Should BtSH call it quits?

[/Bean\]

I think anyone should right down any ideas they have, no matter how far fetched. These can always be rethought or inspire other good ideas. The more we get down now the less problems we'll have later. It shouldnt be one person thinking up everything, as the more people the graeater the range of ideas and inspiration.

I just reread that and it sounds strange. Basically I'm agreeing with you :D

[The Celtic Viking]

IMO the "faction leader" should represent someone chosen during these meetings to hold the meetings and perhaps also as the chosen commander if we need to band up against a common threat. I don't think it should represent any actual lordship over other tribes (or even necessarily his own).

IMO Council sessions should not be held on any specific regularity so long as we're not united, but can be called by the "faction leader" (and the chiefs of each tribe can request one to him). It should be about things that concern all tribes, like banding together against a common foe, unification attempts or perhaps an attempt to get to some general agreements like "don't exterminate the populations" or whatever.

1: The tribal council; one (thread) for each tribe, where the chief and the thanes of the tribe would meet to discuss politics and so on. This would act like the BtSH (or more likely the WotB) council sessions, where the thanes discuss their ideas with the Chief, and the Chief decides what to do. This would include domestic and military ideas. Of course there is the problem of players from other tribes reading all the different tribal threads and gaining advantages. We cannot hope to stop this from happening, so we would have to be more cunning; perhaps not everything said in the council can be trusted...

Sounds more like TVS.

Anyway, two different sorts of councils seem natural enough, but I don't agree about that last part. What's the point with having a place to discuss things in, if that place can't be trusted for any meaningful discussion? Just take it away and hold the whole thing in a private area then, and lets not bother with the puppet show.

If we're going to have these, it's better to make it clear that whatever is said in there cannot be used by anyone not part of that tribe. They should preferably not read it at all, but if they do, must not take it into account when making their own decisions.

[mini]

we should steal the 'duel engine' that is being constructed in KOTF and modify it.

I think the strongest warriors were the leaders, so 'the king' must be challengeable at all times ;p

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

IMO the "faction leader" should represent someone chosen during these meetings to hold the meetings and perhaps also as the chosen commander if we need to band up against a common threat. I don't think it should represent any actual lordship over other tribes (or even necessarily his own).

IMO Council sessions should not be held on any specific regularity so long as we're not united, but can be called by the "faction leader" (and the chiefs of each tribe can request one to him). It should be about things that concern all tribes, like banding together against a common foe, unification attempts or perhaps an attempt to get to some general agreements like "don't exterminate the populations" or whatever.



Sounds more like TVS.

Anyway, two different sorts of councils seem natural enough, but I don't agree about that last part. What's the point with having a place to discuss things in, if that place can't be trusted for any meaningful discussion? Just take it away and hold the whole thing in a private area then, and lets not bother with the puppet show.

If we're going to have these, it's better to make it clear that whatever is said in there cannot be used by anyone not part of that tribe. They should preferably not read it at all, but if they do, must not take it into account when making their own decisions.

I feel like what goes in the tribes council should be up to each tribe to decide. if they want to set up a separate forum for themselves then more power to them.
(you don't happen to want to be the faction leader again do you TCV? )

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, I do have that Royal aura about me.

As for private forums, sure. I have no objection to that. You shouldn't have to do that to keep the tribal councils from the other tribes' IC eyes, though.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

so what else do we need to figure out? heres soem things we have to discuss

1. Are we going to use a system thats the same as WotB and BtSH for PVP?
2. and do we all agree on a system of ranks that is similar to what Bean suggests?
3. what 4 starting provinces are we going to have for the tribes, and do we want to give each tribe a "bonus"
4. do we want to use TCV's suggestion on Faction leader and councils?
5. what do we want for a economic system?
6. do we want a duel system similar to KoTF's?

[navarro951]

i like the whole idea, but i dont think you guys are taking into account what this means as far as work and players. If your going to have actual tribes it means more players, more console use, more well everything. Im totally up for it but the work involved in making this game would be its downfall i would unfortunately bet money on it im so positive.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

You have a point, that may be the biggest problem we have. It is going to take a lot of console work to get this going, and we REALLY need to find more players if we want it to work.

[Azathoth]

Well, I've "technically" been with BtSH since the very beginning, so you have my sword.

[/Bean\]

IMO the "faction leader" should represent someone chosen during these meetings to hold the meetings and perhaps also as the chosen commander if we need to band up against a common threat. I don't think it should represent any actual lordship over other tribes (or even necessarily his own).

IMO Council sessions should not be held on any specific regularity so long as we're not united, but can be called by the "faction leader" (and the chiefs of each tribe can request one to him). It should be about things that concern all tribes, like banding together against a common foe, unification attempts or perhaps an attempt to get to some general agreements like "don't exterminate the populations" or whatever.

That's kinda exactly what I didn't want the faction leader to be. Why should the chiefs of seperate tribes answer to this one guy? It ruins the point, surely. The leaders of events should always be choson on the spot considering strength and importance rather than them being the in-game faction leader.

I agree council sessions shouldn't be regular, but it does give a place where players can always talk to each other, and gives a regular time when all players should be active. So maybe introduce some regularity just to oil the machine, if you see what I mean. But once again you say all the chiefs need t request the 'faction leader' to hold a meeting. The point was each chief is their own faction leader. I don't think we should use the ingame faction leader at all. If that character also happens to be the best candidate for a chief, then good. But he shouldn't automatically be in a position of power.

And we can always gain a decent player base by recruiting in the EB forums just before we're about to start. IF we can sort out the way the game is going to work, then I think it should supply some new interest, as it should run differently from other PBMs, thus being more interesting. I envisage this game as being kinda like a PBM/hotseat combined, so it should gain interest from both forms of players.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Here is an Idea, how about have councils of all the tribes be called if Two tribe chief call for it, like each tribe can call its own councils, but to get a council with all the tribes then two Chiefs have to agree to it.

also for things like Economics I believe we may have to have each chief responsible for their own Income and upkeep (similar to WoTB rebels) then we can have one player be responsible for sorting out how much money each tribe gets (and if we have to use the console).


Really I think that the system we are working out will be similar to KoTR, but with no king. And we will have to use the Personal income system of TVS. This new game will just be smashing all these features together (Each tribe will have its own income and upkeep) If we just pick and choose from those two we have the basic rule structure. Although we will have to work out how we choose each person tribe. (do we follow the family tree or allow everyone to choose the tribe they prefer)

• So do we want to have some kind of elected position to deal with all economic issues? Or should we have each tribe elect their own?
• Do we want some kind of dueling system? (That is going to be a B!t<h to write, with EB’s trait system.
• We need to actually make the rankings. How much power should each chief have. How influential should Thanes be?
• How are we going to handle the creation of new tribes? How will we allow rebellions?
• Do we allow each chief to handle their own console work or have the GM do it?

sorry if I sound stupid, but I think these are a few questions we need to get out of the way.

[navarro951]

Here is an Idea, how about have councils of all the tribes be called if Two tribe chief call for it, like each tribe can call its own councils, but to get a council with all the tribes then two Chiefs have to agree to it.

also for things like Economics I believe we may have to have each chief responsible for their own Income and upkeep (similar to WoTB rebels) then we can have one player be responsible for sorting out how much money each tribe gets (and if we have to use the console).


Really I think that the system we are working out will be similar to KoTR, but with no king. And we will have to use the Personal income system of TVS. This new game will just be smashing all these features together (Each tribe will have its own income and upkeep) If we just pick and choose from those two we have the basic rule structure. Although we will have to work out how we choose each person tribe. (do we follow the family tree or allow everyone to choose the tribe they prefer)

• So do we want to have some kind of elected position to deal with all economic issues? Or should we have each tribe elect their own?
• Do we want some kind of dueling system? (That is going to be a B!t<h to write, with EB’s trait system.
• We need to actually make the rankings. How much power should each chief have. How influential should Thanes be?
• How are we going to handle the creation of new tribes? How will we allow rebellions?
• Do we allow each chief to handle their own console work or have the GM do it?

sorry if I sound stupid, but I think these are a few questions we need to get out of the way.

see this actually would be a good system. good show. again tho if were gonna put this through i will need you guys help in recruiting a larger player base.

[The Celtic Viking]

That's kinda exactly what I didn't want the faction leader to be. Why should the chiefs of seperate tribes answer to this one guy?

... because they chose him to have the honour of mediating the major councils?

It ruins the point, surely. The leaders of events should always be choson on the spot considering strength and importance rather than them being the in-game faction leader.

Then you elect the 'faction leader' according to strength and importance. I don't see how that 'ruins the point' (what 'point', exactly?).

I agree council sessions shouldn't be regular, but it does give a place where players can always talk to each other, and gives a regular time when all players should be active. So maybe introduce some regularity just to oil the machine, if you see what I mean.

That's where the tribal councils come in, isn't it? If it helps you understand my point, you can see the tribal councils as "regular sessions", and "inter-tribal councils" as "emergency sessions".

But once again you say all the chiefs need t request the 'faction leader' to hold a meeting. The point was each chief is their own faction leader. I don't think we should use the ingame faction leader at all. If that character also happens to be the best candidate for a chief, then good. But he shouldn't automatically be in a position of power.

I'm not using the faction leader to be a "faction leader" of any kind; if you think I do then you don't understand what I've been saying at all. He's not any leader that the chiefs are subordinate to, he's just a guy all tribes trust enough to hold the inter-tribal councils fairly. He has that power thanks to general elections, so it's not exactly 'automatically'.

[/Bean\]

Okey dokey, thanks for clearing that up. However, I don't like the idea of these large meetings concerning all the tribes during an emergency session. What I meant by all the tribes meeting was at a market gathering/trading sesh, which I'm pretty sure they had. To me, it sounds like these emergency sessions would be a very unlikely thing to happen of it involved all the tribes. I think it could happen during the game, should a faction (such as the Romans) invade Germania, publicly announcing they are planning to wipe out all German tribes, then maybe then we band together, But it shouldn't be a planned thing. Stop me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. We can always wait for the rules to be drawn up and revisit the issue.

I wouldn't worry about a player base yet, Navarro. Plenty of time to sort that out, and I'm pretty sure we can get a decent one up.

Azathoth, I believe the long post I made on 07-05-2009 19:59 answers most of your queries.

I think if we get a good, solid system of doing things, then we can set up an easy and simple way of each tribe getting their seperate income and console work. The console work won't be too much if we split it up between ourselves. This of course means that one person (aka: Navarro) won't be able to keep everything under wraps himself, thus not being the omniscient GM. However, I think this will allow the game to move quicker, smoother and heep less pressure on one person. Not that I doubt you could handle it, Navarro, but whenever you were gone for more than one night in BtSH, the whole system stopped. I think we have a core of solid, loyal players now, in Navarro, TCV, Everyone, myself and CDF, and some commendable players like Swiss and Mini. If we all work together, then we can create an efficient and fast flowing game, creating more interest and player numbers. That will also be quite different from the other PBM's, adding to the originality of our game.