Sponsored Roles and Expiration Dates.

[Maybe42or54]

I remember reading something about this in another thread, and it has got me hooked.

The other thread talked about northern templars living forever and because of that, not much change happens.

How long do you think sponsored roles should last before the Player is replaced for new ideas and new plots?

Personally, I don't get really deep into a role before a month and then I am so hyped up about it that I burn out after three months. Possibly up to 5 months.

6 months would be my ideal expiration date for my Pcs.

What are yours?

[waroth]

Honestly, I don't think they should expire, so I didn't vote.  If the player stops logging in, plays poorly, etc due to burnout and they are in a sponsored role I would leave it up to them to retire the character so that someone more active may take over.  I would also imagine if Imms over these roles see a decline in a sponsored role PC's play they will ask the PC what is going on and if the PC says he's burned out or whatever, they would probably provide a nice death.  I think it's fine the way it is myself.

[Delirium]

Young grasshopper, try sticking it out through the "down" times next time.

[Larrath]

You mean that a player will be invited to play a noble for three months and then be forced to retire?
I really don't see why we need that.

Constantly introducing new high-ranking characters doesn't inherently make the game more fresh.  Besides, who wants to work as an aide or merchant in a House where your supervisors will get replaced every two months?  They'll be continually adjusting to the game and retiring.

Don't see why we need that.

[Jherlen]

Uh, absolutely never?

Just because some people burn out doesn't mean everyone should be forced to retire a PC after a set period of time. Long-lived PCs have more history behind them, more established roots, and more plots around them. If someone manages to live for forever, good for them! They're either too smart to get killed, or possibly so utterly useless that other players keep them alive because any replacement might be better.  :twisted:

Expiration dates would just lead to a lot of Lord Templar Amoses and Lady Amosettes who are either wholly unmemorable or do really stupid/radical/outrageously mean things just so they can get remembered in their brief existance.

I will say that if a player just isn't doing anything with a sponsored role, they should be moved aside and/or other people brought up who'll move plots, but setting a time limit on a PC's life is bad bad bad.

[Maybe42or54]

Alright. Seriously though. Instead of expiration dates, how about an added pc date?

After about a year OOC of the Pc being alive, maybe have the spot open up again just to add something that has new ideas?

I don't mean it for those Pcs that play a year and are always alive. I mean for those Pcs that just stop doing things, or are out of the public eye for OOC months, then back in for a week, then disappear for weeks.

[Elgiva]

Hmm, there is some clan open to PCs which did not accept new sponsored leader for a time period longer than OOC year? Seeing how often these die (erm... retire), I somewhat doubt this is usual.
(Exclude Lirathans, that is a different matter... I believe).

[Cale_Knight]

There shouldn't be any set expiration date.

However, let's take Tuluki templarate. If the reason there are no new Tuluki templars is because there are enough "current" ones, but none of them are active, then yes - they should be forced to retire to open up the roles to interested parties. It's not fair to anyone if your non-stored, non-active character is causing an environment to stagnate.

[Twilight]

Never.  How do you expect to see something like a Red Robe or equivalent promotion in Northern Templars, Noble Houses, etc., if you were forcing people to cycle?

[amoeba]

Need a never option on that poll.  You don't like said Templar, kill him.

It's too bad this doesn't apply in RL

[Maybe42or54]

Hard to kill someone that only comes around once a RL month.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I think that someone in a special position should be retired after a month of inactivity.

[WarriorPoet]

I think that someone in a special position should be retired after a month of inactivity.

I agree with this completely. At the very least, any long-term inactivity should be discussed with an immortal before hand, and another, more active leader recruited to pick up the slack, even if only temporarily. These roles are in a much better position to get things going than your average character, and I think it's a shame that players go inactive and their underlings suffer because of it.

Let's keep these kinds of roles active.

-WP

[Ghost]

I think that someone in a special position should be retired after a month of inactivity.

Right on.

[Anonymous]

I think that someone in a special position should be retired after a month of inactivity.

Agreed.

[jhunter]

That kank was me dammit.

[Rindan]

I don't see a need to force retirement for anyone, even if they are not terribly active.  Simply open up the position again.  You can have more then three templars if those three templars are inactive.  I wouldn't have any problem with three active templars and three mostly inactive templars that only appear on occasion.  If those inactive players are happy with their role, why disrupt it?  PCs are almost never in a position where there isn't room for more PCs to jump in at the same level as they are.

I personally wouldn't even set a strict time limit.  The clan imms should have a set goal of X many active people in Y role.  If there are not enough active people, inquire to the inactive people what is up.  If they say they are going to remain inactive for the foreseeable future for whatever reason, then just open up another role.  Seems simple enough to me.  The goal is to have X many active people.  Shoot for that goal regardless of how many inactive people there are.

[Ghost]

The problem is, when the templar/noble is there, they hire their own servants/aides/guards/spies.  And as long as those characters stay there, NPC superiors don't shift the servants to other active ones, because there is no telling when the PC is going to show up.

And also, sponsored roles come up with sponsored ideas.  If there are going to be three templars, probably each will be assigned into a different plot.  If one stops being active, the plot will be leaderless and a new one needs to fill up the role.  If you assign another one without taking off the former one, there is going to be a trouble in leading.  (two leaders on a single task tend to suck).

I guess that is why.

[RunningMountain]

Anytime a leader PC is inactive (not logging on at all) for more then a month, I think that's more then enough time to bring a new PC into the geist of things. If you can't play it's just ruining it for other lessers who rely on them to be in game to help out with stuff going on.

[Bestatte]

Totally agreed with ERS. There's nothing more frustrating than being hired by a clan leader, told you are to report only to him (since you're his personal spy or personal aide or whatever), then left to your own devices for over a month while the player of your clan leader suddenly becomes inactive. You -know- he'll come back eventually, and the other clan leaders won't pick you up to work for them because they're informed in advance that you're THAT leader's lackey.

So you gather information. You bar-sit. You try to hire underlings - with no sids because there's no one paying YOU during that month either. You try to get involved, but you have no instructions on what you can and cannot do. You wing it and hope that when your boss does finally show up, he'll applaud your decisions instead of killing you for doing something he wouldn't want you to do.

Then the boss shows up for a RL week - awesome RP, you're having a blast again, but all that information is old news, so there's really not much to talk about. And then he goes AWOL again for another month.

This does not make for fun game-play. If you're in a position of authority over another character, don't just skip out for a month without at LEAST giving that PC instructions for their absence that don't rely on reporting back to you or asking you for help while you're gone. Don't assume the guy you dropped your employee off with will be alive the day after you disappear. You know better than that, if you've been chosen for a leadership role. Give the names and positions of EVERYONE in that clan the employee can report to in your absence - not just one NPC whose IMM might have 3 other clans to deal with and not have time or desire to be your employee's sole form of entertainment.

If you can't manage that - even via an e-mail to your clan IMM or a post on the clan board, then just do everyone a favor and step down from the position. Your awesome, fun roleplay is appreciated, but not when people only get to experience it one week out of five in a leadership role.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I don't see a need to force retirement for anyone, even if they are not terribly active.  Simply open up the position again.  You can have more then three templars if those three templars are inactive.  I wouldn't have any problem with three active templars and three mostly inactive templars that only appear on occasion.  If those inactive players are happy with their role, why disrupt it?  PCs are almost never in a position where there isn't room for more PCs to jump in at the same level as they are.

I personally wouldn't even set a strict time limit.  The clan imms should have a set goal of X many active people in Y role.  If there are not enough active people, inquire to the inactive people what is up.  If they say they are going to remain inactive for the foreseeable future for whatever reason, then just open up another role.  Seems simple enough to me.  The goal is to have X many active people.  Shoot for that goal regardless of how many inactive people there are.

I'm not really sure why some clans have a fixed limit on how many templars or nobles can be in them at one time.  But I know for a fact that they do.  Unless the immortals running these clans decide differently, I think that they should make sure that each of these limited slots is filled with a player that logs in twice a week, to say the least.

Furthermore, as Bestatte mentioned, even inactive players usually have a few employees, and it isn't fun being left to rot by an employer that only logs in once a decade.

[Vanth]

I'm not really sure why some clans have a fixed limit on how many templars or nobles can be in them at one time.  But I know for a fact that they do.  Unless the immortals running these clans decide differently, I think that they should make sure that each of these limited slots is filled with a player that logs in twice a week, to say the least.

As far as the fixed limit, I know that personally, I limit the number of nobles or merchant house family members based on two criteria.

One is very prosaic.  There are usually only two or three coded bedrooms on the Estate.

The second has more to do with the big picture.  If I have five Winrothol nobles, then that's five people who are not playing Tor nobles or Byn Sergeants or insane sorcerors or whatever.  I don't really need five PC nobles in a House.  I'd be doing a disservice to the game as a whole to hoard that many leaders in one clan.

And regarding the desire to have inactive leaders retired, which so many players have expressed, this is generally left up to the individual imm's decision.  I tend to retire inactive leaders.  

It's my feeling that I've offered you a special role, which is both a privilege and a responsibility.  The privilege is your greater access to wealth and power.  The responsibility is to move things along and provide interaction and direction for your underlings and the populace as a whole.

Also, since these roles are limited, I feel like if you're not able to log in regularly and move things along, you owe it to the game to step down and allow someone else a chance.

Furthermore, it's no fun for you to have a role that you feel guilty for not logging into.  While it is a responsibility, it shouldn't feel like a burden.  If you would be happier playing an independent hunter, I think that's what you should be playing.

Again, I do want to state that different imms feel differently about these matters, and the behind-the-scenes reasoning varies from clan to clan and from immortal to immortal.

[Halaster]

Honestly, I don't think they should expire, so I didn't vote.

Ditto that thought.

[Bogre]

My characters expire with their final, dying breath.