• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

We Have Enough Factions (For Now)

Status
Not open for further replies.
To sum it up, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're suggesting that an FM be allowed to stop something until a higher third party can make a ruling?
 
I think we are getting a little off track in terms of the topic of this post. I think at this point most of us can agree, that GMs should be at least informing FMs of their plans so they can make sure it works, even FMs of NPC factions.

This thread is for what to do about 'factions' so let's come up with that first. Then based on what structure that takes we can propose tweaks to the GM-FM relationship as needed.
 
CadetNewb said:
To sum it up, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're suggesting that an FM be allowed to stop something until a higher third party can make a ruling?
Click to expand...


You're pretty close, actually. The third part doesn't need to be "higher" though. It could be some random person off the street for all we know, but the best results would be if they can handle the stress of mediating. It'd be kind of like if the GM and FM were countries at war, and the mediator could be a country halfway across the globe from the others but is effectively providing the neutral ground. In the ideal situation, the two "warring countries" (the FM and GM) end up realizing the war is pointless/stupid and can come to an actual agreement of sorts. So the GM may still be able to use the FM's stuff for their plot, but not to the full planned extent.
...Now that I say that it seems a stupidly naive idea.


ANYWAYS @Syaoran is correct-this thread was originally about how SARP has, well, way too many factions. I've seen some guys talking about having to make a plot centralized around a faction before the faction can actually be considered a faction. I personally like this idea, at least, since then when someone wants to make a faction, they need to see it perform in the setting properly before they can just go "okay this is my faction and all that", or insert their faction elsewhere in some way.


I also liked the idea by a couple of people involving trying to at least implement inter-faction relations into plots as a background theme. Maybe there's some joint-faction strike force somewhere that could be talked about. An interesting idea that popped into my head while typing this: Faction A is allied with Faction B, but has a stiff and unfriendly relationship with Faction C. Faction B, however, really likes Faction C, although they aren't allied. (Faction C is relatively neutral to Faction A and pretty friendly to Faction B.)

Fac A plots might occasionally request a supply from Faction B, only to learn that Faction C is the one transporting the supplies, hired by FacB. Part of the relationships between all three can show up here: do you thank the FacB guys for delivering the supplies anyways, or do you get mad because FacC is there for the delivery? Do you take the supplies at all? Characters shouldn't just automatically have a standing on this (there would be a few exceptions, but probably very rare); the players themselves ideally would have to have their characters debate on what to do.
 
We could base the powers of a FM off the European feudal system and the magna carta. Simply put, the FM would be a sort of king, allowing some sorts of things to be passed and rules their own realm with Dukes in the background using the kings land. The dukes in this case would be the GMs attempting to use the Factions assets. If a GM feels that their are being treated unfairly, we could gather GMs and Multiple FMs (Preferably unbiased) to vote on whether or not someone was treated unfairly or is simply misunderstanding something, either without debate or (preferably) with moderated formal debate. Then after it has been decided that someone has been treated unfairly, decide how individual aspects of an asset be used using formal opinions similar to the ones that the supreme court writes.

Like arbitrated, this is only an idea that i'm passing along. No way do I expect this to work, nor to implemented, nor do I exactly want it to. This plan is multilayered and it could take ages for anything to be decided on. But it's an idea nonetheless of how to tackle the issue, and I hope it gives someone a better Idea of how to handle the situation.
 
@Arbitrated I want to point out the purpose of the internationRP is to make actual real 'factions'. What we call 'factions' right now are actually 'nations' for the most part. And I think the reason we feel we have 'too many' is because every nation just kinda does its own thing in terms or activity. We're not actually grouping them together and having the ones that have a common goal work together like they would. We just have them making alliances in name and then going back to what they were doing.

An example would be Yamatai and the HSC. Yes, they are two separate nations, and while their interest does not fall perfectly in line with each other, they could work together on the bigger things. That would be a faction.

Now some people might say that's splitting hairs and just remaining the problem, but that's actually missing the point. For instance, no one has complained we have too many races or companies. (At least not to my knowledge) So the 'problem' people have likely is not actually with the amount of content, but with how everything is so 'spread out'.

We treat 'Yamatai' as a 'faction' because in most sci-fi we see each individual planet has its own government that is 'independent' for the most part. But that's not the case in SARP almost every major nation spans multiple planets, but they're really all one 'country'. If you compare it to real government structure, Saying Yamatai is a faction is like saying the USA is an alliance.

If we have 'factions' behave more like what they are, interplanetary countries, and start using actual factions, we can start to share and consolidate resources better, but most of all, these nations would keep their uniqueness while also pointing groups of them in the same direction in terms of goals. Players would also easily be able to 'move' between these nations and wouldn't feel like their characters are trapped if the nation they're in loses it's GMs.
 
Just thought I'd add my voice to this discussion - which, by the way, is going much better than I anticipated. Kudos to all involved!

On the one hand, as many of you probably know, I am fairly active in USO (a fairly new faction). As an active participant, I can honestly say that USO probably has more RP than many of the well-established factions on the site. In that regard, I would say that putting new factions on hold is somewhat counterproductive as many of the new factions - USO and I'ee being prime examples of this - end up greatly improving the site as a whole. Any veteran of the site will agree - anything that expands RP is a win.

This is not to say that this is not a problem. Quite the contrary - I absolutely believe that this is a problem. Put simply, my philosophy with these things is that there's no such thing as a one size fits all solution. Probably the closest thing I've seen to a solution (though I skimmed through most of the thread before writing this) is the idea of a testing thread to gauge how the faction would fit into the existing world. One way of doing this which I personally like is keeping a faction to open RP for the first month or two after approval. This would enable moderators to effectively evaluate the merits of a faction while minimizing the restriction of participants.

Feel free to discuss this however you wish - I don't get offended easily (I think...)
 
  1. The role of the FM is primarily to maintain and grow the faction's lore, which is mostly wiki work, and to post for faction NPCs, creating news posts, and to help GMs with their plans. It is a supporting role.
  2. The GMs must post their plans in the GM/FM forum (it's literally what that forum is for), and that's where the FM gets their chance to say if the plan is workable for the faction and make suggestions. If there's a disagreement its should be hammered out in the GM/FM forum, not in public. FMs should also avoid interfering with GMs' actual roleplay; plots are the GM's turf. Ultimately the GM can run whatever plot they want, but if they can't agree with the FM, the RP likely won't become hard canon or become part of the lore/history. FMs can also fire GMs in their faction, but this should only be a last resort because it often hurts the site as a whole (anything that kills RP plots does).
  3. Likewise, FMs must post the factional plans in the GM/FM forum so GMs know how to show the faction events in their RPs. For example if the FM posts that the First Expeditionary Fleet is has orders to the Yamatai system, then GMs who RP ships in that fleet can have their ship receive those orders in the RP. Communication is key.
 
As long as GMs -have- to talk it out with NPC faction FMs, or the NPC faction FM can say it's noncanon, I'm good with respects to that. I just don't want GMs to be able to say "I want the faction to do this, and you can't stop me cause it's only an NPC faction and my plot is more important."
 
I can't read all this, but in objection to the earlier objection, when discussing whether those who submit NPC factions should be able to defend them, I'd say there's only one good reason for this: To reduce the setting manager's workload. So, this task could be delegated to anyone.

It doesn't have to go to the person who submitted the NPC faction. Someone who's responsible for all NPC factions could easily be more fair and objective. Once someone's submission has been accepted, it should be on the wiki to be interpreted by any GM who wants to use it. Those articles exist to make the content usable. They're not just there as bait to get people interested in working with the faction's creator.

If it looks like an NPC faction needs an FM, there's one of two problems: Either the articles explaining the faction are incomplete and need to be improved, or someone is ignoring or misinterpreting them. Someone does need to preserve the integrity of the setting so that soft canon remains relatively consistent with hard canon, but giving an explainer-in-chief absolute authority to decide what the articles they wrote mean voids the purpose of having a setting submissions process on almost every level.

If someone isn't happy about how their creation is being used, it's time for them to ask about editing its wiki articles to make sure their goals are met in an approved way, not for them to physically stand between their faction and those who want to use it. People should be creating content because they want to contribute, not because they want others to have to go through them in order to have access to content.
 
Having someone responsible for all NPC factions sounds good in practice. But that's actually a bad idea, not only would that person have to keep up with everything happening with every faction, but that person is not 'unbiased' because they're a human being. So you end up with one person with a huge amount of power (controlling all the NPC factions) and a huge workload, that's no better than splitting it out. You're mistaking 'protecting the faction' as well. No one is saying FMs should be able to just say "No you can't use this because I don't want you to." We're talking about people doing stuff that doesn't fit with the faction or canon. And it's best to leave the idea of "What this faction is about" up to the person who made the faction or is currently 'in control' of it. Because in the end you can't just say "Well if people are misusing it then you need to update the wiki" because for one, that causes problems with retconning, but also there have been instances on this site where things have been -very- clear on the wiki as to how something was, but people have just ignored that part because it wasn't convenient for them.

People aren't perfect and neither is SARP, if there isn't a measure of power there to stop them, eventually someone will do something underhanded. And if you only have the power to act after the fact, it might just be too late to avoid damage.

No one is making content just so people can go through them, they're making it to contribute to the setting. But they just want to make sure that their hard work and ideas don't get butchered by people who just want to use their work as a tool to make their own work awesome. Just because it's not a 'main faction' doesn't mean it should get less respect. As I said before, they both were made by people, with feelings.
 
No, it wouldn't be necessary for that person to keep up with everything happening with every faction. Instead, when they're called on to make a ruling, they can research that faction by checking its wiki pages. If they're arranged well, everything relevant will be easy to find with just two or three clicks. That's what we're aiming toward.

They won't be completely unbiased, but they have a major advantage if all they know about the faction is what's on the wiki. In fact, the more they know about the faction from talking to others and keeping up with the RP, the more doubtful it is that their vision of the faction will agree with hard canon.

The workload shouldn't be that large. It's limited to the amount of use NPC factions get in plots, which has traditionally been very low. If it does get too large for two people (remember, the setting manager already does this job, we're talking about someone sharing it) that just means it needs to be delegated to more than one person. The delegated powers could be divided or shared. I'd strongly recommend sharing them, because there's no division possible that'd allow beneficial specialization of skills, and the overlapping responsibilities would be more likely to reduce friction than create it.

I have to break this argument down, though...
it's best to leave the idea of "What this faction is about" up to the person who made the faction or is currently 'in control' of it.
Click to expand...
The wiki articles exist to tell us this. The submissions process exists to make sure their vision is congruent with the RP setting. To make this work, we'd need the creators to not just submit their articles, but also the vision that's in their head, and make the necessary edits to their mental image. Then, we'd need to make sure it doesn't change over time, unless we agreed it should be through a formal approval process. We don't have the technology for this, and it would be unethical to use if we did.
Because in the end you can't just say "Well if people are misusing it then you need to update the wiki" because for one, that causes problems with retconning,
Click to expand...
No, what causes 'problems with retconning' is when the creator wants canon to be modified because they didn't understand how the article they submitted was going to be interpreted. If this is a problem, we can simply refuse. They had a chance to convey their intentions when they wrote the article, and the article was approved despite whatever was missing, which means that we didn't expect them to include what was missing. There's no obligation to allow retcons, and any approval of those follows the normal process.
but also there have been instances on this site where things have been -very- clear on the wiki as to how something was, but people have just ignored that part because it wasn't convenient for them.
Click to expand...
This is why someone needs to do the job of managing interpretations, not why the FM needs to do the job. FMs often say things about their faction that aren't hard canon or contradict what their own articles state, not just because they're only human, but also because they often believe they're a higher authority than their own articles. We need to fight this tendency, otherwise we're allowing people to use the submissions process to gain the power to assert things about their creations that were never passed through the submissions forum.
But they just want to make sure that their hard work and ideas don't get butchered by people who just want to use their work as a tool to make their own work awesome.
Click to expand...
They can already do this by working on wiki articles. The wiki is SARP's highest word on what's canon. Note that their work IS supposed to be a tool to make awesome plots, and 'butchering' someone's creation is only a bad thing is when it clashes with canon, or the damage to it prevents others from getting much use out of the content later. NPC factions are not bonsai plants. The best ones are more like perennial weeds.
 
Last edited:
You're stressing 'the information on the wiki' as if it's 'better' than actually knowing the faction. Yes, the wiki information should be up to date. But this site is more than just a wiki. There are also IC things that have happened, and then there's also plans for things that are going to happen but have yet to happen. A faction isn't submitted and then left stagnant from there. They're constantly updating, there is no way to realistically expect that the wiki will always perfectly convey how the faction is meant to be. Because the long constant editing makes things just jumbled or loss.

I could pick apart everything else there is too, but that's just dancing around the point. Here is the real question. What is actually wrong with having FM and NPC FMs? What problems does it legitimately cause? You can say it lets people be biased, but so does every other system. You can say that it gives people too much power, but the SM is there if things get out of hand. You can say that people have complained about it, but the only people who have are people who want to be able to use NPC factions without -anyone- telling them what they can or can't do with them. Where is the actual problem with NPC FMs?

Edit: Also I prefer this be wrapped up in as few post as possible, as this is distracting from the actual topic of this thread.

Edit2: As proven by some other arguments that have happened no the wiki is -not- the last word on the site. The community and what's happened in plot is the last word.
 
I wish the word count of all this arguing was put into the NPC factions.

Honestly I think there should be a time limit on people sitting on creations that aren't there's. you have a year to make a plot and eat the faction playable. Don't meet it you get fired and somebody else gets a shot.
 
NPC factions aren't supposed to have plots, so that's irrelevant to NPC factions, and it's irrelevant towards the 'number of factions' discussion as well.
 
What I'm basically saying is if you want the faction manager banner, then behave like one. Make plots, make articles. Get it off the ground. If you want it to be NPC then it isn't a faction and who ever wrote it is neither gm nor faction manager.
 
And if said NPC creation is there and no one can touch it then it isn't a very good NPC creation and isn't really in the setting.
 
Ira said:
So you could say NPC factions aren't factions.
Click to expand...
Well, I had a whole post when I joined about how what we're calling 'factions' aren't actually factions. So yeah, of course, they're not 'factions'. Neither are 'main factions'. I'm calling them 'factions' still because they haven't been officially renamed.

Ira said:
What I'm basically saying is if you want the faction manager banner, then behave like one. Make plots, make articles. Get it off the ground. If you want it to be NPC then it isn't a faction and whoever wrote it is neither gm nor faction manager.
Click to expand...

This is a frivolous point right now. The banner is of so little consequence compared to the things that are being discussed.
Ira said:
And if said NPC creation is there and no one can touch it then it isn't a very good NPC creation and isn't really in the setting.
Click to expand...
And no one is saying that NPC factions should be untouchable. They're saying the wishes of the person who made them or is currently managing them should be respected. Like I said in an earlier post. I made the Cloud Harbor, yeah I'm fine with other people using it, as long as they do it right. I want to have the right to say "No you can't use the cloud harbor to suddenly start an invasion on one of the key Abwehran systems just because you think it's cool"

People talk about these are things submitted for the community to use, but that means they're for -everyone- not the personal toys of the FM, nor of the GM. If the GM wants some faction that they can do anything they want with whenever they want, they should make their own.
 
Sorry. It it isn't.

NPC creations are not factions. Let's stop trying to treat them like they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…