Reputation and Rank Within Groups

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
Reputation and Rank Within Groups

Reputation has been in use on the site for awhile and it looks like it's working pretty well to reflect how characters interact with NPC groups and organizations. Now that that seems to be working pretty well, I would like to suggest the next step of reputation use: using reputation to grant rank and political positions.

Three Types of Group Structure

Ranks in groups generally fall under one of three types of internal structure:

* Meritocracy - they only care about what you've done lately and that goes up and down over time. The resources you have at hand are directly related to your current standing with the group.

* Ranks - they care about your history and performance and once you have a position you keep it even if you slack off once you're in. The resources you have at hand may be commanded for the most part at will.

* Political - they only care about what you've done in the last year and your butt can get beaten out for a position by someone more popular. The resources you have at hand is limited by rivals within your group.

Meritocracy Rules

The meritocracy structure is pretty easy as it is. The group listens to you based on your standing, and your standing may make it easier to get information or resources. That is reflected by our currently existing reputation bonuses to rolls. No additional rules needed.

Rank Rules

The rank system is a little more complicated. In general the idea is to turn in some amount of your reputation (lowering your current score) in exchange for a permanent rank within the group. No player may start with a rank - they must be earned in game.

That rank may automatically come with resources or information available, though some groups may have little to no benefits. Rank within groups is determined by Setting and does not need to follow a pattern for most groups (military groups excepted).

From a system point of view the following guidelines should be made:

* Available ranks and reputation costs should be noted in the group.

* Gaining higher rank should cost the same or more than previous ranks.

* You cannot skip levels in ranks, they must be earned in order.

* Resources granted by rank should be relatively small and in keeping with the Reputation costs of gaining that rank.

Reputation scores otherwise behave as in a meritocracy group and benefit attempts to lead, gather information or access resources beyond that already provided.

Military Ranks

The only exception to the Setting determined rank and benefits should be the military ranks. This applies to militaries, police, and paramilitary groups.

* Because these positions often have the ability to command NPCs and access group resources, ranks and costs should be standardized.

* Titles should also be standardized for ease of use. A sergeant in one group is also called a sergeant in another so players can easily recognize what they are dealing with.

* Maximum rank to be gained within a military structure should be Capitan - aka a commander of a unit or group. Higher ranks are associated with political ranks and are covered in the next section.

* Ranks higher in command may order NPCs (within reason as determined by Setting) but ordering lower ranked PCs is still limited by the PC to PC consent rules.

Losing military rank is handled the same was as it is for any ranked group, causes for losing these ranks is written up in the organization. Otherwise the ranks are earned by reputation and will stick around.

NOTE: I would like to leave it to Setting to determine a standard list of ranks and the reputation costs to gain them - with advice from players who are current service members more than welcome! Ideally a lifespan of a character from two to five years should be considered for determining how fast ranks are gained.

Political Ranks

Political ranks are the odd man out. These ranks are associated with elected positions, advisors, generals, and counsels that determine the direction of an organization or population. These positions risk impacting the Setting therefore they are limited as follows!

* Leaders of any organization are automatically political positions. This includes elected officials, leaders of guilds, and highest ranking military officers.

* Political positions within a group or populated area are limited seats. At any one time only so many council members, king's advisors, or lords of the city positions are available with a group.

* Because these positions risk impacting the Setting at least fifty percent of the control must remain with the Setting leads. A minimum of half of these positions will be held by NPCs. Those NPCs may change due to plots or other IC efforts. In cases where there are an odd number of seats, the last seat is controlled by Setting.

* PCs may opt to run for the other available seats, and should inform Setting of their interest. These positions are entirely optional and players are under no obligation to volunteer characters for the positions if they aren't interested.

* Once a year at a declared time (no surprise inspections) PCs interested in these positions are checked for reputation with the group. If the scores fall below the declared minimum reputation for the seat the PC does not gain or retain their position. (I suggest these values be suitably high.) If more PCs meet the requirements than there are available seats - then the top contenders win. In the (hopefully rare) case of a tie, Setting and Social should speak with the players to resolve the situation. ICly this may be reflected by an election or by simply being fired by the king for being unpopular with the people.

* Alternate ways of resolving ties: In the case of a tie another related rep could be use to bolster the purchase, or another standardized way be developed to be a tie breaker. One method could be to handle it akin to a recruitment session, where the one that generates the most pp wins. (This will help keep the determination in a neutral form and avoid potential complications) - which technique is used will be noted with the organization and determined by the Setting department.

* On gaining the position, the character immediately loses reputation equal to the minimum reputation requirement of the position and must work to regain the reputation by the time 'election' comes around next year.

* At any time the player no longer desires to continue the political play they can contact Setting to work out an exit strategy and enable them to make an announcement open the open seat for anyone that may be interested.

* A PC can not chose their successor if they leave - any PC interested in the seat once it is open must follow the political rank rules no matter what. This is also to avoid a player potentially getting stuck with a position they do not want, and to avoid someone trying to find a way around the system.

Characters in a political position may be able to push forward Setting impacting plot developments such as calls for legislature, diplomacy, trade or war. Since fifty percent of any political body is controlled by Setting - obtaining these developments should be roleplayed out and coordinated with the Setting department with an eye towards Setting approved developments.

Political positions must be limited in scope in order to balance them with the needs of other players and by taking on these positions you are agreeing to coordinating with the Setting department and to closer scrutiny by the Setting department in exchange for the IC enjoyment of playing out the rank.

NOTE: I leave these also to Setting to determine according to the needs of groups. The larger the population the higher the reputation requirement should be.

Political positions for the most part don't have an ability to command others. Reputation scores otherwise behave as in a meritocracy group and benefit attempts to lead, gather information or access resources beyond that already provided.

---

Questions, concerns, tomatoes? Have at!

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
Like with most system stuff,

Like with most system stuff, I'm going to leave this up for a two week review and comment period before committing it to the wiki.

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
16 sec ago
.

Preliminary thoughts/Setting stuff


Setting should clearly indicate which of the highest ranks are subject to the political rules within an organization.

Simplification of rank structures: In standardizing the rank names we should also limit the amount of ranks within a manageable number as well to help prevent rank gain from being too grindy, as well as avoiding some potential over-complications and confusions. However even if the ranks are equivalent, the authority only extends to members within that organization, or those designated in the organizations (ie: A captain in the SI can command those under them in the SI army as well as the Ramsalon guard, but a captain of the Wood Clan can not command anyone in either of those.)

Generating a list based off of some of the most common military and police ranks off the top of my head we have:

    General/Admiral
    Lieutenant General/Lieutenant Admiral
    Brigadier
    Colonel
    Major
    Captain ------ marked as the highest rank before political rules set in, begins command over designated units within the organization.
    Lieutenant
    Sergeant
    Specialist -- a rank where one does more specific aka 'specialized' work within the organization (ie detectives, inspectors, scout, etc)
    Recruit/Private --- entry rank upon entering

(Admiral was included as there is a common trend to have a more clear designation over higher ranks of authority for sea based units)




Political Ranks

Would suggest a rewording to: "At least fifty percent of these positions will be held by NPCs. Those NPCs may change due to plots or other IC efforts. Because these positions risk impacting the Setting in a major way, some control must remain with the Setting leads"

I would also recommend that in cases where there is an odd number of seats that the majority of the seats are held by NPCs (ie there are 9 spots open, 5 of them are guaranteed to be NPCs, the other 4 are open for PCs to apply to). Especially as PCs are still able to influence NPCs regardless.

Players with an interest in political position should apply with Setting. This can be done by Setting formerly announcing potentially open seats in the forums. Players will be given a chance to make it known which character of theirs would be interested if they would wish to pursue it. Then Setting can go through and make sure the characters are qualified. This also ensures that a player is not roped into some play they do not wish to pursue even though their character is active in certain circles (aka they don't want to go any further and are fine where they are). There should be in place a standardize method of determining the top contender. System and Setting should sit down and discuss this - especially in regards if certain positions can require a certain level of multiple reps to pay to earn the seat.

In the case of a tie another related rep could be use to bolster the purchase, or another standardized way be developed to be a tie breaker. One method could be to handle it akin to a recruitment session, where the one that generates the most pp wins. (this will help keep the determination in a neutral form and avoid potential complications)

Then at the designated time of the year, Setting should announce they will be tallying the politics of which then the scores will be looked at, and the rank rules be applied. At this time if a player is no longer interested in having their character in the position, but they still qualify for it - they should notify setting that they wish to remove their character and open the seat.

At any time the player no longer desires to continue the political play they can contact Setting to work out an exit strategy and enable them to make an announcement open the open seat for anyone that may be interested.

A PC can not chose their successor if they leave - any PC interested in the seat once it is open must follow the political rank rules no matter what. This is also to avoid a player potentially getting stuck with a position they do not want, and to avoid someone trying to find a way around the system.

Setting will work with the Players on related plots. Setting Leads once a year should ask for Setting staff willing to help assist in handling the IC duties. Setting staff that take up this duty will receive extra training to ensure they have the tools on hand and to enable coordination as things move along. Any and all of the IC actions will be reviewed as well to ensure that everything is following the rules and to update accordingly. In the case of a lead's character being involved, then that lead must excuse themselves from any participation of review involving their character. In times where there is only two or less leads, the setting staff will act in place of the excused lead as per the site constitution.

Working on defining the limited scope, Setting needs to clearly define what positions will never be open to PCs due to nature of the role and how it impacts the setting. Then from there Setting should be able to define the influencing seats which would in turn affect the unobtainable positions as per the rules. This will likely be something that would take a bit of indepth discussion. Though currently the rule of those is PC's can't be the absolute highest rank of authority (ie, king, queen, emperor, president, dictator) - as these roles have some of the highest impacts upon the setting, are often setting fixtures, major quest givers, and thus must be accessible by the SH staff to help drive plots. Setting must also know all the motivations and goals of those positions in order to determine the setting direction for the time being, and how those positions can be influenced by players. None of this can really be done with a PC in that role, so recommend use those as the guiding principles in determining how high a pc can go.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
Updated the fifty percent bit

Updated the fifty percent bit and made it clear re the odd-seat going to Setting.

Made clearer how a player gets involved and that it's all optional.

Added a note re: alternate ways of breaking ties - which are mostly a Setting thing.

Added the note re: retirement

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
Re: which positions are open

Re: which positions are open vs not - the ones I can think of: King, Emperor, Mayor, President etc - all of those are single seats.... there's no way to split that position so they'd be under Setting's control already. And since no seats are available unless Setting has decided they are - then I think the guidelines we've put together here will work:

General Guidelines for Positions:

* Min fifty percent split.

* Not a quest giver position critical to Setting plots.

Setting is going to be listing any positions that are available as it is - so as long as Setting follows those Guidelines when defining organizations that should work for us.

---

Re: the political positions for Military. I'm thinking we can probably skip just about every rank between Captain and the top-most position until we have enough players to warrant it? There's no real way to replicate the rank-holding on the way up without getting reeeeaaallly complicated.

Similarly I'd like to add a few more ranks between Private and Captain levels? Just to avoid things getting boring for a long-running character?

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
16 sec ago
.

I did this: http://vaxia.org/forums/discussion-setting-guidelines-determining-ranks-...


The real problem with ranks here is that we kind of have no way to represent organization resources. So atm what people are paying for are just titles. So before we go settling on the number of ranks to prevent boredom, we need to determine how those resources are going to manifest in the game.

The other thing is the standardization of the titles. If we are using the same titles for it all those kinds of groups, some use much less then others. Police forces tend to have about 8 to 10 ranks. So we will be bloating some groups with ranks where there is really nothing there to fill that role, so we got something we need to work out then.

But before we even consider that we need to work out

1) How do we manifest the potential resources available by being in a military/police/paramilitary group? And how do we assign that to the ranks in order to make gaining them worth while. What really defines the difference in the ranks. If we can define this we may actually be able to raise the cut off point more at Colonel then Captain. Leaving three political ranks as options.

2)Cost conversion of reputation points in relation to game rewards. Rank grinds tend to increase exponentially (picking random numbers here) ie the first one is like at 10, the next 20 and then the next 55 the next 90 to draw out that grind, to keep people plugging away at it. If we were to do that the rewards have to match. So how does rep translate to terms of PP (ties back to 1)

3) What exactly about this kind of play is enticing to a gamer. Forgetting entirely for the moment any reflection of life, we need to focus right on the purpose in the game. Because if the whole point is to just grind ranks for barely any rewards - that is going to be boring as all hell no matter how many ranks there are. Instead players are going to be more like omg not another one, how many more are there ugggghh. (number one complaint I hear about any game related rep rank grind.) Especially as ranks can not be skipped. The rewards of the rank is going to be the driving force, but if we have too much that will quickly become a wall.

4) In terms of long running characters - it is going to come back what holds the player's interest and the work/reward ratio. In general though we have no rule that forces a character to enlist in one group and that is it. So what will likely happen is that players are going to join multiple groups, and rotate between them in order to gain access to another set of resources and rewards. If we make some group ranks too grindy then those are not going to be all that appealing to pursue, especially if they can get similar rewards elsewhere.

5) This is probably a bit off in the future until we can get more things settled, but I had an idea that in regards to making joining guilds/organizations more appealing is basically a quest board. It was semi inspired by the I'm Bored button, and what tends to happen in most games that have guilds and organizations to join - access to 'special' quests. It can not be entirely automated, but the jist of the idea is that each rank in an organization will open up access to basically session prompts - (the prompts will be limited to a 'set' of organizations kind of fitting a theme). Not all prompts will have to be a mini session either, there will be ones that could be done as scenes, and some prompts they will need to recruit other PCs to come with them (to offer a mix). What will happen is players that characters that qualify can pick 1 of the prompts and then if its one that has to be done has a session put the request up and connect with a SH. The prompt will be pre outlined so it will be plug and play for the SH with enough room to account for if things go sideways. Once finished there will be a limited set of rewards. If part of the idea is to also push more use of reputation, then if we can figure a cost conversion, we could potentially offer a way for players to play a rep fee to 'upgrade' a reward. There will be a series of prompts and SHs will be able to contribute at their leisure. We can rotate out sets of prompts over time to mix it up, put a time limit on it, and also mix up the rewards.

For when it comes to rank and rep grinds, to just climb ranks, is boring, even if the rewards are good.

We need to be really careful with how many ranks we put in no matter how much we want to mirror a realistic time. because we are tying ranks to rewards - so how many ranks we have will be ultimately decided by how we can manifest the gains in the game.

We can not also assume that earning ranks is going to alleviate boredom for long term characters. There has to be a balance on what they can gain, with a freedom to pursue other forms of play on that character.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
That sounds good to me :) And

That sounds good to me :) And it's all the details under the Setting end of things - so as far as System is concerned we're good to go now that we know how the mechanics work. *passes the ball over to Setting to determine the IC details* :)

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
16 sec ago
.

Btw I apologize if that came off as angry or something. I just kind of ended up brain dumping all over the place. >.>

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
Didn't come off as angry at

Didn't come off as angry at all, least not to me! I passed the ball mostly b/c the exact implementation details are all IC. How Setting wants to determine it because so long as payoff matches benefits it's all good from System's point of view. :)

You make a great note about Rank and how to avoid it being boring. Admittedly in my view I was relying a lot on the assumption that players who want to go for ranks are doing it mostly for the goodies of getting to walk around with a title and not so much for actual benefits. Which is sort of shorting the effort involved to gain the rank.

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
I love the questing idea

I love the questing idea actually - that will also give our SHs somethings to do when they're out of more unique ideas. Certainly should be on the list for implementation when we can do it :) I'm picturing things like defending a thesis at the Mage Guild and the like.

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
16 sec ago
.

Yeah figured I would still apologize just in case, I re-read it this morning and I know how I get when I am just trying to filter ideas to figure something out (plus I have been a tad cranky due to not feeling well).

re: Titles
At first that is what I thought as well, its all about the titles, but the more I chewed on what we was looking to do with this system and general game play it seemed we needed a bit more, especially with mention of access to resources so that is what got me thinking - how exactly can we do that. So a player can feel like their work had some kind of impact. Which in general should help make any work put forth in rising in an organization more satisfying. In addition this will also become a way players can customize their characters.

re: Quest Board

Its an idea I have long had, but have been trying to think how we could bring this forth because the I'm bored button is fantastic cuz sometimes we need just something to get the rp juices flowing. Take that idea and that we want to start building up organizations because some of those groups is what influences the setting direction (ie types of government etc), plus the current state of IC employment which is - you get a mini session, get an econ boost and then you have a job on the character which expands your topics of rp you can do. Guild/organizations are kind of fantastic to have a quest board because - it gives a way for players to influence the growth of them, it gives rp prompts which can help inspire players and SHs in a time where they may have a little idea drought. Kind of keep things active and stuff. And also with us trying to implement more special holiday events - we can use these quest boards to kind of let players help design what goes on - ie around the Winter Revelry time frame, the quest boards would be filled with prompts related to what events should be during the revelry, or PCs staffing some of the events enabling for more active roles beyond participation in the tourney and spectator.

Plus these quests we can put in some rewards that are fun titles, achievements etc - basically the 'showing off' stuff. So we can cycle through the availability of those titles, or make them unobtainable after a set time thus making some more exclusive. Keeping that separate from the actual rank titles I think would work better because 1) offers even more character customization, 2) we don't have to worry about players getting confused trying to keep up with how everything translates, 3) is there for the players that do want to chase titles.

nezumi
nezumi's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberAssistant Storyhost - ASH1
Last online
6 months 4 days ago
Some quick comments;

Some quick comments;

1) In military, usually there's a barrier to entry between officers and enlisted. Currently it's a military education (frequently at a military college). Historically it's been paying cash. I don't think we'd want to realistically model a situation where a character can just plop down 10,000 gold and be a lieutenant without any other investment. However, it may be good to add some additional challenge or trial before a character can rise from technician to someone with command responsibilities.

2) Can characters leverage their reputation to boost another character? For example, if someone campaigns on behalf of someone else?

3) I would recommend a fourth categorization; appointments. The king can knight whomever he pleases in recognition of whatever purpose. The king can have whomever he pleases as a vizier, regardless as to what the public thinks. This isn't a 'command rank', but it is a title that can be given as a treasure-type reward in exchange for completing missions or personal favors, bought for cash, or perhaps most importantly, occupied by important NPCs who can't be ousted just by changing public opinion. For the purpose of game play, PC titles cannot be inherited by other PCs, but NPCs may inherit appointed titles (where appropriate).

Bastlynn
Bastlynn's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
6 days 16 hours ago
1) Reputation gains are

1) Reputation gains are exclusively through posting scenes or getting the award after a session. So the RP work is built into the system that way. The character will need to get the award through work. So none of these should be a pay-for sort of deal.

2) That... is an excellent question. In order to help someone else a player would still have to be doing the work of posting to get the boost in. They'd just have to ask for the rep to go to someone else, but someone is doing the work along the way. *hrm* Assuming the recipient player is ok with getting the rep (some might not be for various reasons) I can't think of any obvious reason not to allow that. System / Social may have more feedback on that one though.

3) For that last idea we have something similar already - that is the Achievements field that SHs can add to a character. That's intended for missions and personal favor sort of awards. With the ranks and political stuff we're not planning on opening all positions, so securing an NPC in appointed spots ought to be built in I'd think?

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
16 sec ago
.

1) Bast got that one right on the head. Some ranks may even need more then 25 rep to buy (remember characters can earn more then the 25 - its just that it caps at a +25 bonus to social interactions). The higher one climbs, the much more rp work is needed. Sessions tend to cover the 'trials' part. Plus we do have the idea of the quest board floating around atm which can be another place for certain trials and challenges to be presented.


2) I have some questions to consider for that one: Is it fair for one player to do the work for another? Can this be exploited?
With items and money we have the understanding that so long as its not forced, people can do as they please (ie buy gifts for other players, etc), so that technically answers the first - so long as its not forced and is done willingly then yes, its a player to player agreement.
However with rep - some ranks can impact the Setting much more significantly then just handing over an item or coin. So I am a tad uncomfortable following that precedence in this case.
Especially in the case of: Bobbyjoe's character gets a noble council position, however after 2 months Bobbyjoe stops coming around. Bobbyjoe comes back 2 weeks before the audit, however 3 of Bobbyjoe's friends played all year. Bobbyjoe begs them to give his character their rep so he can remain in the position. Bobbyjoe's pals agree and gives him their rep - so Bobbyjoe stays in that position with no work done himself, and prevents other players that have been around and active from getting a chance for the position.

Working off of that premise I would recommend that the only rep that can be traded to the player are earned from campaign scenes. This to try and avoid such scenes or other similar ones:
If the players agree upon one campaigning for another there is a brief RP to established that - This establishes the start point of the scene where the one character is campaigning for another.
The campaign duration lasts only until appointment of positions - even if the character looses. Then a new 'scene' must be established.
Up to 75% of the rep earned in the campaign duration can be transferred to the target player character. (this is to avoid some players screwing themselves over, and to reflect their own character gains even though when campaigning for someone else)
This can also include rep earned in sessions so long as in one point of the session the character did a little campaigning (however those posts from the session then can not be used in the scene itself)
The scene does not have to be one continuous one - it can be submitted in parts as the player desires to.

This then leaves us with the problem of covering buying campaigners. With the above there is always work to be done, so no one can just pop back in and go I will give 20,000 silver for your Ramsalon Rep at the very last minute. In general players at any time have a right to basically name their character's price, but we still need a baseline in case someone wants to make a character where this is basically their job. In essence they would get paid by the scene ( I would go and say that maybe session rep transfers not be counted - but if that session rep isn't transfered then that still means those posts can be used in a campaign scene which still gets them credit in a way).
Now while scenes do have a way built in to count earning silver, earning rep isn't tied to any rolling, so the idea would be to established a flat rate to charge based solely on the rep earned.

Reputation acts as a situational social modifier up to 25 (positive or negative).
We already have a conversion for item values - however if we were to use the tiers as well, that can start unbalancing things as it will strongly favor people that can make the most amount of posts (this even with the rule of thumb that each post in the scene must be relevant to the topic and contain at least a couple of sentences). Then add in the extra value that spending rep has for the one buying, with the expectation that on average most scenes in this regards will probably be in the 5 to 10 rep ranges. The average value of those two tiers for items seems like a good rate to judge off of.

So this would mean that 1 point of Rep is worth 75s
Earning 5 points of rep for someone would net 375s
Earning 10 points 750s
Earning 20 points - 1500s

(If someone wants to sit down and help map out the math a bit more I would love you, but atm even with rough estimates and assumptions being taken especially in regards to the econ climb, it looks ok? May adjust pending when we attach actual rep values)


3) Yep that sounds like achievements to me - its a relatively new feature, so it hasn't been used a whole lot. Prolly should put that on the to do list to get that more visiblity and the intent behind that section.

nezumi
nezumi's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberAssistant Storyhost - ASH1
Last online
6 months 4 days ago
I should clarify #1. If you

I should clarify #1. If you are modelling real-life ranks, you may want to consider that individuals who want to rise up to command, complete a task specifically related to education on command. So killing orks, even a lot of orks, is not enough to get someone from Sergeant to Lieutenant. But completing war college, or taking lead of a group during combat condition, would (in addition to the actual reputation level).

For #3, I'm thinking for completeness-sake when the final wiki article goes up. If I see there are two ways people get rank, but in reality there are three, I will be confused and frustrated. It could be we just say "characters may have certain ranks due to Achievements. For PCs, these do not give any of the benefits of ranks earned through reputation or elections. For more information, see: Achievements."

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
16 sec ago
.

Quest board idea - not all of them are going to be kill x thing, it could also be things like researching, etc. It won't exactly be modeled off of real life. Cuz taking 4 years to earn a rank is not fun ;)
But yeah there should be more events then just killing x thing. Generally it seems that atm reputation is given in session where we see a bit more of what you described basically handling things above and beyond the rawr kill.
Also players can not do rawr kill things in solo scenes.

The political ranks are the ones where there will be a huge difference and are likely to be more akin to the RL 'officer' ranks being thought of. Those ranks will require a lot more work beyond the rawr kill the enemy kind of thing as there is a constant maintenance to be done.

In theory the most likely characters to go that high will have some kind of skill to relate to the duties of that role as it comes up in the character's play a lot. But also there are more then one way to climb those ranks depending on the situation

I am hesitant to tie in any other requirements into the ranks until more of it gets sorted out. This is due to the amount of work being anticipated in keeping certain ranks and to throw more on that could be detrimental to the concept of this in play as a whole and thus something that only a very small percent of players pursue. Even more so as some of those scenarios may require a SH and if no SH is available when they are around that kind of screws over that player.

Though I would also argue that in some societies killing a ton of a declared enemy is enough for a promotion to higher leadership. To have a universal qualifications such as that will screw over any of those such of concepts as well.

The parts we want to keep universal is the amount of ranks and their titles (which also means the rep required will also be universal) - when it comes to the military/police

So the rep gains should in theory be reflected by what the society of the organization generally values. In cases where education and leadership examples are favored - then characters should be granted rep (and thus showing experience in such cases to qualify), and in cases where battle prowess is considered a reflection of lead by example - they get rep that way, and so forth. We can easily add this into the rewards guidelines to help A/SHs have a better idea on when to give rep.


So prolly break it down like this:

Ranks give a certain titles - these titles are a reflection of the rank held for an immediate recognition of the status of the rank.
Achievements can give titles too - these are not tied to ranks in anyway but rather just a title for bragging rights/notoriety in general.
An achievement does not grant a rank.
Achievement titles should be different then rank titles to prevent confusion.

nezumi
nezumi's picture.
MediatorNewbie HelperSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberAssistant Storyhost - ASH1
Last online
6 months 4 days ago
On the first, are you

On the first, are you implying that different factions can have additional requirements beyond just reputation costs?

Total agreement with the second.

Zxehenia
Zxehenia's picture.
MediatorSetting Department MemberSystem Department MemberStoryhostSite Lead
Last online
16 sec ago
.

Sorry having some trouble with my hands and such. Hopefully will be able to be clear.

Historically yes, some factions have, for example the mage guild requires certain skill stat ranges for their higher up ranks. This was also before the Rank and Reputation system as well. That will likely be reviewed once we get an actual rep cost in.

What I meant about the skills is that characters that tend to go for the higher ranks already have some kind of leaderish skill - I meant for that to be a reflection of their 'education'. and with that skill they are likely to make more reactions based upon that. Hence I don't see much of a need for adding such things in. Going back to the Mage Guild, before the last update of it, the ranks had some pretty crazy requirements for skills in order to climb - that is something I would like to avoid coming back ever again (as it would have been very hard for even caster players to get to that point.) We shouldn't have to worry about that too much with the new reputation system.

In general though the way of earning rep will reflect the overall society of the faction one is climbing in. Which means the reward advisement should be updated to provide a better idea on when to give out reputation - aka times of showing leadership should earn rep for a faction that would favor such thing, etc. So the whole doing leadery things, education should already be built in the reputation gain. Even more so since players can not do combat in solo scenes - that requires a SH, so a player looking to increase their rep gain will do solo scenes (keep in mind some of these higher ranks will have rep costs that could be higher than 40 - the actual reputation points do not cap at 25, just the social bonuses do. Thats about 40 hours of work assuming the quickest average taken from here http://vaxia.org/forums/discussion-representing-rank-rewards-game)

And we will have a way to kind of prompt players to do that sort of rp anyways.