Councilor Spaces

This is just a recommendation for both the DM staff and both forts from years of experience, and I know a lot of you have the same experience I have.

When electing and putting in new councilors, I recommend NOT electing level 40 characters. The reason being that when I finish a character, I have a tendency to want to play and venture with a different character, except in certain RP and PvP scenarios. Therefore, once maxed out on level, my new character tends to have more of an active presence than my level 40 council leader Kade Wolf (who was elected while being 40), to be specific. This tends to be a problem for some people, and I used to get frustrated tells asking for Kade when I was busy running around a new character. So, when setting up these council positions, try and build an RP background with some newer toons played by more experienced players and RPers, and elect characters more in the 25-30 range so they will have more of an active presence around the fort. That or someone who has a level 40 that doesn't want to start a new character. The result of an entire level 40 council in the past seems to have always been an absentee council with little RP presence. For what the goals seem to be in re-establishing these positions, these are my recommendations.

NOW...

DISCUSS!

I wrote:I cannot stress enough that these positions are primarily here to increase and encourage RP. People that aren't active enough, or doing their jobs will be replaced via player votes - or simply stripped of their roles by the captains of each fort.

I promise!

Also of note, this is one way of character progression past 40.

There are numerous ways of doing that from an RP standpoint. If you have a request, an item, a spell, an area - etc. Drop it through to me.

They say life begins at 40, right? ("They" tend to be idiots, but what do "I" know.)

Related to fort balance thread, but putting here..

Maybe anyone who takes a leadership position within a fort must commit to playing that fort full time, IMO if the player enjoys perks for they should be forced to choose one side. Part of committing could be losing the characters on the opposite faction you're leader from. Punishment would be the same, commit to one fort period.

Professor Plum wrote:

I wrote:I cannot stress enough that these positions are primarily here to increase and encourage RP. People that aren't active enough, or doing their jobs will be replaced via player votes - or simply stripped of their roles by the captains of each fort.

I promise!

While there'd be no rule against playing both sides, that's going to be a significant time investment for a councillor. Not active, no position! I certainly wouldn't allow multiple councillor positions for one person, as well.

sniqow wrote:Related to fort balance thread, but putting here..

Maybe anyone who takes a leadership position within a fort must commit to playing that fort full time, IMO if the player enjoys perks for they should be forced to choose one side. Part of committing could be losing the characters on the opposite faction you're leader from. Punishment would be the same, commit to one fort period.

Why not just wipe with a max 5-6 characters per person rule (or whichever number)... on the same faction (mules discluded)?

Since I am the only current active council member I guess I should speak here.. I have always remained Axfell only and at least somewhat present as my council character. Many times I find that I should play a more useful character to a group and thus lose out on potential RP.
I have always reserved the right to elect my own council so this is to some extent disconcerting to me, especially since I have been urged by more than one member of the DM team to be the only council member in Axfell and not name anymore captains.

There have not been many incentives or interest in the past in these positions.. In my years as magistrate I have never seen a regular player role play an attempt at ascension.

I would like to see incentives and interest but I think it is important that people take these positions for the right reasons and be dedicated to them.

I also think 7 positions is too many. Perhaps 4, your head honcho, a leader for casters both divine and arcane, a leader for melee, and a scout leader. And I agree, council members should be one side and one side only. And I stand by my point that it should be a reasonably well known and respected mid to upper level character rather than a 40.

Professor Plum wrote:

Professor Plum wrote:

I wrote:I cannot stress enough that these positions are primarily here to increase and encourage RP. People that aren't active enough, or doing their jobs will be replaced via player votes - or simply stripped of their roles by the captains of each fort.

I promise!

These points are great. However, they are all potential situations in which people would not be active enough.

If people are not active enough they will be stripped of their roles.

I wrote:There are to be no more than 7 council positions. These are traditionally as follows - this is by no means what they -need- to be.

7 positions is the maximum. By no means will anyone other than the leader of the council dictate the size and positions of the council.

I cannot stress enough that these positions are primarily here to increase and encourage RP - ergo anyone possessing a position for the sole purpose of utilising any of its potential benefits, instead of encouraging and furthering RP will be stripped of their roles.

Does anyone read what I write?

I have always reserved the right to elect my own council so this is to some extent disconcerting to me, especially since I have been urged by more than one member of the DM team to be the only council member in Axfell and not name anymore captains.

In reply to this, I haven't seen you actively roleplaying a councillor in... well, ever!

Axfell's councillor situation is going to be tricky compared to Cleaven's. I'd see it more as a rather iron-fisted leader putting friends of his into positions, to strengthen his own. People coming into the council would need to be rather... direct in their approach.

That said, elections could be held and fixed, just to keep the general militia happy. Remember, PC's aren't the only ones that will be affected by councillor actions - there's alot more militia than meets the eye.

Professor Plum wrote:

I have always reserved the right to elect my own council so this is to some extent disconcerting to me, especially since I have been urged by more than one member of the DM team to be the only council member in Axfell and not name anymore captains.

In reply to this, I haven't seen you actively roleplaying a councillor in... well, ever!

In reply to this, where have you been?

I hope you dont take this the wrong way but your ignorance of my presence is a testament to the lack of your own on our server.

For two years I have only gone one time for more than 5 days without logging in the Magistrate. I have countless times roleplayed meeting with recruits and gearing them, giving them a speech about loyalty and Talos as well as leading countless assualts.

There was even a time I have RP'd with him to you directly (on the forum) and you just ceased to be a character (you were a representative of Thay)

^^ and when he isn't on his main character role playing as the leader he uses his alts like 'Kro' etc to do Ivel's bidding. *nods*

(At least from what I've seen before, haven't been active recently.)

I've yet to see you roleplay! I'm not active 24/7 and I don't pretend to be so! I'm sorry if it was taken as you never roleplay ever, it was certainly not intended as such!

As for Thay, that's till ongoing! Better opportunities may have been offered elsewhere, however!

Truthfully it bothers me that I do not play Ivel enough.. I want him to always be present but his build is not the strongest in many ways and often we require a tank, healer or mage so I will play a more useful character, he is without a doubt my favorite character and not my most powerful.

I agree that things can take a fore-front but I was very eager for that storyline Plum, even after a year and a half I would like to see it played through.

I role play the Magistrate as helpful and rewarding but he is strict about certain things (dissent, dereliction, insubordination) there have been marked (and fun!) instances in role of him enforcing his laws and edicts. I do confess that my administration has been more lax lately, I for a time ran scheduled biweekly events and held elections for council positions but those were days with fewer players and less interest in being a leader. I am excited to hear that there may soon be incentives to help council members be a useful token on the battlemap even if they're not pure power PvP builds.

Rann Cora wrote:
When electing and putting in new councilors, I recommend NOT electing level 40 characters.
...
And I stand by my point that it should be a reasonably well known and respected mid to upper level character rather than a 40..

I do have to disagree with this idea, though I roleplayed taking over as Magistrate when I was only level 17 I have remained in that position and active since, granted I have spent a good deal of time leveling other characters but I have still maintained a presence as a leader. I feel that it should carry rewards but ultimately it is a position of duty, I have role played that at each of my past officers' inductions. One assuming this role should be capable to both aid their recruits and perform well against the enemy. Besides, the length of time to level to 40 is subjective, as is one's lack of interest in the character after the point.

As mentioned by Plum this is also to help add an incentive to play a character that is already 40.

Being a council member is a great outlet for additional roleplay but it inherent carries with it responsibility, I have always wanted to roleplay with an opposing leader, I always imagined a very fun encounter between opposing powers but there has never been an active cleaven Praetor.

My point is that the position itself should give a person a reason to stay, I dont think that a parameter should be either that they may or may not be bored with that character. I would say if a person really does not like a character they should not seek a reason to continue playing them.

I'm speaking out of personal experience, both in what I myself did, and in what others around me did as well.

Kade Wolf was Archmage of Cleaven at around 35, a role I loved, a character I loved, and around level 40 took over as Praetor of Cleaven. I still played Kade, and I still very much enjoyed him... but I did start leveling a new character, which some other players took issue with. I believe Kayla Wolf came after Kade. If I was out and about as Kayla, it was often requested I change to Kade for this reason or that, when in fact, I was enjoying Kayla's adventure just as much. This is the problem it creates having an alternate. Adventuring and DOING things at level 40 requires a group and a team, so if you want to do something in addition to RP and others aren't available, you will need to change it up. Other council members went the same way... Fenar Axemaker the Weapons Master vanished because he started a new character... another wolf Balin who took over as Archmage invested time into a new character... I'm not saying it's not possible for a level 40 to hold and be active in these positions, I'm just saying from a REALISTIC standpoint, if your toon is level 40 you're not going to spend all of your active time playing that toon, and some of your fellow players will bug you into switching to your councilor character.

I'm also NOT SUGGESTING A RULE OR PARAMETER THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED. I'm giving everyone some food for thought in their decisions. As much as this is to build RP, in order for it to work properly, OOC things must be taken into account. I don't see a councilor position as a place to go after 40 personally, I see it as something to make the ride to 40 more fun, having done both.

And it can be both depending on the individual.

...How about a Master of Crafts position? I'd love it!