Manual Government Change - Terran

[Scarlett]

You and Vellos are the ONLY ones in this entire thread that have suggested that the devs should change Terran's government manually.

I'm not suggesting that at all - that is the 'band aid' solution and I wouldn't do it either if I were a dev. They're reluctant to do so because once you start manually changing !@#$ in the database, you will get asked to do so a dozen times a week.

My only interest in this topic is that it is an example of a particularly thorny problem that is difficult to get a handle on but which has been present for years. The only way I can explain it is that you sum up a bunch of players' contribution to BM in the form of "what is going on in a realm" and that sum is greater than the individual parts; but it relies on the same consistency of narrative, the same suspension of disbelief, that a film or a play relies on to keep you coming back to see the sequels. Game mechanics regulate that narrative but when they control it, particularly in a manner contrary to what characters in power ought to be able to achieve, you just had Hugh Laurie start speaking in his native accent during an episode of House. It's like being right in the middle of a good book and then your cat throws up in the corner and you have that jarring invasion of reality that interrupts the escape into which you'd invested your time.

Some of it is inevitable. Cats throw up. Some of it is manageable. I certainly don't give two !@#$s what happens to Terran, though.

[Vellos]

He's not the one being defensive Scarlett. You and Vellos are the ONLY ones in this entire thread that have suggested that the devs should change Terran's government manually. Everyone else has repeatedly said that if he wants to change government, let it go into anarchy first.

Personally I think the only reason I believe Vellos is fighting so hard for it is that if he does get it changed to Theocracy by the devs he'll be able to call the entire church to protect his 1 region 7 noble realm.

I can change it without a manual change. You do know that, right?

[Chenier]

We could always annex your city and eventually let you secede. ;)

[Penchant]

I can change it without a manual change. You do know that, right?

Vellos, that is exactly the dev's point. At first I thought they should, but the more I think about, like you said you can already do it without a manual change, so do it. You could have had all of this done with by now if you would have just done it IG instead of trying to tell the devs to do it for you. Losing your region is kind of a BS excuse when all you need to do throw down some harsh courts and you are fine.

[Chenier]

He's not the one being defensive Scarlett. You and Vellos are the ONLY ones in this entire thread that have suggested that the devs should change Terran's government manually. Everyone else has repeatedly said that if he wants to change government, let it go into anarchy first.

Personally I think the only reason I believe Vellos is fighting so hard for it is that if he does get it changed to Theocracy by the devs he'll be able to call the entire church to protect his 1 region 7 noble realm.

Actually, I proposed that his realm be manually put into anarchy, and all government members removed from their positions.

[Indirik]

What's the point of that? It is, literall, the easiest part to do? Vellos can, all by himself, put the realm in anarchy in exactly three days with no one able to stop it.

[Anaris]

No, I have replaced the bureaucracy. The ducal offices were all purged with Quintus' fall. New people were brought in from other theocracies.

No, you have not. That's like saying, "I have killed him. I RPed that he was crushed under the collapsing tunnel as he tried to get away," and then asking that we manually change a character's status to "dead."

It doesn't matter what you RP. Until you change the government type of the realm in the DB, you have not replaced the bureaucracy. Period.

As Indirik has said, failing a ruler election and letting the realm fall into anarchy is not only not an abuse, it is almost a tailor-made way of declaring, "We want no more of this Republican heresy!" and forming a new, Theocratic government.

So either go ahead and do that, or just live with being a Republic, because there is absolutely no compelling reason for a manual change here.

[Chenier]

What's the point of that? It is, literall, the easiest part to do? Vellos can, all by himself, put the realm in anarchy in exactly three days with no one able to stop it.

You mean, by changing the government so that only dukes can vote, then stepping down, then waiting for anarchy, then getting elected again, then reforming the government, and then changing the government again?

Sure, I guess he could. But it'd be messy and would make no RP sense.

To put a GM message about an NPC revolt sending the realm into anarchy would reach the goals he desires, without being a free pass, and while avoiding extremely gamey RP.

[Stabbity]

A person flexing his political muscle since he controls the entirety of the government to make the system fall apart isn't gamey, and makes a lot more sense than an NPC revolt that dissolves the government and spares the life of the head of the government.

I propose the following: If its an NPC revolt with a GM manual intervention, Hireshmont dies in the revolt. These sorts of things are bloody and end poorly for those on top.

[Chenier]

A person flexing his political muscle since he controls the entirety of the government to make the system fall apart isn't gamey, and makes a lot more sense than an NPC revolt that dissolves the government and spares the life of the head of the government.

I propose the following: If its an NPC revolt with a GM manual intervention, Hireshmont dies in the revolt. These sorts of things are bloody and end poorly for those on top.

Stepping down to re-elect yourself is not gamey? And that's what you call "flexing muscle"? Stepping down and not bothering to vote when the referendum takes place?

[Stabbity]

Yea, its called withdrawing your support from the government system. The muscle flexing comes from the government falling apart after you withdraw your support. As long as you hold positions within the government system, you are legitimizing it.

[Indirik]

You mean, by changing the government so that only dukes can vote, then stepping down, then waiting for anarchy, then getting elected again, then reforming the government, and then changing the government again?

Sure, I guess he could. But it'd be messy and would make no RP sense.

Hireshmont rejects the government and refuses to participate. He abdicates the titles and refuses to have anything more to do with the republic. What's so nonsensical about that?

Messy? Hell yes. Of course it will be messy. You don't change the entire fundamental structure of the government of a realm without getting a little dirt under your fingernails.

To put a GM message about an NPC revolt sending the realm into anarchy would reach the goals he desires, without being a free pass, and while avoiding extremely gamey RP.

Mrh? Random NPC revolt throwing the realm into anarchy? Yeah, because we do that sort of thing all the time.

Look, Tim has already weighed in about how there will be no dev intervention, and clarified the dev's position that intentional anarchy to change government styles is not an abuse of game mechanics. If a player wants to change government styles using that method, then the onus is on the player to find RP that fits with the game mechanics. It is not the responsibility of the dev team to bend game mechanics to fit the RP created by the player.

At some indeterminate time in the future, there may be some game mechanic to allow players to more easily change their government style. It will not be a simple click-here-to-change button, and will incur some as-yet-unknown penalties. However, that system does not yet exist. Therefore, players will need to use the existing system for the foreseeable future.

Given that not a single member of the dev team feels that there is any extenuating circumstance that would justify interference and manual intervention in  the game at this time, the chances of getting the manual change enacted hovers somewhere between zero and none. You can continue the discussion if you want, but I really don't see the point in it.

[Chenier]

Given that not a single member of the dev team feels that there is any extenuating circumstance that would justify interference and manual intervention in  the game at this time, the chances of getting the manual change enacted hovers somewhere between zero and none. You can continue the discussion if you want, but I really don't see the point in it.

Neither do I.

[Vellos]

Question:

To make anarchy happen, is it just the rulership that needs to be vacated, or every council post?

[Anaris]

Question:

To make anarchy happen, is it just the rulership that needs to be vacated, or every council post?

Having a ruler election fail should, without anything else required, result in anarchy.

If it does not, then I believe that to be a bug.