Goblin Squad Member
|
If it holds true that the identifier for player groups will be the settlement, rather than the CC, then for a number of us we will have to rethink the names for our player groupings.
Specifically, we shall have to change the name from being organizational to being a location name.
The UnNamed Company would have to adopt a name that could be a settlement name.
The same would hold true for the Emperyan Order, The Bloody Hand or any other naming associated with a CC.
The Seventh Veil could actually be both a CC name and a settlement name.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it holds true that the identifier for player groups will be the settlement, rather than the CC, then for a number of us we will have to rethink the names for our player groupings.
Specifically, we shall have to change the name from being organizational to being a location name.
The UnNamed Company would have to adopt a name that could be a settlement name.
The same would hold true for the Emperyan Order, The Bloody Hand or any other naming associated with a CC.The Seventh Veil could actually be both a CC name and a settlement name.
I'm not really sure why a CC name would need to be related to a location at all? CCs are orthogonal to settlement charters, as I understand it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it holds true that the identifier for player groups will be the settlement, rather than the CC, then for a number of us we will have to rethink the names for our player groupings.
Specifically, we shall have to change the name from being organizational to being a location name.
The UnNamed Company would have to adopt a name that could be a settlement name.
The same would hold true for the Emperyan Order, The Bloody Hand or any other naming associated with a CC.The Seventh Veil could actually be both a CC name and a settlement name.
I'm not really sure why a CC name would need to be related to a location at all? CCs are orthogonal to settlement charters, as I understand it.
Actually CCs are not orthogonal to settlements. You need a settlement to sponsor a CC (encouraging the CC to join and to be of similar alignment). I wouldn't want to label "interdependent" either.... The CC needs the settlement and the settlement can be stronger with the CC but is not bound to need it.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So if a CC needs sponsorship from a settlement, can a settlement remove sponsorship at will?
I would say yes, but I'm not sure what that would mean in any sense. Would that allow said settlement to seize company-owned goods stored there? That doesn't make sense unless the settlement can also arbitrarily seize privately owned goods stored in the settlement, and that sounds like it would be abused far more often than it would be used reasonably.
But if a settlement can't meaningfully disband a company it 'chartered', then it feels meaningless to have to require a settlement to charter a company. What would make a group want or not want to be sponsored by a particular settlement, and what would make a settlement want or not want to offer a charter to a particular group?
On topic, I think that many of the exiting names will drive forward even if they are likely to cause confusion later, should e.g. the Unnamed Company become a Nation spanning multiple Settlements, one of which charters the company named The Elvish Nations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, ok. Back on topic. Yes some of the CCs may look at forming their own settlement. It has been stated that members of CCs could be from different settlements ( other than their original sponsors). So, yes, some chosen CC names would look a little funny as settlement/nation names. There is the factor that a settlement/nation will likely include many CCs so the original founders may want to change the name anyway. There is this point however: there is no reason, that I have seen, that a CC needs to give up it's original identity when forming a settlement.
The Emperyan Order doesn't seem so bad to me. I will say it kinda sounds like a dictatorship though. I am not inferring that that is how they roll in any way, shape, or form.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if a CC needs sponsorship from a settlement, can a settlement remove sponsorship at will?I would say yes, but I'm not sure what that would mean in any sense. Would that allow said settlement to seize company-owned goods stored there? That doesn't make sense unless the settlement can also arbitrarily seize privately owned goods stored in the settlement, and that sounds like it would be abused far more often than it would be used reasonably.
Revoking sponsorship I imagine would engage the same process as the destruction of the settlement - that is, any CC whose sponsorship is revoked would have a limited time (24h? pure speculation) to find a new settlement to sponsor them.
I don't know if CCs will have any form of communal storage, but even if it did I don't think that revoking their charter would forbid them from accessing it - although, obviously, denying them access to the settlement would, as would the dissolution of the CC if it should fail to find a new sponsor. In the latter case I would expect any CC-stored items to become the property of the (former) CC head.
But if a settlement can't meaningfully disband a company it 'chartered', then it feels meaningless to have to require a settlement to charter a company. What would make a group want or not want to be sponsored by a particular settlement, and what would make a settlement want or not want to offer a charter to a particular group?
An interest in mutual protection. A sponsored CC may be more concerned about threats to its sponsoring settlement than some other random settlement. Beyond that, I suppose it just boils down to politics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can still keep our CC Names. It still defines the main group of people you play with. Just also join or create a settlement with a name you also wouldn't mind representing. I'm sure The Bloody Hand is still going to be called the same. We will have have to find/create a settlement we agree with. As far as people in the same CC being in different settlements, that would be weird when it comes to war, and if they actually implement that, I'm sure many CC's may make it a requirement to be in the same settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's pretend that there is a group of people that get together and want to form a CC but want no ties to any settlement. They just want some recognized structure to thier group. Could they start a settlement, turn around sponsor thier CC, and then disolve/abandon thier settlement? Thus getting thier CC title and freeing themselves of all obligations?
Of course all costs to start the settlement would be a loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as people in the same CC being in different settlements, that would be weird when it comes to war, and if they actually implement that, I'm sure many CC's may make it a requirement to be in the same settlement.
It is exactly this twist in logic that I don not understand. A CC needs to be sponsored by a settlement, but the members if that CC could be a part if different settlements.
Then we have, CCs can mix alignments in any fashion they wish, but the sponsoring settlement can only have member alignments that are one step in any direction from its alignment.
What happens if a mixed settlement CC has two if its sponsoring settlements go to war with each other?
What happens if a group of players, because of their alignment, can not find a settlement that would sponsor them? Are they forced to set up their own settlement? Are they forced to remain with an NPC settlement, but gimped because NPC settlements do not train to the highest tier of skills? Are there going to be 9 NPC settlements, for each of the alignment possibilities?
Here is a thought..... If I have a charter company with 12 members, all of a different settlement and all with the floating settlement tag (assuming you can advertise your settlelment this way) and we continuously attack one settlement's gathering camps.....
Does that beleaguered settlement declare war against all 12 settlements represented in the charter company?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This just discovered.......
We're currently refining down a lot of the specifics for organized play structures in PFO, and hopefully we'll have lots of cool things to present soon. In general, companies have drifted somewhat from the original concept as we define exactly what organizational purpose they serve and what cool things we can give them. So lots of things about them could change.
That said, they will probably mirror our other structures and have their own alignment, requiring all members to be within one step of that alignment.
Thank you for this response. I won't presume that the frequent debates on these forums, among the players, has lead to the "Drift from the original concept" but I hope that it did. That would be an indication that we are in fact being heard and that crowd forging, even informally w/o polls, is taking place.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf: I imagine in your scenario the aggrieved settlement could ask the chartering settlement to revoke your charter, and/or put each individual on their redlist. They might have the additional option of using the bounity and death curse mechanics to discourage you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf: I imagine in your scenario the aggrieved settlement could ask the chartering settlement to revoke your charter, and/or put each individual on their redlist. They might have the additional option of using the bounity and death curse mechanics to discourage you.
I don't see a swttlement kicking out individual members because they are attacking another settlement or stealing another's assets.
Remember, ultimately, settlements ARE in a constant state of SvS for social, economic and military power and influence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf: I imagine in your scenario the aggrieved settlement could ask the chartering settlement to revoke your charter, and/or put each individual on their redlist. They might have the additional option of using the bounity and death curse mechanics to discourage you.I don't see a swttlement kicking out individual members because they are attacking another settlement or stealing another's assets.
Remember, ultimately, settlements ARE in a constant state of SvS for social, economic and military power and influence.
I think that depends entirely on how much heat the player/CC is bringing down on the host settlement.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf: I imagine in your scenario the aggrieved settlement could ask the chartering settlement to revoke your charter, and/or put each individual on their redlist. They might have the additional option of using the bounity and death curse mechanics to discourage you.I don't see a swttlement kicking out individual members because they are attacking another settlement or stealing another's assets.
Remember, ultimately, settlements ARE in a constant state of SvS for social, economic and military power and influence.
If one settlement charters several PMCs that harass enough other settlements, an alliance of convience will form to raze the offender to ashes.
In less severe cases, political capital will be expended; perhaps people sympathetic to the victims will blacklist or boycott the offending settlement until they revoke their charter. It's even possible that the Reputation value of your chartered companies will affect the Reputation value of the settlement directly.
How would you like to see settlements that are rivals and non cooperative but not at war interact?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
If the settlement does not care about rep, word-of-mouth or possbly mechanical, than they certainly may not mind how thier CCs act. If thier mechanical rep goes down (and so DI scores) and/or other settlements are ticked off enough, the other settlements may smell blood or attack just to end the nusiance.
This is another arguement for an independent charter system for bandits, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How would you like to see settlements that are rivals and non cooperative but not at war interact?
Perhaps you wrote "non" in error?
A rival, non cooperative, but not at war settlement would do nothing to assist another settlement.
A rival, but cooperative settlement would perhaps assist. Especially if they are likely to benefit from that assistance.
As for dealing with individual offenders, that really depends on who that offender is to his chartering settlement. But, I doubt a settlement will go to war over the actions of one character. This is why wars should be expensive to start, expensive to continue, so that wars are never over frivolous reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding of Bandits (and this is probably incorrect) is that you are capable of making small settlements in the wild, by the bandits, for the bandits, and are capable of being mostly self-sufficient, or at least that was the plan.
Perhaps We'll end up with a large Hex settlement deep in the wilds, where the Bandits, having gotten fed-up with being booted from town for lowering various 'scores', built their own town, and now there's a thriving black-market where bandits and PCs who aren't afraid of a spotty record trade, build, purchase and sell.
I wonder if "Settlement" might be a catch-all word used to describe player-built regions.
Maybe a 'Settlement' big enough to attract people to live there is one thing, and a small bandit fortress where it's only bandits, and nobody else, might operate under two different sets of rules?
Perhaps 'Settlement' refers to a large, sprawling group of structures that is open to the general public, within reason, and operates under a specific set of rules.
An 'Encampment' might be what we end up referring to the hidden 'Camps' that Goblin Works has said will be scattered through the hexes, semi-phases areas where players can, with a lot of hard work, discover the location of an then build structure there for their own use.
Such an 'Encampment' might not be legally recognised, but since it's purely player built, funded and repaired, your actions matter not one jot. Of course, such a venture would require players to be able to be fairly self sufficient, so we'd be looking at a fairly sizeable 'Charter' of Players getting together to be 'Bandits' to make it work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Seventh Veil could actually be both a CC name and a settlement name.
Seventh Vail has a nice ring: might want to bring my skis.
I've toyed with suggesting "The Seventh Vale" as a place name...
Can't you still just be sponsored by one of the NPC settlements? What's the limitation to that?
Ryan has stated it's basically a matter of trust. Once things get rolling, people won't trust a CC that's sponsored by an NPC Settlement because it will be seen as a sign that the CC isn't capable of maintaining a "real" sponsorship.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Thank you for this response. I won't presume that the frequent debates on these forums, among the players, has lead to the "Drift from the original concept" but I hope that it did. That would be an indication that we are in fact being heard and that crowd forging, even informally w/o polls, is taking place.
Since it has been a debate and not a monologue it might also be that they read and considered the community's input and decided to forge ahead with their design, and that would also be crowdforged.
I would say yes, but I'm not sure what that would mean in any sense. Would that allow said settlement to seize company-owned goods stored there? That doesn't make sense unless the settlement can also arbitrarily seize privately owned goods stored in the settlement, and that sounds like it would be abused far more often than it would be used reasonably.
It could be interesting if a settlement betrayed a couple of its own CCs, stole the goods, and hoped to be able to fight 'em off.