Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
The case for deleting the envoy system
Initially considering inputing this as an IDEA, but something in my heart is telling me that it'd get downvoted into the center of the earth for reasons I can't articulate or understand.
The idea, though, is pretty simple: the envoy system is bad and should be deleted. For those of you who don't know, the envoy system essentially means that 75% of a guild's active population has to be a resident of the guild's "home" city. This more or less irrevocably ties a guild to a city, which, I dunno, I have pretty complicated feelings about. Mechanically forcing a guild to be stapled to a city kinda inorganically cements RP into a single place, and makes certain plotlines/threads more or less impossible. An example, and this is going to be from my guild just 'cause I know the guild history better:
Way back when, there was some conflict between the Infernals and Bloodloch, which kinda became a mini-event. The Infernals abandoned Bloodloch for a time, holing up in a fort somewhere else, until the political tensions eased. They reunited, and we ended up owing Severn a favor (which he literally took like a decade to collect on, but it did eventually have some plot development even years later!)
This is the sort of thing that basically can't happen now. A guild is riveted to a city mechanically, which essentially dams off a lot of vectors for conflict, but more importantly, the stories those vectors bring, and the neat resolutions they may have.
There's other issues as well that are less about macro RP and more about Micro RP. Some people don't care what city they're in. Some people care a lot. It's a factor that makes a pretty big deal to a lot of folks' character identity, and the envoy system can put them in a place where they have to choose between their guild and their city. They have to choose not because of RP, but because some arbitrary mechanical system that lapsed because the guild is going through a population decline (which happens to all guilds) or god knows how many other reasons they might fail to keep their city quota. People invest a lot of energy in getting status and power in orgs, and having to possibly throw one or the other away because of some ticking clock gun that's been put to their head that was meant to force guild identity to be more tied to a "home base city" just feels like a really bad way to have a story run.
And, honestly, I'll admit that this is yet another small entry in a file folder labeled "I think the game has become too centralized around cities, and cities have too much influence on players and orgs both mechanically with regards to roleplay." I understand why we have this city-focused play (sorta), and why there might be an incentive to have guilds mostly tied to the RP of their "home cities." But I'm also not entirely sure who is hurt by, idk, 50% of Sciomancers living in Bloodloch, or 30% of Sentinels preferring the weather in Enorian. I'm not sure why guilds can't transcend their home base city if they want to, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a compelling reason that didn't boil down to "if we don't hold people hostage, we won't get the org populations we want." Which, I dunno, if the primary strategy for keeping people in your org is modeled after a hostage situation, I think you've goofed up somewhere.
The idea, though, is pretty simple: the envoy system is bad and should be deleted. For those of you who don't know, the envoy system essentially means that 75% of a guild's active population has to be a resident of the guild's "home" city. This more or less irrevocably ties a guild to a city, which, I dunno, I have pretty complicated feelings about. Mechanically forcing a guild to be stapled to a city kinda inorganically cements RP into a single place, and makes certain plotlines/threads more or less impossible. An example, and this is going to be from my guild just 'cause I know the guild history better:
Way back when, there was some conflict between the Infernals and Bloodloch, which kinda became a mini-event. The Infernals abandoned Bloodloch for a time, holing up in a fort somewhere else, until the political tensions eased. They reunited, and we ended up owing Severn a favor (which he literally took like a decade to collect on, but it did eventually have some plot development even years later!)
This is the sort of thing that basically can't happen now. A guild is riveted to a city mechanically, which essentially dams off a lot of vectors for conflict, but more importantly, the stories those vectors bring, and the neat resolutions they may have.
There's other issues as well that are less about macro RP and more about Micro RP. Some people don't care what city they're in. Some people care a lot. It's a factor that makes a pretty big deal to a lot of folks' character identity, and the envoy system can put them in a place where they have to choose between their guild and their city. They have to choose not because of RP, but because some arbitrary mechanical system that lapsed because the guild is going through a population decline (which happens to all guilds) or god knows how many other reasons they might fail to keep their city quota. People invest a lot of energy in getting status and power in orgs, and having to possibly throw one or the other away because of some ticking clock gun that's been put to their head that was meant to force guild identity to be more tied to a "home base city" just feels like a really bad way to have a story run.
And, honestly, I'll admit that this is yet another small entry in a file folder labeled "I think the game has become too centralized around cities, and cities have too much influence on players and orgs both mechanically with regards to roleplay." I understand why we have this city-focused play (sorta), and why there might be an incentive to have guilds mostly tied to the RP of their "home cities." But I'm also not entirely sure who is hurt by, idk, 50% of Sciomancers living in Bloodloch, or 30% of Sentinels preferring the weather in Enorian. I'm not sure why guilds can't transcend their home base city if they want to, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a compelling reason that didn't boil down to "if we don't hold people hostage, we won't get the org populations we want." Which, I dunno, if the primary strategy for keeping people in your org is modeled after a hostage situation, I think you've goofed up somewhere.
5
Comments
Pros:
-Forces most people to belong to Duiran. This helps us try to steer the guild more closely to that city, whereas it hasn't really been done since it was moved from Ashtan.
-Gives one org style to better align to, rather than the entire tether. Frees up more roleplay opportunities in that sense. This is allowing the guild to branch out and actually, soon, have some conflicting alignments that some Enorian people won't probably like.
-Causes less in-org conflict should the two larger cities come into conflict with one another over something.
-Stops situations like the Ascendril and Sentaari before, which was that most Ascendril were Duiran and most Sentaari were Enorian - so the guilds almost were swapped between cities at one point. Same with the Carnifex/Sciomancers in Spines/BL back in the day.
Cons:
-Forces most people to belong to Duiran. Means, less members because Duiran isn't that big and the Shamans/Sentinels are usually the gotos long before someone looks at the Sentaari. Unless some stray newbie wants to get in on that neutral class action. We've had a few newbies, most of which find out the guild is not neutral and bounce.
-Limits individual RP outlets to an extent, as someone may want to RP out being a Monk but wants to belong to Enorian so they can be all 'for the light' and not 'for balance/dendara'. Though, with multi-classing, they can still do this without the need for the guild. The guild is more for a theme than it is for the class alone.
Ultimately - I think that the guilds leaning into their home org is not a bad thing. It gives them a little more meat, whereas most guilds would not be able to hold up on their own without the home city. There are a handful that could, but they are the guilds that tend to attract more players on their own anyways and already weren't having theme issues before the change was made.
I hate to say it this way, but I feel that the issue is more that people aren't willing to take as much of a risk based on what their orgs are aligned to. They don't feel like taking the risk of losing an org for their own character's beliefs/convictions/wants. There have been numerous times in the Sentaari that players have taken leaps to do things that wouldn't necessarily work within the guild, or in the home org, but did it anyways because it's what their character would do. Conflict is what you make of it as roleplay happens, more than it being solely defined by the orgs you belong to. Those should be just stepping stones to a greater picture for your character, and help give your character some additional purpose if you want it.
Perhaps it needs coding adjustments to allow for more people to be able to envoy. And, review what limitations/capabilities envoys have. Reconsider how it's built out. But, I still feel it's not entirely the issue, just a coded limitation.
Coding adjustments don't really matter, because the balance of the ledger isn't the problem (that I have with it), it's that the ledger exists in the first place.
If the guild's population concentrates in the city the guild isn't native to, maybe that's an indicator of a different problem. The envoy system is simply a shoddy tarp to conceal that.
I do understand the pain and the limit of the Envoy system. The Guilds are forced to choose who they want to occupy their spot - as in who they want to keep in their guild from the other tethered city - that will bring them the most 'benefit'. For example, some time ago in the Archivists, we did have to ask someone to give up their seat as Envoy for another because we had one who wanted to join but couldn't because there was no space, especially if the original Envoy isn't looking to progress in the guild or contribute to the guild identity. That's a move that honestly feels sucky because I never want to give someone a hard choice to make.
I just don't think it's a good system. I'd love for the restrictions to be so loosened as to be meaningless or simply removed. It's incredibly obnoxious to have to tell people that no, they can't join the guild because we've already got too many people from another city. While I understand the idea that perhaps we would want to tie guilds closer to their cities, and thereby avoid some of the pitfalls tied to tethers, I think the system as it stands is far too limiting for guilds and is just frankly not fun to deal with.
This system is lame.
Bummer.
Plz nuke envoy system, it doesn't really do much except prevent people from pursuing the RP they want to.
Tell me how I'm doing!
I am 100% for deleting the Envoy system and keeping citizenship locked to your guilds city.
If my one wish ever comes true and tethers are deleted, cross citizenship inside guilds would effectively create a soft tether system. I am not looking to have the debate with anyone about pro or anti tether, I'm just stating my opinion on why I don't like the idea of guilds having people citizened in more than one city.
Why should Enorian characters care about the mission of the Sentinels? If you care about those things, why is your character a citizen of Enorian? Someone could argue 'nuance and complexity', but it seems to me like most of them would just not want to be part of Duiran or want to keep their city rank or whatever. If you are incompatible with Duiran's takes, you're probably not compatible with the takes of any of its guilds and you are just fooling yourself.
But we're too far down the road for that, imo, which is why I'm cool with just opening it up and seeing where the chips fall. Maybe we could migrate a guild here or there based on these notions.
Tying guilds to cities in this forced way is way, way more stifling than whatever imaginary problems might arise from allowing people more freedom to pursue their RP, and forcing them to be even more ingrained in the city identity (without making it be the guild's choice a la the Syssin) would make them superflous and antithetical to good roleplay. You're framing this as "we should make players make choices" while also arbitrarily taking their choices away, and that doesn't make any sense. If they have an actual conflict, that's a real choice. If they have a hardcoded backend system forcing them to be in one city because they're in a guild, that's not a choice, that's the very definition of a contrivance.
**I've just been told this is pretty rare (was just something I made up on the spot), since The Templars envisage themselves as a wing of the Enorian military. Great! That's their guild RP, that they chose! Nobody had to force that on them! Pretty cool, if you ask me! This is an RP-driven limitation, not an arbitrary mechanical constraint. Good RP!
By this argument, why was Iesid a guilded Sentinel in Enorian, who also ran for Herald and was War Minister for a time? I think it's perfectly fine for people to want to explore other avenues of RP. Not every Templar needs to be this white-knight crusader, and even though I think members may stand under the same umbrella of a guild's core ethos/goals/code/etc, the diversity of characters makes for compelling interactions. I would argue that Aeryx and Sryaen are two completely different types of Templar, but that doesn't make either of them any less of one. Seems weird to me that it's the same 'all or nothing' mentality that people have generally expressed a dislike of, to encourage necessitating being in a Duirani guild while simultaneously being a Duirani citizen. I don't think there's ever been a time since I've been in Enorian that we've ever discouraged anyone from joining or leaving the city based on their guild affiliations. Or vice versa. I think we're just happy to have more people to RP with in the scope of city RP. I mean, I guess if that's Duiran's stance that if you don't commit 100% then you're not good enough, I mean.. weird hill to die on, but you do you. I absolutely think that does more harm than good.
Tell me how I'm doing!
Like did we all forget that the Envoy system, or at all locking people out of cities based on guild membership, is a relatively new thing? We had a whole Aetolia, for years, without having a mechanical contrivance forcing people to stay in their guild's parent city, and it was fine. If you want your guild's RP to reflect city-totality, that's still perfectly viable if this system were deleted. There's nothing stopping you. This is just arbitrarily constraining guilds whose RP may not fit the strict confines of one city for essentially no reason.
And, furthermore, I think the concern about this somehow entrenching tethers is absolutely silly. Just look at the Spears event; spirit showed up in force, Spinesreach (mostly) sat it out. Both of us have the envoy system, yet both of us had wildly different responses to that event. Why? Because of the conflict structure. Conflict structure is what guides conflict, not necessarily tethers. There's lots of solutions to that problem, but mandating that we forgo roleplay and hardcode city membership is a ludicrous proposal for fixing it. Idk maybe you're concerned about what might happen if your guild has some folk on both sides of a conflict, but navigating that situation sounds like nothing but pure fun and joy to me. It's roleplay, and, I'd like to point out: it's conflict. A real, live conflict right in front of you. It's just not an easy "our group of guilds versus your group of guilds," which sounds tremendously boring to me (if we're talking about that being the sole conflict axis-- obviously this is fun a lot of the time).
I do not think that problem is as bad as it is made out to be.
I do not think that the level of forced direction present for guilds is all that terrible. This is an opinion that is directly opposite of the opinion I held when Oleis originally hard restricted citizenship.
Edit: Had some grammatical errors (probably still do) cause this was a 30+ minute wip that was eventually scrapped. >.>
I think that concept for storytelling overstays its welcome if too many people push for it, though.
I'm all for people exploring new avenues of RP, but I'm not going to pretend that Duiran and Enorian do not have incompatibilities in their org creeds and given themes or perceptions of the IC world. Dendara > All for Duiran; if Duiran's characters had to cull a village for a spirit to repair something in Dendara or w/e, I think we'd probably give it at least strong consideration - and I think Enorian would say 'yo that's not cool guys, there must be another way?' and try to stop it. These things trickle down to their guilds. I think a great example of what I mean by 'incompatibility with takes' is the Church Gorshire Massacre. Yes, there was a guild schism, but it was more about a perception of leadership's ambivalence towards carrying out the punishment at a fast enough pace and an impression that had built for a long time being confirmed to some people. In the end, the guild ended up putting him through the RP designed for moments like this - but not for the actual act of killing Gnomes. They put him through it for damaging the council's reputation with a neutral power and disrespecting guildmates.
But that's the thing: how could an Enorian citizen, with the city's stated mission being what it is, stomach a guild just letting that go? To be frank, nobody in Enorian did. That's proof enough of an incompatibility. Can it be roleplayed around? Sure! We did, but judging by people's aversion to handling or even just tolerating the existence of intra-org drama and intra-tether squabbling (see: Damariel vs. Omei, Sentinels vs. Templar) and the absolute refusal to accept tether unity rhetoric as an issue (where Duiran or Enorian force themselves to accept the other's takes because fighting each other means 'Shadow wins'), I think we're fooling ourselves if we think it would be very enriching for us over on Spirit.
We can say we want this nuance and complexity, but the behavior of Spirit players leads me to believe it's just talk. Any time anything adversarial happens between Spirit orgs, it is often received very poorly on web first and never really received at all IC unless it is explicitly forced like Omei vs. Damariel was. I would really rather not codify that sort of attitude within the game system itself, which is what I see Spirit doing with it if this change were to go through. Just food for thought.
I'm down for the entire thing, really. I'm just being realistic about how I see it going over on our side of the fence after watching things play out in different situations before this. Knowing the list of people waiting, I can't say any of them are signing up for this conflict of interests above or writing some kind of 'self-confirmation' arc like even further up. I think it's more likely they just don't feel like they fit in with any of Enorian's guilds but also don't want to leave Enorian itself. I want to repeat this: I think we're too far along down the road for us to consider any of the problems I just outlined now or above. We should just do it and see how it all settles.
Some guilds are going to say 'no'.
Some will say 'yes'.
Sounds like fun RP to me, regardless of my guesses above.