Character Limit for the New Timeline

[Brandon Rhea]

The issue is force sensitives are the most popular characters. I suspect you're in the minority for choosing Republic over Jedi. The rule does nothing to address that fact. While the popularity of force users is by no means a negative I honestly suspect the limit will end up severely limiting the Border Alliance.

I think that there are a lot of people interested in playing those Republic characters (people have expressed as much) and that the way the Border Alliance is being set up is much different and much more compelling than all previous attempts at this type of faction (which was super generic and had little to nothing to offer of interest), but we're also not going to save factions that can't muster enough people either. If the Republic can't generate enough activity then, absent a rule change that I doubt we'd make (or need to make), that's the Republic's issue to contend with.

 

[Korvo]

There's always ways around the rules without bending or breaking them. One of the characters I'm planning on was originally going to be with the Republic (Boarder Alliance), but I'm fine having her be a privateer that is simply allied with the Alliance and frequently works alongside them along with her own endeavors

 

[Brandon Rhea]

The Jedi are also going to be fighting the Sith, even though they're not part of or officially allied with the Republic at this point, so that helps too as long as there's a leader in the Republic who can effectively lead the player base that they have. That's been an issue with the Republic and the Galactic Alliance in past timelines too - their FLs tended to suck.

It's like with the Sith. The Lords of the Sith are for sure going to be more popular than the Sacred Band of Ziost, but it'll work in unison. Same principle applies to the good guy side, even if they're not part of the same faction.

It all evens out, and it all comes down to effective faction management.

 

[Ser Gregor]

I think that there are a lot of people interested in playing those Republic characters (people have expressed as much) and that the way the Border Alliance is being set up is much different and much more compelling than all previous attempts at this type of faction (which was super generic and had little to nothing to offer of interest), but we're also not going to save factions that can't muster enough people either. If the Republic can't generate enough activity then, absent a rule change that I doubt we'd make (or need to make), that's the Republic's issue to contend with.

I'd agree with you if the Republic's issues haven't existed in every timeline I've been a part of, even when the Republic has been in an interesting position within the RP. You can hope that this time will be different but at the same time I feel the staff needs to be mindful of the historic issues stemming from the Republic faction. Because when the Republic becomes stagnant and inactive it bleeds in to the rest of the story.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I'd agree with you if the Republic's issues haven't existed in every timeline I've been a part of, even when the Republic has been in an interesting position within the RP. You can hope that this time will be different but at the same time I feel the staff needs to be mindful of the historic issues stemming from the Republic faction. Because when the Republic becomes stagnant and inactive it bleeds in to the rest of the story.

See above too. A lot of it comes down to how the factions have been managed, and the management of the OOC relationship between the Jedi and the Republic. Those are the key historical issues, IMO, not the size of the roster.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

Well only time can tell how many people sign up for what factions. But I think it's a given that the force sensitives will far outweigh the others.

That being said though the Admins can enforce rules better. Like nerfing FS would help a bit. Plus adding a little extra spice to the republics story, thus creating more interest.

 

[Cisco]

Though its been said a dozen times before, I also like the three character rule.

I did have one question related to the faction rule though.
Just as a case example, suppose someone has a character within a major main faction (Let's say the Jedi). This stops us from joining another main faction. Would it be an issue if the aforementioned someone were to have another character, an indie, doing a large amount of mercenary work and participating in threads on the behalf of another main faction such as the Sith? It seems such a thing might violate the intended spirit of the rule.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

The point is that nobody is going to be allowed to play a Jedi that can make that decision for the order. The council isn't playable. Everyone is a Jedi Knight Crusader. There is no reason the Jedi would get involved. The Senate is different in this timeline from what everyone is accustomed to. They deal more with trade, technology, and resources. They settle disputes between planet a and planet b diplomatically. They don't have all the resources to send in troops. Each Senator can offer whatever their planet has to offer if it is in their planet's best interest to do so.

What? How are we not able to make that decision?

Let's say the Sith are kicking ass and taking names in the outer rim. The border alliance are being beaten down, cause I think they should be a milita or a rag tag band of fighters, and there about to lose. So the Jedi roll up in their and save the day, classic movie moment. The Allaince is all like "thanks" the Jedi are all like "no problem" the Allaince is all like "let's be friends" the Jedi are all like "sure"

I mean we are Jedi Generals, which command the Jedi army. Or hell maybe if the galatic alliance are doing nothing, then maybe they do need to be destroyed? Possibly the Jedi view them as evil.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Though its been said a dozen times before, I also like the three character rule.

I did have one question related to the faction rule though.
Just as a case example, suppose someone has a character within a major main faction (Let's say the Jedi). This stops us from joining another main faction. Would it be an issue if the aforementioned someone were to have another character, an indie, doing a large amount of mercenary work and participating in threads on the behalf of another main faction such as the Sith? It seems such a thing might violate the intended spirit of the rule.

Yes, you can do that.

 

[Minuteman75]

I understand the need for combat-oriented risks for the main factions and limit on the number of characters. Though to be honest, I'm still slightly nervous on the former since, being more of a character writer. Because I proven not to be really good at competition stuff in role-play such as one on one duels during my time here. Hence my hesitation to do more of them. It just I don't want to keep letting any faction I join down due to my weaknesses in that one area.

Advice?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I understand the need for combat-orient risks for the main factions and limit on the number of characters. Though to be honest, I'm still a bit nervous on the former since, being more of a character writer. Because I proven not to be really good at competition stuff in role-play such as one on one duels during my time here. Hence my hesitation to do more of them. It just I don't want to let any faction I could join down due to my weakness in that one area.

Advice?

When we talk about risks, we don't just mean we want people to actively pursue combat. We also mean we want people to stop hiding - hiding behind closed threads, hiding behind "no death" rules in threads, refusing to ever go into any situation that they don't have a tight control over, etc. People are so paranoid that danger lurks around every corner that they hide away behind their own plots, and that's a big thing we want to avoid this timeline.

 

[Minuteman75]

I understand that. Yet I'm still concerned about my own limitations will prove to be a hindrance in that field. I'll give you guys my best, nonetheless.

 

[Slamdingo]

Beware. What follows below is a total newb weighing in like he knows what the hell he's talking about.

Read on at your own discretion.





I will say this about only three characters. Its already forced me to make some choices as I've been doing some background work with some fellow members in relation to indie faction. I had plans for my own group that would basically more or less function as a bounty board for indie characters to validate making indie bounty hunters because in my experience so far the bounty boards are limited only to members or with certain special permissions for outsiders - and that sort of makes it pointless to make indie characters.

But at the same time I've not been really garnering much interest for it and coupling that with the fact that I'm now only allowed three characters I was going to be forced to either make a PC who was part of a potentially dead-in-the-water "faction" or somehow garner interest in a faction that was run entirely by GM NPCs in the IC sense. Neither option really appealed to me.

So that faction isn't going to exist. At least not created by my hand. I've already looked at it, looked at some of the character ideas I've had brewing, and I've decided that my other investments are already more important to me than this concept. Now don't get me wrong I love making characters - like a lot. So that's one reason why I'm not the most motivated for this position but at the same time I think that helped me have some perspective as to how it could help. Like for my character Ishale, a (now former) Imperial Stormtrooper.

After a bout of inactivity on my part I had literally no hesitations or issues with just saying that she'd been discharged, and gone totally independent. I didn't feel like I was taking anything away from the faction as a whole and I didn't worry about any gaps left in the roster with the character's absence.

I wanted Ishale to leave so I had her leave. I felt infinitely more attached to how it affected that character than I did about the faction.

Now of course given the current state of affairs and my lack of any significant rank it wouldn't have hurt or changed the faction anyways but the point I'm getting at is I didn't even care if it did or not. The Imperium wasn't my faction - it was a faction that my character was in. Big difference.

I've read that limiting players to one faction will make them have to choose and more or less put in it to win it with one faction - and that's kind of the point. If I could only be in one main faction, I might never have archived Kara (my first ever character). I would have put so much more work into her and time and when I came across all the things I didn't like about her anymore I might have been more convinced to work ICly to change them or to revamp her. Ishale and all my other characters might never have even been put on the drawing board. The Sith would have been my faction. And the same could be said if Ishale had been my first character.

Another problem I think this will solve is people being more engaged in their factions. I'll be honest that I never felt like I was a part of the Imperium or the Sith. I felt like those were titles to slap onto my characters and mostly it was because I never felt like I could contribute to the faction in any meaningful way. Sure I could do a mission here or there, do a bounty, or train but what was that giving the faction? Limiting the major factions will (hopefully) encourage players to - I don't know, knuckle down and make their contributions count. Whether I stick to indie factions or I decide to join one of the Big Three, I can say for certain that I will feel more invested in the faction because I won't just have a slew of fallback characters on any side of a conflict I wish. If I invest two of my three characters in a war and start to lose . . . that's the hand I get dealt.

I'll have to fight and win.

Fight and die.

Or make the big move to archive them - which will be a much more permanent thing by the sounds of it.

So basically my choices will be to contribute to the faction, or more or less admit I'm not engaged with what the faction is doing because I choose not to be a part of the bigger picture. Which reminds me that people should remember it takes a lot of little cogs to make a big machine but that is a story for a whole other time and general topic . . .

Keep in mind all of this is being written at a late hour with little sleep.

That's just my random and nonsensical opinion about the whole ordeal.

 

[Tristar]

^ I can agree with this little assessment. It's fine with wanting players to get involved more with the Faction, but where's the motivation for that to happen other than 'things will be better' next timeline for the other factions?

 

[Hatebackwards]

OK. I have a few comments.
The new timeline is very interesting. I like that we are basically doing our own take on the origins of the new canon.
I like the character limit. I think that will keep us from downing in a sea of alt characters.
I love the idea for the Boarder Alliance. I LOVE the idea of having the Senate as a special type of faction that everyone can be members of. I believe the Senate will give us a forum for good cross faction interaction and intrigue.

A few of my own ideas about the Senate.
* I think only one of each players PC's should be a member of the Senate.
* If it hasn't been covered already, I believe the Senate Faction should be separate from the Galactic Republic Government.
* I think a small group of people should be hand picked by the admins to run the Senate. Since the Senate won't function like a normal faction, it might be appropriate to make an exception to the new admin/faction leader policy and establish the senate as an admin run faction.
* I think faction leaders should be the ones to appoint Senators and Representatives. It wouldn't make very much sense for an independent Sith to stake claim over a Galactic Republic World. Or a die hard Republic member to stake claim on a boarder world. This should go for Independent Factions that are allotted territory as well.

 

[Marf]

As we've said many times, you can still do that. You just shouldn't expect a promotion if you're unwilling to take any risks with your characters.

Ok thanks, just confirming. I'm alright with that, I do believe having only two ranks will actually give players who are uncomfortable with risk more freedom, since there will be less pressure to get promotions. Whereas those who do take risks will be rewarded.

So fear not, fellow wusses! Players who get promoted will have to do miserable things like lead battles and RP fights, but we can do whatever we want ;p

 

[Mr.BossMan]

When we talk about risks, we don't just mean we want people to actively pursue combat. We also mean we want people to stop hiding - hiding behind closed threads, hiding behind "no death" rules in threads, refusing to ever go into any situation that they don't have a tight control over, etc. People are so paranoid that danger lurks around every corner that they hide away behind their own plots, and that's a big thing we want to avoid this timeline.

This is the way i see it. Why not just get rid of the "No Death" threads, completely?

Honestly i think we should do just that, simply because it makes the most sense IC and in RL. Death lurks around the corner Everywhere we go, when we get into our cars we could wreck and die, we walk into a McDonalds someone could walk in and shoot up the place, Our houses could cave in, a tornado could appear. Death is all around us, plain and simple.

So why not just totally get rid of Death enabled or disabled? Make it simply real? For instance, if a Jedi is about to fight a Sith, one could reasonably know their is a chance at death. So Roleplay it out, see where it goes, but don't already say "Death Disabled" because that doesn't make sense IC.

Now this goes two ways though. Lets say three characters walk into a bar for more of a "Social thread" then one could reasonably assume that won't end in a characters death. Instead a lot of drunkenness and parting. It's realistic and yet it provides that feel the Admins want.

The soldier will have a greater chance of dying then that family who walked into a McDonalds.

So my vote is get rid of death disabled completely, instead replace it with a common sense rule.

 

[Marf]

@Mr.BossMan

No. There has to be balance to accommodate to all members and to avoid too much competition. I'm perfectly fine with conflict and risk playing a large role in the wider timeline, it demands changes, helps the plot move along and lets the PvP lovers get their adrenaline rush. However, there is a large portion of the userbase (myself included) who are legitimately uncomfortable with high levels of risk or competition. I'll be honest here, I've worked for a little less than a year on my upcoming characters and I will not be too keen on throwing them into a death thread. Those who are will be rewarded with promotion and entrusted with leading conflicts, those who aren't will be spared the pressure of trying to get one, that's fine by me.

For me, "no-death" is very much a security blanket or anxiety-relief. It means I can do whatever I please in a thread and just enjoy myself without having to be on guard. I hate writing strategy and out-manoeuvring other RPers, that's not my thing. I prefer the artistic or literary side of RP and I really can't get into that when I'm trying to write my character out of a life-or-death situation all of a sudden. I'm not saying no-death should be abused or used excessively, but it should still be available for those who like to do their own things not related to the wider timeline. Furthermore, RP is not real-life which is truthfully, a very poor and incorrect comparison. It's a fantasy place where we can choose to impose these limits to make things more enjoyable, or take them away, if we so wish.

You wanna go fight in battles or duel a Sith Lord? Go for it, just let me keep my individual stories, social drama and picturesque scenes.

 

[Marcus]

I would agree. I would be quite upset if I went into an RP and died my first two weeks in. That's not likely to happen, but pick your time and people will have the same qualms. And to the point of @Marf some of us might just not want to get promoted as quickly. I for one will be happy as a Knight for a while, just building the character and getting to know the universe - knowing OOCly that he won't die for a bit, although he will get hurt a LOT most likely - and then as I build him up I could open the "death" gates as the character grows.

I think severe injury should be welcome and RPed. But death or things like severe dismemberment should be optional. Having that risk as a part of promotion within a faction is a good balance, in my view. Although if a char has been doing awesome RP for say a real-life year I'd argue there could be exceptions, but that's probably a discussion we (as a community) have when we get farther into the timeline.

EDIT: And one key to this could be to just lay out your expectations in the OOC threads, which could be argued in both ways in this death/no-death allowance debate. Just say "Hey, I don't want to die, and I don't want my arm cut off, but pretty much anything else is fine." Or even "Ok I am not saying my char can't die, but I'm still working on things so if we can find another way to end this without his death or capture/torture, that would be swell." Just being up front and courteous and not-selfish in the OOC planning will go along way.

 

[Tuco]

This is probably going to sound like a really stupid question but I would just like a quick clarification. If my hypothetical Jedi is killed, my next character I create would be able to join any of the main factions right?