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!
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!