they do it, basically saying they have no power at all?

The Don has the most power to do the most harm in undermining the Chancellor system.

As I said above, the Don should only step in when the Chancellors can't make a decision on their own.
Teflon
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Teflon »

I tried to find more details about your examples in the logs and our reports, since I don't remember these cases but unfortunately I couldn't. However, we will consider your statement for the future. We will most likely set up a Galmair-leadership chat to increase the communication because if we overrule something, it has ooc-reasons. For instance, we think it harms the balance, the setting or the game itself. Thanks again for the feedback. If you have other ideas or suggestions, please post them here in a constructive manner.
User avatar
Uhuru
Posts: 924
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:56 am
Location: In time out, where else?

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Uhuru »

I do think that this would possibly be better received from the chancellors if the Don's opinion or guidelines were received more often. Receiving it after the fact can be a little frustrating.

For instance, once they have decided on how to proceed with a punishment, then the Don over-ruling the whole thing and initiating something completely different. While you say this has it's reasons, in game just undermines the authority of the chancellors and makes their positions meaningless. Had certain guidelines been established prior to them making a decision, all of this could have been avoided.

Thanks Tef.
User avatar
Juniper Onyx
Master NPC Scripter
Posts: 1557
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:13 am
Location: Columbia, MO USA

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Juniper Onyx »

Sounds to me like the chancellors, Hand and Don simply need better communication all around. It would be nice if everyone could meet online in chat or IG at the same time, but often, this becomes unreliable as a way for two-way communication. Instead of a 'chat' in which not everyone can be on to enjoy, how about using the functions of these forums?

How about a "Galmair Government" forum that is hidden except to government officials to discuss topics, ideas and such no matter the timezone? This could be easily setup by your forum administrator and would help eliminate the need to be on all at the same time (which is often hard if there are different timezones)? When the officials leave or new ones elected, simply change the permissions.

Just my two coppers. :D
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Tyan Masines »

In addition to what people already wrote, I believe there needs to be sone kind of objection process which has to be officially announced. It may be so that it is possible already, but does not have the desired effect imho.


Objection Process
If a character / group of characters is not content with the decisions / reforms of Chancellors, they can appeal to the Don. This requires
  • 1. A written complaint, explaining the incident / reform in question
    2. At least three citizens to sign the complaint (three different player chars)
    3. A preiod of at least one day and night has to lie between the event that took place, and the complaint on it
Point 1 and 3 aim at stemming ad hoc complaints and make people think about what they want. Point 2 is to stem abuse and to limit the overall number of objections going to be filed.


If the Don accepts a complaint (which he usually should to make this viable) the Chancellor(s) in question get the chance to also write their version of the story to the Don. Once this has happened, the Don holds public 'trial', the matter is adressed (shortly!) and the final decision is made by the Don. For all to see.



Reason for this:
With few people actually playing, the government can't be too remote from the people as it is picked from them and everyone knows everyone. I believe this has lead to tensions between mainly individualist characters of Galmair and Chancellors. Also, when abuse happened, the Chancellors passed judgement on Chancellors -- but they are equals. The Don has to be in charge. This objection process would give people a chance to get a judge in before they draw their swords.
All in all, this also aims at making the Chancellors more of a special workforce for the Don and not actual leaders. GMs should have the final say in everything and be more present in the towns they lead. I know some people wanted players in charge more when it comes to town, but this is just my opinion.
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Tyan Masines »

Juniper Onyx wrote:How about a "Galmair Government" forum that is hidden except to government officials to discuss topics, ideas and such no matter the timezone? This could be easily setup by your forum administrator and would help eliminate the need to be on all at the same time (which is often hard if there are different timezones)? When the officials leave or new ones elected, simply change the permissions.
Communication might have been an issue, but so has 'behind closed doors policy' been. I am adressing this separately because it is partly an IG issue which characters have to decide upon, not players. If they want to discuss everything in provite, it's their choice. But overall, decisions and decision making progress should to be more open, Chancellors should use the board to inform people constantly. Apart from that, a closed forum for time zone communication issues is a good idea, of course. :)
User avatar
Evie
Developer
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:55 pm
Location: on a mana stream

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Evie »

Tyan Masines wrote:... Also, when abuse happened, the Chancellors passed judgement on Chancellors -- but they are equals. The Don has to be in charge. ....

As far as I know, Chancellors have never passe judgement or punishment on another, they have no power to do so. This is an area the Don handles, perhaps your character was misinformed?.
User avatar
Juniper Onyx
Master NPC Scripter
Posts: 1557
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:13 am
Location: Columbia, MO USA

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Juniper Onyx »

Tyan Masines wrote:
Juniper Onyx wrote:How about a "Galmair Government" forum that is hidden except to government officials to discuss topics, ideas and such no matter the timezone? This could be easily setup by your forum administrator and would help eliminate the need to be on all at the same time (which is often hard if there are different timezones)? When the officials leave or new ones elected, simply change the permissions.
Communication might have been an issue, but so has 'behind closed doors policy' been. I am adressing this separately because it is partly an IG issue which characters have to decide upon, not players. If they want to discuss everything in provite, it's their choice. But overall, decisions and decision making progress should to be more open, Chancellors should use the board to inform people constantly. Apart from that, a closed forum for time zone communication issues is a good idea, of course. :)
The question was not how to inform people, but how to get a better idea of what the Don expects. This would only be for government officials to discuss how they run the city or to discuss issues BEFORE having a public trial, announcing a decision or having a public meeting. If the Don is the "Boss", they have to know what the Boss expects so they can do their job. They can't knock on each other's doors or call, they have to discuss things somehow.

I agree that anything having to do with citizens should be public, but there is much done that has to be behind closed doors like money, personnel and simply finding out their jobs and what they can and can't do. Here in the USA, even if they have open meetings, then they kick people out for "Executive Session" to discuss these things and announce results later. Timezones may make it difficult for all chancellors and the Don to meet, so a hidden forum would be more reliable for them to increase this communication.
User avatar
Kamilar
Posts: 732
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Running away

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Kamilar »

And as long as I'm here for a visit, I'll put my 2 cents in on this topic too ...

I don't think little tweaks will really fix anything and I think the problem is larger than the Galmair elections.

Personally, I think the best approach would be to abandon The-Illarion-As-Political-Simulator-Game altogether and put the game back in the sandbox. Get rid of the player leaders entirely and have the towns strictly NPC run. Have the players stop trying to control one another with endless policy and boringness and get back to what it is they should be doing: playing. Down the line, if players want to try to seize control of a town, they'll have to be prepared to hold it and defend it in the sandbox and under GM scrutiny.

That would be a game worth playing.
Teflon
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Teflon »

From the Governments/Evil town topic:
http://illarion.org/community/forums/vi ... =1&t=40838
Vern Kron wrote: When it comes to the bureaucratic side of things, Galmair has a lot of struggling to do. Because of the temporary nature of the position, and the constant fluctuation of individuals, there is always a great deal of uncertainty. As a result, the chancellors will often look to the Don for support, particularly on matters where there is going to be a ton of ooc crap (as displayed by any battle). The Don then makes a decision, and sometimes it goes with the chancellors, but often times, it goes in a direction not discussed or thought possible. The chancellors, on some level, have to go with it. If they cut ties with their decision, they cut ties with the basis of their authority. But on an ooc level, this is not only frustrating, but it feels disrespectful to players. Throwing out wild card decisions, led to a chancellorship that lasted far, far longer than what was probably good for anyone, the IG task of having to essentially babysit four characters, who while from an IG perspective were hard to trust, oocly no one wants to sit around all day waiting to be 'allowed to leave' nor 'having to follow around this group of people because it is my literal job, in a game'. The Don at times it would appear, when the chancellors look for guidance and suggestion, and even in the case of some initiatives, permission, would on some level throw it back against them, making the problems compound. Which led to the chancellors not trusting the Don. The Don soon became a figure head, who only threw clout around to cause more drama, that then discouraged the chancellors to the point that they didn't want to be around either.
I read up all Don-logs until back to August 2015 and could find 3 instances, where the Don and the chancellors had a "disagreement":
1) previous election (how the setting should be)
2) free man (how the punishment should be)
3) Dranis' case with the guard (there was actually no communication between chancellors and don, because the don took care of it, since this was an issue about a chancellor)
I ignore the recent events, since there wasn't a disagreement as such but the escalation of the conflict based on these events above, which all took place in 2015. Apart from these three points, the Don only asked questions about the decisions but not to overrule them but to understand them and out of curiosity. Maybe this might be confusing & tiresome but somehow, we need to show that he has interest in the Chancellor's business and to clarify our understandings of projects, etc, I think. In addition, the Don wasn't played much in the last half year, mainly because of my inactivity.

Regarding these three events and to explain the Don's and our point of view:
1) Without going into details, but some of the suggestions would have harmed the balance in the town. I can understand this interest from an IG perspective but from a GM perspective, we need to counter that. The Don is also interested in a balance, since it means competition, which means more profit. There isn't much to gain if there is a power monopoly in the town.
2) A ban of these Free Man chars would have been too harsh. In particular, since we use these bans only if there is a risk for the chars in this town. The Free Man didn't repeatedly attack Galmair citizens back then. They attacked other towns and were accused of not following orders from the chancellors and causing war. Sure, from an IG perspective this is a capital crime but we can't support this as GMs. From a Don's perspective, enslaving them wouldn't just be the worse punishment (lose of freedom!) but he would still receive their taxes and a potential war against outlaws would have been avoided (war is bad if Galmair can't win it easily, which wouldn't have been the case). The Don tried to sell this to the chancellors but they didn't want to accept it, which is fine but I would like to drop here some more lines on that to share my GM perspective.
As already stated somewhere else, we only overrule chancellors when we see the decision to the disadvantage of the game and we try to create IG reasons for it like any long war is bad for Galmair, the Gods wouldn't like that, etc. It is totally fine to blame the Don then. He is also there to take blame that chancellors and other chars can transfer to him at this moment. But there should be a point, were we need to move on. It can't be that there are emotional outrages about things that happened 1/2 year ago. I can't imagine that is even fun to play from the perspective of the char who blames the Don. It is definitely not fun for me to deal with the same issue again and again. In addition, it also takes time that we could spend for quests. I really would like to ask players to make a cut at some point. Your chars should also develop and be more flexible. If an "evil" guy has been punished hundred times for the same crime, there should be somewhere a learning curve or do they all suffer on amnesia? In one thing you can trust, the Don lives a very strong paternalism and wants only the best for the town and its citizens. He will not work against you as long as you pay your taxes and follow the rules. There were cases, where the Don could have become pretty active against some citizens like against the murders of Brunsberg but he didn't. They brought profit, they were loyal and they were promising prospects for Galmair. Brunsberg was old, did his shady things, no one was missing him and didn't pay taxes at all! :P
3) This is somehow funny to me since there is the critique that the Don doesn't support chancellors because the only reason why the Don protected Dranis was because he was chancellor and we think the Don has to support and protect them even in such cases. Since Dranis was associated with the Free Man and the judgement before, I can understand that it could have looked like the Don supports the Free Man but anyone who knows the Don a little, should know that he cares for balance (profit) and his chancellors in my opinion. This doesn't mean that chancellors are totally free to do what they want but it was the first time that Dranis attacked another citizen and it was reported to the Don. The Don would have done this for any chancellor in order to show their higher impact and importance for the town. This wasn't even the first time that the Don protected previous chancellors. He did it with Sarangerel, Ufe, Uhuru, Kyre, etc. He might not talk about it and share it with the respective chancellor what he did, so we can't blame that others don't know and accusing him of not to doing it but he definitely does protect his chancellors more than others. I don't see this as a question of fairness but of the game/town setting. There is no equality in Galmair. Illarion is no Thomas Morus simulator (a reference to his book Utopia for an equal world) but a game. Get a higher rank, show loyalty, make profit with your char and your char will have the edge until someone convinces the Don that having no material property is better for him. ;) Your char doesn't need a high rank, loyalty or profit to live in Galmair but you shouldn't expect much from the Don either.

To bring this to an end. I can understand that overruling (and also challenging) can be perceived as frustrating. I also see that ongoing conflicts with the "bad" guys (we actually don't have really bad guys in Illarion) can be exhausting. However, I have problems to see where we were disrespectful to the chancellor players? If you could help me to understand your feelings, I would appreciate it.

Reading this, I even more think that we have to enhance the chancellor-GM communication. Frankly, I have never recognised the chancellors asking for "guidance and suggestion, and even in the case of some initiatives, permission" by their behaviour. A better communication should help us, to acknowledge the needs of chancellors and to explain GM/game expectations better. I am also thinking to ask chancellors oocly as soon as they are elected, what they have actually in mind for their reign, to get a better idea and understanding. And the Don should probably only become active, if he receives a complaint about the chancellor's decision as it was suggested above for instance. So, he would be the second but still higher instance. There is still the risk for chancellors to be overruled but it would be more formal and less confusing, I guess.

Thanks again for sharing your view on the topic!

Kamilar wrote:Personally, I think the best approach would be to abandon The-Illarion-As-Political-Simulator-Game altogether and put the game back in the sandbox. Get rid of the player leaders entirely and have the towns strictly NPC run. Have the players stop trying to control one another with endless policy and boringness and get back to what it is they should be doing: playing. Down the line, if players want to try to seize control of a town, they'll have to be prepared to hold it and defend it in the sandbox and under GM scrutiny.

That would be a game worth playing.
I am not sure if I understand you correctly. On the one hand, you suggest to go with NPC leaders, on the other hand you say, players should be prepared and defend it themselves, which would mean they run the town themselves. Furthermore, I am not sure what you understand as sandbox. If you could please explain this more detailed in a different topic (without all these jaded remarks and frustration).


We would also like to ask those players to share their views and ideas, who haven't done yet. We know there are some more previous and like-to-be-in-the-future chancellors out there. :) If you feel more comfortable to do it in German, please do so. To due the extent, it is impossible to translate everything into German. Please use Google translator to get an idea about the content. Thank you!
User avatar
Kamilar
Posts: 732
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Running away

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Kamilar »

@ Teflon - It's up to you to see jaded remarks and frustration. I certainly didn't write them that way. If you want another topic, you can split the thread over and start any discussion you like. If you want more detail on my ideas, you can PM me.
User avatar
Vern Kron
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:20 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Vern Kron »

I guess the disrespectful vibe came from the inactivity business. The chancellors pour in hours, the Don comes in occasionally when called upon, and then disappears. There isn't any outside interaction, to bring forth some of the camaraderie required to make a team successful. And that is a struggle because of time zones and etc. However, the three favorite scenes with the Don, that have colored my view of how the town was intended to be and what the Don wanted were:

1) The tavern when the Don gave over the fish.
2) The incident at the dark hole race and Tialdin.
3) The discussion about the gods.

All of those situations were times when the Don was being an actual character in the game, and not a looming figure in the background. It helped ground and center my understanding of who the Don is. I don't want you to look at the Don as a character that should only appear when the chancellors need a decision made or some such. I think the opposite is true. I think for Galmair to be kept on track while still working with the chancellors, the Don is -needed- to appear and interact. The Chancellors may not agree with every decision, and they may get turned underfoot, but it would prevent a feeling of a disconnected leader making a bad call. And that isn't me asking for the Don to be a peace keeper between the chancellors either, but just getting a feel for the character brings the area to life. The Don is one of, if not the, cornerstone of the culture of Galmair. Because of the turn over of the chancellors, it is required that there be some 'unifying cultural element'. Yes, trade is a cultural element as well, but trade can only retain people so long.

The Don has to be part of that culture, in my mind. It helps drive forward the story. It helps 'balance' Galmair.

On the other hand, when those decisions the Don made, were done, and some or all of the chancellors weren't happy, they were left to stew with it. Questions of 'Can the Don be trusted in our discussions any more?' 'Does the Don have a clear understanding of the town?' 'Should we even bother him with this stuff, because he might just get angry at us.' All of which are somewhat valid points from an RP perspective, but they SERIOUSLY hamstrung us as chancellors.

I guess the things I would like to see happen for the Don, the Chancellorship, and Galmair is:

1) More of the Don!

2) Better communication on pretty much EVERYTHING (if as a gm you decide, hey, this is why I think this decision should go this way, letting us as PO's have a heads up or discuss it, just so it isn't a blind reveal with everyone else.)
This will help prevent the feeling of disrespect, as there is obvious signs of time spent, and an awareness of what is happening. Maybe drinking nights with the Don or something? Cadomyr has noble court meetings, and Runewick has 'townhall meetings'.

3)The Don giving a little clearer direction for the chancellors, with discretion of the chancellors
For example:
Don: I think we could use more trade with Cadomyr, Billy, you should try to negotiate that.
Billy: I am not on good terms with Cadomyr, maybe Susy can do it?
Susy: Yeah, sure! We can organize an event together of some kind!

Or
Don: I see there has been some crazy cult starting up Galmair. I am not comfortable with letting it grow. How do you think we should proceed?
Billy: Execute them!
Susy: Or maybe we could pay them off to go somewhere else?
Don: Good ideas. Just know that I do not really want them in Galmair, but if we can turn a profit from them, then try to find a solution.
(This gives the chancellors an end goal to work towards, while confronting an issue that the players may not have been sure on how the Don would think about, thus establishing the culture a little more.)
User avatar
Mephistopheles
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:04 pm
Location: Murica

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Mephistopheles »

Regarding these three events and to explain the Don's and our point of view:
1) Without going into details, but some of the suggestions would have harmed the balance in the town. I can understand this interest from an IG perspective but from a GM perspective, we need to counter that. The Don is also interested in a balance, since it means competition, which means more profit. There isn't much to gain if there is a power monopoly in the town.
2) A ban of these Free Man chars would have been too harsh. In particular, since we use these bans only if there is a risk for the chars in this town. The Free Man didn't repeatedly attack Galmair citizens back then. They attacked other towns and were accused of not following orders from the chancellors and causing war. Sure, from an IG perspective this is a capital crime but we can't support this as GMs. From a Don's perspective, enslaving them wouldn't just be the worse punishment (lose of freedom!) but he would still receive their taxes and a potential war against outlaws would have been avoided (war is bad if Galmair can't win it easily, which wouldn't have been the case). The Don tried to sell this to the chancellors but they didn't want to accept it, which is fine but I would like to drop here some more lines on that to share my GM perspective.
As already stated somewhere else, we only overrule chancellors when we see the decision to the disadvantage of the game and we try to create IG reasons for it like any long war is bad for Galmair, the Gods wouldn't like that, etc. It is totally fine to blame the Don then. He is also there to take blame that chancellors and other chars can transfer to him at this moment. But there should be a point, were we need to move on. It can't be that there are emotional outrages about things that happened 1/2 year ago. I can't imagine that is even fun to play from the perspective of the char who blames the Don. It is definitely not fun for me to deal with the same issue again and again. In addition, it also takes time that we could spend for quests. I really would like to ask players to make a cut at some point. Your chars should also develop and be more flexible. If an "evil" guy has been punished hundred times for the same crime, there should be somewhere a learning curve or do they all suffer on amnesia? In one thing you can trust, the Don lives a very strong paternalism and wants only the best for the town and its citizens. He will not work against you as long as you pay your taxes and follow the rules. There were cases, where the Don could have become pretty active against some citizens like against the murders of Brunsberg but he didn't. They brought profit, they were loyal and they were promising prospects for Galmair. Brunsberg was old, did his shady things, no one was missing him and didn't pay taxes at all! :P
3) This is somehow funny to me since there is the critique that the Don doesn't support chancellors because the only reason why the Don protected Dranis was because he was chancellor and we think the Don has to support and protect them even in such cases. Since Dranis was associated with the Free Man and the judgement before, I can understand that it could have looked like the Don supports the Free Man but anyone who knows the Don a little, should know that he cares for balance (profit) and his chancellors in my opinion. This doesn't mean that chancellors are totally free to do what they want but it was the first time that Dranis attacked another citizen and it was reported to the Don. The Don would have done this for any chancellor in order to show their higher impact and importance for the town. This wasn't even the first time that the Don protected previous chancellors. He did it with Sarangerel, Ufe, Uhuru, Kyre, etc. He might not talk about it and share it with the respective chancellor what he did, so we can't blame that others don't know and accusing him of not to doing it but he definitely does protect his chancellors more than others. I don't see this as a question of fairness but of the game/town setting. There is no equality in Galmair. Illarion is no Thomas Morus simulator (a reference to his book Utopia for an equal world) but a game. Get a higher rank, show loyalty, make profit with your char and your char will have the edge until someone convinces the Don that having no material property is better for him. ;) Your char doesn't need a high rank, loyalty or profit to live in Galmair but you shouldn't expect much from the Don either.

The "Free men" broke no laws, paid soo much gold.. and defended Galmair. These were characters that stood up for their own safety when Foreign entities attacked the Don's chancellor and other citizens. These were citizens who were attacked and challenged.

The char who the Don demanded the head of (for supposedly not paying enough.. we'll get to that in a second) offered the Don a silver platter of profit, one that would get attentions off of war ( or on it, kinda hard to avoid something half your player base wanted) and to project the main focus of Galmair. On profit. The Don could have profited greatly from the Merinium Mine and the soldiers willing to occupy it. Instead he immediately called for heads and slavery.\
Oct 30 08:44:40 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 4551.
Nov 7 08:23:21 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 5278.
Nov 17 11:21:23 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 7911.
Nov 23 13:54:24 Script (info): [taxes] Ulquiorra Dreadhart paid 6915.
Notice that the first two weeks I was rather inactive, yet bob seems to have still paid 45 and then 52 gold. Hefty coin for a non crafter. Don't you get that was all his coin? When I was active the donation bin got more. Common sense.
Another reason for the Don not to trust Bob are reports that Bob and his friends are planing a coup against the leadership of Galmair. Considering the past of Bob and his warmonger attitude, the Don has enough reasons to assume these reports are true and to see himself in the position to make the first move.
Then comes the report by the Bearers. The Don doesn't trust Dji either but more than Bob with his history and plans. There was not much than the words of Bob that Bob wouldn't have attacked the Bearers, when Bob was confronted with this accusation. In other words, nothing. So, the Don sees himself also forced to take action to avoid a war, which would be most likely a loss.


This was ooc info from an unsigned forum post. Also this was after the Don didn't take Bob's own service or safety into consideration and punished him for being attacked. If you don't want people to make coups against you then don't stab them in the back eh? Also it's against the rules to use out of character information to punish a character ingame.
They attacked other towns and were accused of not following orders from the chancellors and causing war. Sure, from an IG perspective this is a capital crime but we can't support this as GMs.
We did not attack any town, we were challenged to war after they attacked us.. The Don ordered his own citizens to lie down and die if they were attacked.

The point in all of this is that you are using a gm char, one that can't even be ghosted. You can just warp my chars to a prison mine. You were fed lies and ooc information and you acted on it. The character Artimer knew more about Bob's plans than the Don did, he knew war was not the goal. In fact Bob was actively trying to prevent it and gain focus on the profit of the mine. The char Evie knew more, as well. They were directly involved in the roleplay and you ignored them. What do you want? Can you at least understand why people were confused by this, including me? Then can you understand why I would be frustrated by this as well as others (who keep in mind no longer play this game)?

Then when I was banned by runewick for fighting Cadomyr.. really? I'm immature? lulz
User avatar
Mephistopheles
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:04 pm
Location: Murica

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Mephistopheles »

The picture being painted of that situation has been frustratingly inaccurate.

The Don commited an ugly act of betrayal, not town loyalty. It was this or he was deceived with false info and ooc info by player characters that had a problem with Bob.

The Don acted in his own interest in his own stupid way. He used bob and the free men as Scapegoats to avoid conflict with the bully steam alliance. When he defended Drathe, Uhuru, and the others there was no such threat overhead. In fact Cadomyr itself had a much smaller population then. But instead of acknowledging this for what it is, all I see is constant rationalization and poor justification.

In a good story the old greedy dwarf would be in for some poetic justice, but nah he's a Gamemaster. This story is his, not mine or yours.
User avatar
Rincewind
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:40 am
Location: schroedingersbox.org
Contact:

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Rincewind »

Hey I miss Brunsberg!
Teflon
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: Review of Chancellor System

Post by Teflon »

@Mephy:
Everything about Bob & the Free Men was said here: http://illarion.org/community/forums/vi ... 54#p697454
There is really no need to discuss this subject here again. The topic here is about the chancellor system & the Don-chancellor relationship. And I didn't even refer to you. Please stick to it.
I will try to explain it to you one more. Your char fought for power against the chancellors and lost the battle, simple because of ignoring the following hierarchy: Don > Hands > chancellors > rest of Galmair > citizens of other towns > outlaws.
Bob, therefore, made three major mistake in his power struggle:
  • a) He laid down his chancellor position by choice. No one forced him. If he would have stayed, things would have looked differently. If he would have stayed in office and would have waited one more month, he and his freeman could have easily taken over via the election and would have had the advantage.
    b) He disobeyed the chancellors after he resigned by performing a permitted attack and risking an unwanted war. Do you want to tell us that you guys defended Galmair's ground in Cadomyr? Seriously, your chars didn't even used this idea during the hearing but admitted your attacks. However, since the Don considers an attack on the chancellors as an attack on himself (said multiple times IG), this can also be easily applied on obedience. Disobedience to the chancellors = disobedience to the Don = no loyalty to Galmair and the Don.
    c) Ignoring the punishment. It didn't take much time & effort for the other three to get rid of their "slave chains" but Bob chose a different path. Fair enough but he and you should have expected that this would have consequences or did he really think that no one would observe him and not notice that he doesn't pay his debt (he was supposed to spend all income to town, thus his taxes would become lower instead of higher!), that he goes to permitted areas without permission, etc?
You should also understand that there is a difference between Free Men's and Drathe's cases.
Drath's case was only an inter-town conflict. No one in Galmair demanded anything for him and the Don protected him against Cadomyr. But the Free Men's case was also an intra-town conflict, which escalated and made the Don to step in. Most of the town didn't support the actions and the attack by the Free Men. There was no solidarity or loyalty for them. Despite that, the Don refused to hand over the Free Men to Cadomyr & Runewick (which is allied with Cadomyr and has reasons therefore to see the Free Men as enemies), which would not be the case if the Don doesn't protect his citizens.
So, if you still want to blame anyone for Bob's current situation, please blame Bob for his poor choices.
That being said, this topic is not going to be discussed here anymore. I will delete any such post.


Back to the actual topic:
Vern Kron wrote:1) The tavern when the Don gave over the fish.
2) The incident at the dark hole race and Tialdin.
3) The discussion about the gods.
I can't remember your second and third example. Sorry for that. :(
Vern Kron wrote:1) More of the Don!
The problem with that is similar to the British Queen. When she shows up, she receives much more attention than the Prime Minister. We experienced similar behaviour when the Don attends. Everyone is just focused on the Don. We, therefore, pulled him out, so that the chancellors would have the stage. Of course, it could be that this behaviour is the result because he shows up too little. We can try the other way around but I would like to hear some other thoughts on this first.
Vern Kron wrote:2) Better communication on pretty much EVERYTHING (if as a gm you decide, hey, this is why I think this decision should go this way, letting us as PO's have a heads up or discuss it, just so it isn't a blind reveal with everyone else.)
This will help prevent the feeling of disrespect, as there is obvious signs of time spent, and an awareness of what is happening. Maybe drinking nights with the Don or something? Cadomyr has noble court meetings, and Runewick has 'townhall meetings'.
We had more of these meetings when Brunsberg was around, however, we received the feedback that they would be boring, thus, we stopped them and didn't not force the chancellors to run such meetings. Chancellors are very welcome to run such meetings. I don't see the necessity that the Don attends there though.
Vern Kron wrote:3)The Don giving a little clearer direction for the chancellors, with discretion of the chancellors
Understood, we will try to be more clearer but we depend here on the feedback if the direction has been understood.
Rincewind wrote:Hey I miss Brunsberg!
Blame his murders! :P
Post Reply