Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings
-
You might be able to do a variation of my "every character is permanently on the roster and you just get to play them for as long as your logged in" idea. Players can have one character that is solely theirs. All non-exclusive characters (let's call the exclusive ones Feature Characters) are permanently on the roster and anyone can take them for a spin on a given night; however, they can only take non-FCs that belong to their FCs organization/house or non-FCs that are unaffiliated.
-
I kind of feel like the threat of people freaking out because a lack of available alts or whatnot is kind of overblown. And, honestly, if torches-and-pitchfork people really exist in meaningful numbers... do you need those people on your game? Do you need to placate them? I feel like you'd be better off without them.
-
@ominous said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
You might be able to do a variation of my "every character is permanently on the roster and you just get to play them for as long as your logged in" idea. Players can have one character that is solely theirs. All non-exclusive characters (let's call the exclusive ones Feature Characters) are permanently on the roster and anyone can take them for a spin on a given night; however, they can only take non-FCs that belong to their FCs organization/house or non-FCs that are unaffiliated.
I am not a fan of this idea.
I do not like Rosters, because while it can create 'consistancy', (who is related to whom etc), it makes me feel like the character isn't mine, and that.. irks me.I also don't like that you have to take character that are non-FCs belonging to their FC's organization.
What happens if Player A comes in after all the things they'd be interested in are gone? Do they just not play?
-
@runescryer said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
@ganymede True, but a bit of further planning can eliminate that.
The issue with that (and we're going to stray off topic here a bit, I think) is that it's very difficult to prove the case or the opposite. Meaning there is always a case to be made about whether my alt was involved in shenanigans or not concerning my main's IC interests.
Even if he didn't, or it wasn't intentional, or even if the accusation itself is an attempt to discredit me, the doubt still taints the political picture.
-
This post is deleted! -
@carma said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
Isn't it interesting, though, that they seem to want to put 10 alts on one game instead of one alt on 10 games?
Not necessarily, no, though it could be!
Generally, one game is going to have a very different feel to it than the others, something that clicks more with you than what else is on offer.
There are like counts approximately -- five or so public Ares games using FS3 for Supernatural Shenanigans, but there's approximately 1, maybe, that I would consider playing on for various reasons.
The fact that people will play on some games, but not others, even when running nominally the same stuff isn't the surprising or confusing part. It's more -- how do you even keep up with that many characters? Why do you need that many?
-
One thing to consider allowing an alt for is that characters in positions of responsibility can be draining and cause them not not desire to log in. Since this is a Lords and Ladies discussion thread I will use stuff relating as an example. Lets say some plays a King and they are doing all the 'duties' of playing a king character. They could be playing a nobody peasant that makes candles for a living and does nothing to take on much responsibility beyond making candles for people just to have a bit of an escape on a game they enjoy playing. So, that is something to consider when deciding alts or not. An option could be that if you play X position you can have an alt for not being leadery and such. People have frequently expressed guilt about not being available for thing because reason.
As an altaholic myself, I do think that if you don't want to allow for alts on your game you shouldn't. There is plenty of games that allow for alts. If not having an alt is a deal breaker for someone that is fine. If an altaholic likes your game enough they will accept that the alt is not an option and will play anyways. Don't cater to us altaholics, cater to what you want your game to be.
-
@icanbeyourmuse I'm not an altaholic but I do believe in allowing at least one alt. Because sometimes, you want salty and not sweet, to make it simplistic.
Of course, there's always, one FC and one OC alt. So if someone needs a break from main character, they have a different POV to take for a spin.
-
@icanbeyourmuse said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
One thing to consider allowing an alt for is that characters in positions of responsibility can be draining and cause them not not desire to log in.
Is that a real problem though? I don't have nearly as much experience with L&L as many folks on this thread but I feel it's usually the opposite that's the issue -- there are too many chiefs and too few underlings. Sure, the positions involve work... but that doesn't seem to diminish their popularity.
So if there is such high demand for the top-end positions why give them away to players who aren't active enough for them? Isn't that a more desired solution than handing them away to the person who has multiple alts, or who wants the prestige of a rank but not the associated responsibilities?
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
@icanbeyourmuse said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
One thing to consider allowing an alt for is that characters in positions of responsibility can be draining and cause them not not desire to log in.
Is that a real problem though? I don't have nearly as much experience with L&L as many folks on this thread but I feel it's usually the opposite that's the issue -- there are too many chiefs and too few underlings. Sure, the positions involve work... but that doesn't seem to diminish their popularity.
So if there is such high demand for the top-end positions why give them away to players who aren't active enough for them? Isn't that a more desired solution than handing them away to the person who has multiple alts, or who wants the prestige of a rank but not the associated responsibilities?
It is. People like to have the fancy titles (hence why popular), whether they do what is asked of them or not is a hit or miss. A lot of Lords and Ladies games have people that camp power characters and do basically nothing. There are also those who try to help people but start getting overwhelmed. It is not a matter of their activity but giving them a space where they can take a break, unwind, destress, etc. I would rather someone be able to have a place to retreat (over off the game) where they don't have to be mindful of their responsibilities when they need a bit of an outlet to keep playing their power character.
-
A setting where every sentient can conceive and carry a child, with control of conception.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@misadventure said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
A setting where every sentient can conceive and carry a child, with control of conception.
To be honest it surprises me the second part at least isn't a default option.
Games that enforce pregnancies are weird. That's not even kink-shaming. It's just... weird. And kinda misogynistic, frankly.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel oh I mean it to be an IC, in culture thing. Absolutely stepping around the idea that it's just for PCs and their players.
-
I would go with that and write the setting so that adopting an adult heir is considered normal and valid. Kind of like Caesar and Octavian. Does away with the need to breed as a story device.
-
@pacha Too far for me. At that point, you may as well just make the next generation by nomination, or merit, unless the parents are supposed to play a major role in training so as to pass on their expertise (as opposed to just raising someone in privilege and hoping they have the personality to become good at whatever is used to determine merit for leadership).
Thats just me.
If you take out the family aspects to any major degree you may as well switch to Guilds or Corporations as your model.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@misadventure said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
@pacha Too far for me. At that point, you may as well just make the next generation by nomination, or merit, unless the parents are supposed to play a major role in training so as to pass on their expertise (as opposed to just raising someone in privilege and hoping they have the personality to become good at whatever is used to determine merit for leadership).
Thats just me.
If you take out the family aspects to any major degree you may as well switch to Guilds or Corporations as your model.
New idea: Cyberpunk L&L
-
You could always go FULL BATTLETECH CLANNER about babies, but that might be a little too... eugenics-y.
-
@jennkryst said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
You could always go FULL BATTLETECH CLANNER about babies, but that might be a little too... eugenics-y.
A 'little'?
-
Yeah, I mean, in the historical example I gave that is what happened. It was very common in ancient Rome. I just find it odd that we can accept dragons and magic and sentient animals but adoption is the thing that breaks immersion.
-
@pacha said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
Yeah, I mean, in the historical example I gave that is what happened. It was very common in ancient Rome. I just find it odd that we can accept dragons and magic and sentient animals but adoption is the thing that breaks immersion.
I think, for the answer to that, you'd have to explore why people want to play L&L games in the first place. It seems to me that quite a few - maybe even the majority - of people who are attracted to these games do so because they WANT to play marriage RP with Important Babies and powerful lineages. The prince/ss fantasy isn't quite the same if anyone gets to be a royal just by being adopted by one.
Which isn't to say such a game would fail or be a bad idea, just that it probably would need to consider its audience, because some of the immediate appeal of the genre for a lot of players would be absent. You DON'T see people lining up to play political games centered around guilds or senates or free cities, even those would be valid settings and even easier to have a wide variety of characters in a MU* setting.
