Looking at a constantly declining number of players and general unhappyness with some design features (ingame wise, not technical, mind you), visible in this and this topic, I think a discussion should be had as Achae suggested when the topic was closed.
Also I am aware of the fact that this is a rather radical proposal, I'd like it as a base for discussion / brainstorming on what could be done.
I'd also like people to keep in mind that there's not much to lose, except perhaps personal security and achievement of some characters (who will still get a say, see below).
In any case, even if you disagree with everything that follows, don't just write "this is not good" or "this is too invasive" but share your thoughs. I do not claim this proposal is perfect in any way and don't need to get reminded of it in a more or less friendly way.
I am also building this around the following statement:
A more dynamic system of succession, ascension and participation in townsVern Kron wrote:One of the things that /desperately/ frustrates me is how static Illarion is, and we do it in the name of balance. "Every town has their special thing!" Ok, great, but what you are effectively saying is that the towns cannot ever grow beyond what they already are. We can't explore or develop towns further than what already exists.
So then it gets pushed on to the GM team to liven things up. And the real thing that they can do, is only cause hamstrings to characters. Creating opportunities for town development can't occur, because it might disrupt the balance of the game.
An overly balanced game, in which there is no movement, only creates stagnation. Long term players have no incentive to build wide, so instead they build up, on a singular character.
The current system favors people to build up and then stay where they are, forever.
I am aware that tiles can be lost, however the barrier to do so is very different from town to town (Galmair is most dynamic (not saying it is perfect, because it isn't), Runewick and Cadomyr are not).
This proposal will also entail the introduction of a more GM run town system.
The design would be quite simple: Bring back the three town leaders as heads and make them more active. It's not enough to see your town leader once a year. In turn, nuke the noble houses, the chancellors and similar institutions and replace them with a town aristocracy. These are player characters that are currently active. Each town GM decides to give them a special title (I'd suggest the equivalent of Knight etc, there's too many gems around anyway) and that is it. (Reserve all higher titles for GM characters or for a time when we have an AVG of 15-20 players again, should this time ever come.) These people make up a town council and have a voice each, with the town leader (GM) having a veto. Nobody else gets a veto. That's how the VBU started off, right?
Does this break town RP to a degree? (Also read below why the town system we have right now is the biggest immersion killer and ooc bias ever.) Not necessarily, as the town leaders (GM) decide who gets to be aristocracy. In Galmair this might mean putting down a lot of money (ALWAYS coupled with general activity as this is the point, which means being online regularly and not necessarily events, because hosting events for two or three people does not advance the game), in Cadomyr it might entail being a honorable and pious citizen, etc.
This way, even a new character (or, the rarest thing, a new player) could have a say whenever they are actually playing. There'd be no lengthy election periods, there'd be no begging for people to take a leading position (in relation to what Djironnyma wrote in one of the topics), there would be no inactivity of leadership or longing for it at all: Players who actually play a lot get rewarded, people who drop out for a bit lose nothing: If they come back, they will regain their former status. The game will be a game: Play when you want. Right now, you are either a leader and the game becomes a job or you're not and you'll never have a real say. We're handing out too many punishments and too few rewards. There is no playerbase for being serfs. Instead, put everyone on the same level, allow characters to bring forth ideas and then have the entire active population vote on them.
This would require three active GMs (Slighly can't do everything on his own, especially not all three towns).
Couple this with allowing towns to grow beyond what they are (not allowing e.g. Runewick an anvil is the greatest example of forced RP and ooc bias I have ever seen, saying "the gods don't want this" doesn't make it any different)
AND forget for a moment that we need three towns (if people like to all flock to one and the others get deserted -- fine. Most characters only visit other towns these days to sell their loot only, so nothing is lost) and we might have the sandbox approach back that, in eyes of many, made Illarion great once.
To sum up, Advantages:
- Play time gets rewarded above all else (artificial measures of appointment are dropped)
- There's no beef between players (but between CHARACTERS)
- Making new characters will be more rewarding
- A lot less bureaucracy ingame, at least on the player's side
- No "behind-closed-door" meetings trying to avoid other characters as best as possible, only collective town decisions
- More casual, sandbox like gameplay
Disadvantages:
Shoot
edit: I felt like I should add that I'm not aiming to attack any players or how they played their characters. That would be wrong: Their characters found a system in the world and played by its rules, which is not a crime, it's natural. The point is to change the underlying system, not the people.