[Discuss] 2 Positions on same Continent

[James]

Robert Croson, Jr wrote:
> That's how I see it, too. Allowing multiple council positions in multiple realms will tend to lock the island up in a very tight power structure. The way realms 
> work now, the larger the realm, the harder to control. This provides a good limit 
> on how much of an island a single person can control. If a person could hold 
> two council positions on a single island they could double the amount of regions 
> that they personally control. With the control of two realms, working very tightly 
> together without any fear of betrayal at all, they could have a very good chance 
> of reachng that theoretical maximum size.
>
> For example, take a realm that reaches a very large size, such as CE on 
> Atamara. They hit, what, 32 regions? Enweil hit close to 30 on BT. So if you 
> controlled two 30 region realms on the EC, you personally would control nearly 
> half the island! On AT or BT that would be close to 1/3rd of the island.
>
> The game is much more fun when there are a larger number of realms, all 
> vying against each other. Lock too much of an island into a single, unbreakable 
> power block and it gets *very* boring for everyone. Yes, the 7 or 8 people at 
> the top might be having a lot of fun, but the 400-500 people underneath them 
> are bored out of their skulls.
>
> So, yes, it is an OOC rule that mkes no IC sense. Deal with it. There are a lot 
> more islands than you can have characters. If you want all your characters to 
> be rulers, then move each one to a different island.
>
> And before you get started on the whole "I can separate my characters!" 
> argument: I will grant that maybe you can do this. You would be, however, in 
> the small fraction of a percent of BattleMaster players that could do so. The 
> majority of BattleMaster players almost definitely could *not* adequately 
> separate their players to the level required to make it work. And even then, 
> there are certain things that no sane human could possibly do that would 
> remove a large portion of the dynamic nature of the game. (Such as one 
> character's betrayal of another at the exact key and cruicial time that would 
> lead to the certain destruction of the other realm, or even provide them a 
> significant setback.)
>
> But yes, maybe you could separate enough to make it work, after a fashion. But 
> all it takes is one person (or maybe two) who *can't* do that to ruin an entire 
> island. And the people that *can't* do that are the exact type of people who 
> would seek this type of power in the first place. The "risk vs. reward" ratio for 
> this change is simple way too overbalanced on the side of "risk".
>
>
>   
>

CE has 25 regions.  At one time we had more due to a treaty that ended a 
war, but we actually made less gold then before we took the regions.  
Having thirty regions in two realms really isn't all that different then 
having 30 in one realm.  Realms being locked like this due to RP reasons 
I'm ok with, but you're right, it shouldn't be done OOC.  As a ruler I 
think it's your responsibility to make sure you give your players the 
best chance of having fun (or any command position for that matter), I 
ask myself if I am doing that everyday, and I hope I am because I keep 
getting elected.

One of the problems with turnover in offices though, is that most 
players will support a ruler, judge, etc., no matter what they say or 
do.  It's a very small percentage of players who will play a character 
who goes against the grain, and they are usually attacked both IC and 
OOC immediately.


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss