Dual Membership Discussion

Lei_Kung · **Joined:** Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:33 am **Posts:** 570

I was asked to start another Dual Membership thread because the other one has become excessively long, hard to find information in, and lacks focus. I figure the best way to start this thread is with the summary of the last one and follow that up with a discussion of the goals.

Lei_Kung wrote:

Goals
1. Address player group inactivity w/o destroying established group RP
2. Make tribunals more fully representative of a nation’s governance
3. Empower cabals to be the secret societies they are meant to be
4. Encourage greater levels and consistency of RP
5. Establish a political environment that complements tactics with RP
6. Create more tactical and RP options for players
7. More efficiently utilize features currently in the game

Summary
I. Allow characters to belong to more then one faction
...A. Leaders are only allowed to belong to one organization
...B. Collusion is illegal
...C. Midnight Council is split
.........1. Midnight Council becomes the cabal
...............a. A power is added
.........2. The Legions becomes the tribunal
...............a. A caster NPC is added
...D. Oathbreaker
.........1. Still applies to cabals
.........2. Tribunals receive discharge instead
...............a. Honorable discharge parting on good terms
...............b. Dishonorable discharge is parting on bad terms
...............c. Tribunal leader can see all discharges before induction
.........3. Leaders can’t impede members from leaving organization
...E. Increase leader’s ability to rein in members
.........1. More then tarnish and uninduct
.........2. Maybe affect skills, attributes, maledictions, something
II. Move cabals into the shadows (secret society – i.e. Illuminati, Masons)
...A. Remove CRS from cabals
.........1. Change cabal HQ’s to secret non-secure locations
.........2. Allow cabals to design and add their flavor to HQs
...B. Allow members secrecy
.........1. Change cabal abilities so that usage doesn’t reveal member
...............a. Remove casting echos
...............b. Ability affect become unseen/looks like normal return
.........2. New toggle – cabal anonymous
...............a. who list does not show character as a member
...............b. Only shows member/leader tag on cabal channel
.....................i. CBname allows chosen name to appear on CB
.........3. PCB – private cabal channel
...............a. Two members to speak without revealing identity
...............b. Requires mana like a tell
.........4. Cabal Robe skill
...............a. Creates one of three robes: Leader, member, and initiate
...............b. When worn
.....................i. Appears as a robed figure with a preset description
.....................ii. All ways to identify character are made impossible
.....................iii. Items character holds can’t be located
.....................iv. Upon death all eq is lost and corpse can’t be identified
...C. Lessen tactical appeal for cabals
.........1. Remove two powers from cabal current skill set
III. Move tribunals out front in conflict and war
...A. Leadership crosses boarders for waring countries
...B. Make cities siege-able (moving CRS to tribunals)
.........1. Make all entrances have gates that can be besieged
.........2. Gates bar entrance to any of a warring tribunal
.........3. NPC spawning during enemy attack (see CRS)
...C. Destroyable/repairable rooms (Cannibal would need to outline this)
...D. Capture land/build strongholds
...E. Increase tactical draw of tribunals
.........1. Power removed from cabals added to tribunals
...F. Differentiate tribunals from one another
.........1. Powers added to tribunals done in thematic fashion
IV. Miscellaneous
...A. Cabals gain group casting spell
.........1. Affects economy and/or a country/city’s operations
...............a. Can be beneficial or detrimental
.........2. Potency is proportional to number of casters
.........3. Casters lose access to cabal powers
...............a. Duration is inversely proportional to number of casters
...B. Fist is made into a class

Reasoning
Allowing characters to belong to more then one faction
- This effectively doubles the eligible player base.

Leaders only allowed to belong to one organization.
- If a leader leads two organizations, effectively one becomes an extension of the other.

- If a leader leads ABC but is a member in XYZ, effectively the leader of the XYZ leads both

- There is a conflict of interest as the goals and ideals of the two organizations are different

- Circumvents the political workings and undermines the spirit of Dual Membership

Collusion being illegal
- This is because it circumvents the intention and purpose of Dual Membership

- With monthly reports showing membership and induction dates, it is easy to spot

Midnight Council is split
- This is for balance

Oathbreaker and Discharge
- This sets the stage for the differences in the organizations. One being military and the other being a secret brotherhood based on certain ideals. It also sets the table for the political environment.

Increase leader’s ability to rein in members
- Because of the political environment, members having greater tactical powers, and split loyalties, leaders need a way of keeping control without dismissing players but might need a bigger stick then tarnish.

Moving CRS from cabals to Tribunals.
- The very nature of CRS brings about open conflict. This prevents cabals from being shadowy organization. Tribunals which are meant to represent nation’s governance lack the ability to do anything but act as a police force. By moving the epic combat of CRS to tribunals, the focus of open combat shifts to tribunals.

Cabal member secrecy
- This is fairly obvious, if cabals are to be secret societies they need to be secret. For this to stand it one must be able to protect their character’s identity ICly and OOCly. The suggesting above accomplish this.

Lessen cabal’s tactical appeal while increasing tribunals tactical appeal
- First, by lessening the tactical appeal of cabals, they take a step back from the tactical forefront. Conversely, by increasing tribunal’s tactical appeal, they take a step toward the tactical forefront.

- Second, cabals by being able to conceal membership and ability usage gain significantly in tactics and political RP, this gain must be offset for balance sake.

- Thirdly, because cabals keep oathbreaker but tribunals don’t, cabals have an edge in maintaining member loyalty.

- Lastly, tribunals are rather homogenous. This step is to increase the differentiation between tribunals and help formulate a distinct flavor to each.

Allowing leadership NPCs to cross into countries at war with
- This step allows for basic tribunal warfare. This is needed for tribunals to be the overt force, to truly represent a nation’s governance.

Making cities siege-able
- CRS spawned many brilliant features, such as the NPC spawning. This again helps bring tribunals epic combat forefront and helps tribunals fulfill their role as a nation’s government. But just as important, those inventive features will be more effectively utilized.

Destroyable/repairable rooms
- This is another evolution in tribunal warfare where rooms can be damaged. They can also be repaired based on things such as economic state, population, etc. This was entirely Cannibal’s idea and he is the one that should elaborate on it and I don’t want to butcher it.

Capture land
- Again this would be another evolution in tribunal warfare where a tribunal can build a stronghold on the map. Building the stronghold would take time and money. During that time, the site can be attacked and if successful the strong hold isn’t build. If the stronghold is build, X rooms surrounding will fall under control of the tribunal owning the stronghold. After it is built it can be destroyed but is more difficult. This would add another element to epic combat as well as adding an actual strategic element to the game.

Cabals gain group casting spell
- The intent of this spell is to give the organization as a whole a significant bargaining chip to use when dealing with tribunals. It has a significant penalty and a group components to help ensure its use happens for good cause and not willy-nilly.

Fist made into a class
- First, limiting the martial arts to a cabal doesn’t seem right. All alignments should have access to them, the skills are underutilized by being limited to a cabal, and the skills can’t be made to be secret (at least I can’t see a way for it to happen).

- Second, this would give the players another class that many are clamoring for (I myself would love this).

I think this “summary” illustrates the plan and gives some of the reasoning behind the moves. It does not cover every argument nor will it go into deep discussion about how all the goals are met. I believe if one can wrap their mind around how all the parts interplay, the dynamic nature shows how all the goals are fully met. I didn’t break this out into phases because this is long enough as is and because I was having difficulty trying to break apart some of the dynamic functions. Given more time and direction I believe I could do it, but I just wanted to get this

Lei Kung

Lei_Kung · **Joined:** Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:33 am **Posts:** 570

Before even getting into the specifics of the above proposal or any other proposal there is a need for clear definitions of the goals. The intent of this post is to define the goals, their aims, and open them up for discussion. Specifics of the above proposal will be covered later.

lei_kung wrote:

Goals
1. Address player group inactivity w/o destroying established group RP
2. Make tribunals more fully representative of a nation’s governance
3. Empower cabals to be the secret societies they are meant to be
4. Encourage greater levels and consistency of RP
5. Establish a political environment that complements tactics with RP
6. Create more tactical and RP options for players
7. More efficiently utilize features currently in the game

Let’s take these one by one

lei_kung wrote:

1. Address player group inactivity w/o destroying established group RP

The first part of the goal, effectively increasing the player base in regards to organizations, is obviously address by dual membership. There are proponents that would prefer a merging of cabals and tribunals, although Dulrik has stated that he is less then interested in the idea of merging. Dulrik said in response to why Dual Membership instead of merging…

Dulrik wrote:

I do think it makes more sense than merging together groups that don't have the same goals, such as Druids/Guardians while effectively doubling the number of members that can be in groups. It seems to offer more opportunities for gameplay rather than less - both in RP and in character power sets. I'm against regressing to a time of less options.

We can easily see that maintaining the RP and roles of the independent organizations is a goal as well as increasing the RP and tactical opportunities. Because protecting the organizational identities and RP is a major focus, then any solution must protect these assets. Anything that could reasonably befoul these assets or effectively reduce the RP and tactical options a player has access to must then be avoided.

lei_kung wrote:

2. Make tribunals more fully representative of a nation’s governance

Let me start by pointing out goals 2 and 3 are inherently linked so I shall try to limit repeating myself. The very nature of a tribunal is to represent the governance of a nation. This means tribunals should be open (as opposed to secretive), militaristic, and on the front lines of siege warfare. Nations build armies and declare war, these are things that tribunals should be in control of. The CRS that has been developed does much for the siege and epic combat, but tribunals who should be the beneficiaries are left being nothing more then a police force (note I’m not saying CRS is perfect, just that there are many inventive features that have come from it). Any solution must bring about kingdom style warfare, basically allowing Shattered Kingdoms to live up to its name.

lei_kung wrote:

3. Empower cabals to be the secret societies they are meant to be

Unlike tribunals, cabals are organizations that are based on ideals, not land or governments. This means that they are brotherhoods much like the Masons, Templars, or Illuminati. Siege combat is not fitting such groups; in fact the ability to maneuver politically and influence those that are dictating the front lines is much more fitting. As we saw tribunals need be placed front and center of tactical conflict to fulfill their role, cabals need to be pulled away from the tactical front to fulfill their roles. CRS being placed on cabals eliminates their ability to function in secrecy and there is no real political environment in which to operate. Any solution must allow cabals to operate in secrecy while also providing an environment where influence peddling can shift the balance of power.

lei_kung wrote:

4. Encourage greater levels and consistency of RP

This goal seems fairly obvious. Although, it is worth while mentioning because one of the major downfalls of CRS was the RP effects weren’t fully considered when designing or implementing. In fact the system should tie the tactical considerations, RP considerations, and player considerations synergistically.

lei_kung wrote:

5. Establish a political environment that complements tactics with RP

This goal ties directly into goals 3 and 4. In order to encourage greater/more consistent RP and allow cabals to be the shadowy powers, the system should find a way to empower those that RP well. In other words, the greater the ability one has in RP, the greater their influence or power should be. Basically, this would require adding some kind of political element to the game; thereby RP becomes a commodity just as PK skill is.

lei_kung wrote:

6. Create more tactical and RP options for players

Again this goal seems obvious. The reason for such a goal is to add depth and breadth to the game and the player’s experience. Also the greater range of tactics and RP opportunities helps keep the game from being stagnate. Although, in considering this goal, goals 1 and 4 must be maintained. Even though, this goal can be addressed on its own, it would be more effective to find ways of solving other problems/agenda items that also fulfill this goal.

lei_kung wrote:

7. More efficiently utilize features currently in the game

Lastly, this goal is to find ways that more effectively use what the game already provides. As it stands, there are some things that are under used and others that could be more widely used, by finding ways to increase these features positive affects on the game, thus effectively making the time Dulrik spent on them more worth while. Like goal 6, this can be addressed on its own but would be much more efficiently addressed by designing solutions to other issues that then promote this goal.

Lei Kung

Edit: For grammar and flow

Teh_Peso · **Posted:** Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:59 pm

Yay LK, for doing something NO ONE else would ever do. :lol:

Jardek · **Posted:** Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:03 pm

Too complicated. I agree with Tat's version of Forsooth's plan - and even that's starting to border on too complicated.

Also, I completely disagree with the "leaders should only get to be in one organisation" line, as well as the "destroy the fist" line.

Amadeo · **Posted:** Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:33 pm

Jardek wrote:

...starting to border on too complicated.

Also, I completely disagree with the "leaders should only get to be in one organisation" line...

And along with that the impossibility of a single character to dual-lead. It should be unlikely, but if the RP support is there for a coop, it should be possible. And if members of a cabal are suppose to be secret, I would see this as a second reason it would be more probable that not for such to take place. Too restrictive and we get an OOC 'You can't do that.' for no particular reason in-game, and it adds a lot of hassle to any group(s) trying to RP a take-over of another.

I'd say give players/leaders a chance to show they can do something with dual leadership, as far as not restricting it code-wise. Ditto a leader simply having membership in another group. If cabals are secretive afterall, leaders could 'test' the system otherwise as well.

The Mighty Fluffball · **Posted:** Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 pm

About the Fist:
For one, I think that the Fist as a Cabal makes perfect sense. The Fist lifestyle is something you'd have to completely dedicate yourself to, even moreso than a class. However, you can't exactly stay secret with abilities like that. To this extent, perhaps the Fist skillset should be toned down a bit. Not made any less effective, simply less obvious. (People shouting/flying out of the room? Yeah. Fist.) I'm thinking along the lines of a certain quality of fighting. Fists are just plain better up close. This would work very well (IMO) if they were given SOME minor weapons skills. This would give them two options: Fight w/weapons, get buffs, or go full-throttle and get better buffs.

About the Leaders:
Here I split with Jardek. You can't have a leader of X be a member of Y. A leader of both X and Y would actually work better, since said leader would be able to pull wires from behind the scenes to accomplish his/her personal goals. One way for this to work is for leadership to be kept a secret. In order for this to happen, certain leader-only commands would have to be massaged. I'm going to take citizenship as an example. I see two options: A) the citizen is allowed in based on a majority vote, or B) the members of the tribunal are simply forced to pass the word along until just about everybody knows about it, and then at some random point, the leader decides to induct the hopeful. I can see this working very well with CoN RP. The council gathers to examine the hopeful, and then when they're done, the leader inducts the person.

Anonymity is the key here. Without that, you'll have the pitiful toy cabal/tribunal problem. And it won't really go away.

About Cabal/Tribunal powers:
One big problem for Cabal secrecy is the trademark skillset. You concentrate, mutter a word, and poof! Not exactly subtle. One measure to this end would be stealth casting. Take a certain evil spell involving summoning. If no one can tell you're casting the spell, no one knows it's you who conjured the ***s. This would still require a certain caution on the part of the cabal member, but hey. Idiots don't do secrecy. Another solution for this particular example would be something along the lines of drawing a pentagram on the ground. You do it when you're alone, you walk away, you think a word, and bang! Adorable little killing machines.

Regardless of the solution here, I definitely think that Cabal skillsets should be cut down to the essentials. Two, maybe three skills or spells.

Also, I think that Tribunals should get (only) one skill, and that a passive one. Perhaps something along the lines of that one idea for the natural skills (the one about the phalanx) for the empire, maybe a sort of persuade undead skill for the CoN (yeah, you're right, that's a stupid idea, but it's just an example), etc. (If you really want to stick with things currently in-game, you could actually just take current passive cabal skills and give them to tribunals, with maybe a buff or two.) This would serve to increase the tactical appeal of tribunals and it can work with the whole lose-your-relic-lose-your-powers theme without completely devastating a tribunal if D decides to keep that.

That's gotta be the longest post I ever made.

josephusmaximus3 · **Joined:** Tue May 20, 2003 1:19 pm **Posts:** 1896

A good many cabals already have skills/spells that are not secretive

Fist
Hammer
Druids
Adepts
MC kinda
Harlie kinda if they are caught
... oh wait that makes all the cabals!

You would need to find a way to tone them all down then.

The Mighty Fluffball · **Posted:** Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:54 pm

OMFG! I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!!!

josephusmaximus3 · **Joined:** Tue May 20, 2003 1:19 pm **Posts:** 1896

Must be slower that I thought then.

Lei_Kung · **Joined:** Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:33 am **Posts:** 570

Jardek wrote:

Too complicated. I agree with Tat's version of Forsooth's plan - and even that's starting to border on too complicated.

I don’t believe this is an actual argument. Let’s take a moment to examine this statement. First, what does “too complicated” mean? I understand what complicated means and what too means but I don’t understand what is excessively complicated. What makes the above proposal overly complicated? Secondly, this is overly complicated to who? To Steven Hawkings the Big Bang Theory is not complicated but to a 2 year old I’m sure it would be. Ultimately, I just don’t understand how, why, or to whom this proposal is too complicated for.

Then there is agreement that Tat and Forsooth’s proposals are better because they aren’t “too complicated” but they are getting close to being “too complicated”. Which begs the question, at what point do proposals become excessively complicated? And again we must ask to whom and why this XYZ point where proposals become terribly complicated? Another question then must also be asked, are we sure these other suggestions aren’t overly simple? And again all the above questions would apply to the “too simple” statement. Ultimately, this statement offers no clarification on why one proposal is any better then the other. In fact it doesn’t offer any insight into the author’s stance other then he is promoting one over the other, but not why.

Jardek wrote:

Also, I completely disagree with the "leaders should only get to be in one organisation" line, as well as the "destroy the fist" line.

I understand that some want to see leaders allowed access to Dual Membership and even allowed Dual Leadership (the ability not only to be in two organization but to lead them both). Now there are a number of reasons this shouldn’t be allowed but the one I wish to focus on is that it violates the first goal. Because a leader can take effective control of two organizations (either by leading both or by having a subordinate that leads another organization) that leader has the ability to effectively merge the two organizations. By having control of two organizations the leader can then dictate inductions and the direction of both. By his discretion he can for all intents and purposes have all the members be in both and acting toward the same ends despite whatever the goals of the organizations are. This would be in direct violation of the Dulrik’s intent to steer away from merging. It is obvious that any leader wishing to do so could and poses a significant threat of causing such. Worse, it that might then prompt others to do the same if it proves to be an advantage. Thus violating goals 3, 5, and 6.

Regarding not converting the Fist into a class, I have no idea why Jardek opposes this because he didn’t give any reasons why. If that is all he wishes to share, then we know he doesn’t like it and will leave it at that. For my part I do like it. And I like it for the reasons listed in the first post.

lei_kung wrote:

Fist made into a class
- First, limiting the martial arts to a cabal doesn’t seem right. All alignments should have access to them, the skills are underutilized by being limited to a cabal, and the skills can’t be made to be secret (at least I can’t see a way for it to happen).

- Second, this would give the players another class that many are clamoring for (I myself would love this).

Lei Kung

Shattered Kingdoms

Dual Membership Discussion

Who is online