Tuluk's Shadow Artists: Now With More Flavor

[Fredd]

.

They are the one's that feed, water, train, and take responsibility if the Artist's actions come to light.

They definitely do the first few things, but they also would potentially get proceeds from whatever their artist does in the future.  Also if their artist is working on an independent job, I really doubt the patron could be held too accountable for that.

Can you honestly say that if there are two competing noble houses, if one of them's artist got caught doing a contract, the other would not use that information against there rival?

Introducing the possibility that a contract could well mean you are supposed to get caught should eliminate that.

However, speaking of getting caught, what if a contract stipulates that you should get caught? It's possible that such a scenario could occur. Barring the absurd, a contract may stipulate any number of things. The artist's job is to fulfill the contract...period. If the contract calls for the artist attempting something and failing, that may require more finesse than one that requires simple execution. The artist does not care, the artist merely does the task they are paid to do. Similarly, the templarate is brokering the contract to the artist, and will not punish an artist for fulfilling a contract as given. If a contract does call for more unusual practices, the templar providing the contract will go over it carefully with the artist to be sure they understand how it works. There is art to be found in any number of practices.

As for serving there city. Don't employees of noble houses serve there city by serving there Lords and Ladies? Why is it you are shifting from this idea/mentality? Perhapse it was mentioned on the last eleven pages and I missed it....But could you explain to me why you are making Shadow Artists essentially there own neutral group?

Employees serve their nobles but do not serve the city.  While highborn are better than commoners and everyone knows that, and being an employee of a highborn noble or that House has prestige not afforded to the unaffiliated, they can't be said to really be serving the city, despite the disagreement of noble patrons.

Bards serve their patrons but eventually serve the interests of their Circles; this is part of the roleplay involved in playing a bard and part of what is expected for that role.

Why are we making shadow artists their own neutral group?  Because we're defining more work to be done, and that hinges on artists being available to do it even if they're tied to a patron.  Additionally, it hinges on those with the right clout to be able to hire artists to do work, but that's something that can be fixed pretty easily.  People like working for patrons, cool.  That's fine.  There just may be some additional work that is not against your patron that needs to be done.

Crap...How to ask this....

From what I can tell, you want the Shadow Artists to be similar to bards. They can be closely associated with a patron at first, but as there abilities improve, they would naturally move away from there patrons. Are staff looking to make a clan now for Shadow Artists?



Edit: Subtle change to wording to move away from talk of hard coded skills

[Armaddict]

Just me, and I'm pretty much always the negative one, but my prediction is that subjecting yourself to the whim of the 'super subtle elite' will start off as the popular thing to do.  This will likely revitalize some things.  And then it will die when that uber subtlety and plotty and the true allocation of power take over, and people realize that they're going to get boned over and over again since there's knowledge of them and their resourcefulness.

And then it will go back to secrecy being the God of Survival.

[Nyr]

The docs above are exhibit A in the failure of the current "system."  What the current documentation says is you can steal stuff and kill people if you get a license first and you're discreet about it, and the templarate may pay you to kill people.  That's it.  To me, it's not surprising that an apocryphal system of anonymous brokerage that is beloved and heavily used hasn't sprung up from that foundation.  Why not try out more detailed documentation before going the route of heavy-handed mandates?  We may be able to make a win-win where both those that want more utilization are happy and those that don't want mandates are happy.  Is that not the most desirable outcome?

Those that want more utilization have probably felt hamstrung by the existing system; those that don't want mandates are probably enjoying the way the current system works out for them.  We don't have to pick a perfect position right in the middle, nor does our implementation have to make every single player happy.

Now, if the heavy-handed mandates are included because the staff thinks that's the way Tuluk should be, then that's a separate issue and that's fine because they run the game.  They can make 1+1 = 3 in Zalanthas and players will adjust.  But if Tuluk is supposed to be a place of heavy-handed mandates, then will there be a system for patron X to go to the templarate to anonymously compel guards or hunters from other clans to do patron X's work?

No.  This is for shadow artists.  That has nothing to do with them.  The templarate doesn't manage partisan agreements except in this one case.

Or will patron X be able to go to the templarate to anonymously compel bards to sing particular songs?

No.  This is for shadow artists.  Bards have little or nothing to do with them, overtly.  The templarate doesn't manage bardic partisan arrangements.

I don't think it's a chicken or egg argument, which is a question of timing and causality.  It's plausible that uncertainty and lack of documentation may cause artist PCs to be reluctant or too loyal to participate in a system they don't know exists, but how does it logically follow that being reluctant or overly loyal will cause PCs to become uncertain about a poorly documented system?

This disagreement can be definitively settled by implementing a well documented system without all the mandates and looking at system utilization after the change.

Or we can settle it by implementing a well-documented system with mandates and looking at system utilization after the change.  We're definitely on opposite sides of this issue.

But if a well documented system without mandates is implemented and it subsequently works, you won't even need to make the harder move to a more strict system, AND everyone is happy.  If you go ahead with the new documentation with all the mandates then you're guaranteeing that you have to make the hard move from less strict to more strict AND you make some people unhappy.

We disagree.

What's the harm in trying the well documented system minus some of the mandates?  The advantage is you may not even need to make the less-strict-to-more-strict change and you may be able to thread the needle of achieving the greater utilization everyone wants without the mandates that some people don't want.

Ultimately, some restrictions are going to be implemented and you are not going to like all of them, we will see how it works, and that's that.

[Molten Heart]

Crap...How to ask this....

From what I can tell, you want the Shadow Artists to be similar to bards. They can be closely associated with a patron at first, but as there skills increase, they would naturally move away from there patrons. Are staff looking to make a clan now for Shadow Artists?

I imagine this is sort of a difficult question for staff to answer, if not just because they have all the answers and due to the IC sensitive nature of the game they can't really give straight answers to specific questions because if they say anything they're possibly giving something away and if they say "Find out IC" people just get mad and think they're being a jerk.

But I believe this the natural way things should work in Tuluk.  In Tuluk there is a bardic sub-culture, why not have a shadow artist sub-culture too?

[Fredd]

Crap...How to ask this....

From what I can tell, you want the Shadow Artists to be similar to bards. They can be closely associated with a patron at first, but as there skills increase, they would naturally move away from there patrons. Are staff looking to make a clan now for Shadow Artists?

I imagine this is sort of a difficult question for staff to answer, if not just because they have all the answers and due to the IC sensitive nature of the game they can't really give straight answers to specific questions because if they say anything they're possibly giving something away and if they say "Find out IC" people just get mad and think they're being a jerk.

But I believe this the natural way things should work in Tuluk.  In Tuluk there is a bardic sub-culture, why not have a shadow artist sub-culture too?

I agree it's hard to answer. It was hard to ask. And the culture has always been there, but more of one could be interesting. I think perhapse I should just submit a question to staff asking what I want to ask. probably a bit better.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Have you considered stipulating that Shadow Artists may not be lifesworn to any Noble House? Every Noble House has recruitment periods, and lifesworn requirements. Perhaps Northern Houses, so apparently connected to their commoners, should do one of two things, if Shadow Artists are to be publically known or marked.

• Do away with lifesworn employees, and instead live and die with the patron/partisan system.
• Require a person to not be a Shadow Artist of any rank at all if they elect to be a lifesworn employee.

Conversely, the tattoo that marks you as a Shadow Artist could not exist at all until you retired, at which point, the rank you retired at would dictate your inking. The Templars' IC or OOC boards could simply keep a list of known Shadow Artists and their unofficial rankings. The entire concept of publicly marking your shadow artists seems to defeat the purpose, since I can just strip your punk ass down.

I would think that any of these solutions at all would not only muddle the waters in a positive manner, causing even more fear and suspicion, but also eliminate some of the Why would I hire X issues I'm reading about. I think that Shadows should probably live in the shadows.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'll also note that although shadow artists might not be marked during their career under my suggestion, the marking they get when/if they retire should probably mean increased stature. A Shadow Artists who comes to a noble asking to be lifesworn and is marked has declared he is retired, and a MASTER. Nobles should probably be very interested in hiring that guy, on the spot.

[Jherlen]

Let me throw a framework for an alternate idea up here. I'd be interested in hearing if this would help the system at all, from the staff perspective.

The templarate establishes a third-party group to manage shadow artists. This could be its own independent organization, or attached to something existing, like Poet's Circle. Let's call this for the purpose of this post only, the Shadow Artist's Guild. Obviously it needs a better name.

The Shadow Artist's Guild manages all "lawful" criminal activity in Tuluk. This involves:

• Training aspiring shadow artists to be discrete and help hone their skills
• "Recruiting" new shadow artists if there aren't enough for business
• Cracking down on "unlicensed" criminals -- either by forcing them to join up or getting rid of them
• Brokering contracts in a double-blind system like what was laid out by Nyr. By custom, the shadow artist's guild can't show favoritism to specific Houses or individuals when it sets up contracts.
• The templarate has oversight over the SA Guild as whole, but by custom, individual templars are not allowed to interfere with contracts.

Breaking these down, I'm envisioning a clan compound somewhere for shadow artists to gather and train, if they want. (Or, they could train independently, or with a patron.)

Journeymen and higher in the Shadow Artist's Guild could sponsor new apprentices in the SA Guild, and would be responsible for mentoring them. If a Journeyman's apprentice fucks up and gets caught, that'd hurt the Journeyman's rep too.

If people are trying to work crimes outside the system, the SA Guild has a serious incentive to stop and/or absorb them. Crime is their lifeblood and they have a monopoly.

The SA Guild would need a "public face" to negotiate contracts. This is the only person who would know who requested a job and would need to keep complete secrecy. They would probably have the protection of a high-ranking templar to put them beyond the harassment of templar PCs. If this person ever compromises the secrecy of a contract - either who requested it or who did it - both the templarate and the SA Guild itself would want them to be silenced Very Quickly. An artist in good standing within the Guild would be selected for the job. They could refuse, if they wanted, but it wouldn't be a good idea career-wise.

Once a job has been completed, the SA Guild would notify the templarate/Legion that it was their work. The templarate can deem a crime was too public, too messy, or too poorly executed and charge a fee. It might even become custom that such "cleanup fees" follow most hits, just so the templarate keeps a cut of the action too.

I've more about this - a lot more - but I just want to throw it out there and see if anyone else thinks I'm crazy. The main thing I want to avoid is Honest, Fair Templar Syndrome in Tuluk. I think it'd be such a shame for Tuluk if templars were obligated by the docs to be fair just so this system can work. There are ways we could have a viable shadow artist community in Tuluk while maintaining templars who are vile, corrupt, detestable, brutal assholes. Isn't that the best of both worlds?

[Nyr]

What exactly are the differences between the old and the new systems?  I'm only picking up two new things, with the rest of the system being the same.  Those those wo differences being:

-All Templars (not just Lirathans, because there is only one order now) can issue contacts/licenses
-Artists must comply with a contract once they are selected by the templarate

Are there others I have missed?

Yes...actually, a lot of the discussions and questions have been around those other things.  I'll try to get to it later but it there are other things listed in the "restrictions" part of the primary doc.

[Delirium]

Jherlen's suggestion gets two thumbs way up from me. It keeps the spirit of the proposed changes and solves the playability issues I've been concerned with.

In effect, it's a formalized northern Guild operating under the shadow of the templarate's oversight.

[Nyr]

Crap...How to ask this....

From what I can tell, you want the Shadow Artists to be similar to bards. They can be closely associated with a patron at first, but as there abilities improve, they would naturally move away from there patrons. Are staff looking to make a clan now for Shadow Artists?

Similar only in one way:  that they become independent of long-term patronage/lifesworn employment at the highest rank.

[Nyr]

Just me, and I'm pretty much always the negative one, but my prediction is that subjecting yourself to the whim of the 'super subtle elite' will start off as the popular thing to do.  This will likely revitalize some things.  And then it will die when that uber subtlety and plotty and the true allocation of power take over, and people realize that they're going to get boned over and over again since there's knowledge of them and their resourcefulness.

And then it will go back to secrecy being the God of Survival.

Isn't secrecy the god of this system?  Shouldn't it be?

[janeshephard]

I guess you mean virtually.  Given that this is tradition and law and enforced by the templarate, I would think that the majority work within that system.  The minority probably couldn't or shouldn't be disclosed except as an estimate if/when that comes up.

Yes, I meant virtually. If the majority work in the system the PCs should reflect that. We need severe punishment if you don't follow the system, and it shouldn't be done quietly either. Criminals being publicly punished and shamed reassures the populace that the traditions are alive and must be adhered to.

[Nyr]

Have you considered stipulating that Shadow Artists may not be lifesworn to any Noble House? Every Noble House has recruitment periods, and lifesworn requirements. Perhaps Northern Houses, so apparently connected to their commoners, should do one of two things, if Shadow Artists are to be publically known or marked.

• Do away with lifesworn employees, and instead live and die with the patron/partisan system.
• Require a person to not be a Shadow Artist of any rank at all if they elect to be a lifesworn employee.

"May not be" in this case is different from bards (bards seriously "may not be" lifesworn if they expect to be Bard rank or higher).  I guess we can say that is the case but without saying that it leaves the door open for potential betrayal.

Conversely, the tattoo that marks you as a Shadow Artist could not exist at all until you retired, at which point, the rank you retired at would dictate your inking. The Templars' IC or OOC boards could simply keep a list of known Shadow Artists and their unofficial rankings. The entire concept of publicly marking your shadow artists seems to defeat the purpose, since I can just strip your punk ass down.

But you'd be happy to keep a lower/mid-ranked artist because you can use them for your own desired contracts and also be secure in the knowledge that they aren't a Master, so they can't be used against you.

I would think that any of these solutions at all would not only muddle the waters in a positive manner, causing even more fear and suspicion, but also eliminate some of the Why would I hire X issues I'm reading about. I think that Shadows should probably live in the shadows.

Possibly, it's an idea I'll add to the list to review.

[Fredd]

Crap...How to ask this....

From what I can tell, you want the Shadow Artists to be similar to bards. They can be closely associated with a patron at first, but as there abilities improve, they would naturally move away from there patrons. Are staff looking to make a clan now for Shadow Artists?

Similar only in one way:  that they become independent of long-term patronage/lifesworn employment at the highest rank.

Well i think that answers about everything I got for now.

I submitted a question a moment ago as well.

I'm interested in seeing how this will play out. I hope it brings out more roleplay.

[Jherlen]

In effect, it's a formalized northern Guild operating under the shadow of the templarate's oversight.

Precisely!

[Nyr]

interesting stuff

I like the idea of it; my main concern is the additional work involved (though that is immaterial to the idea being interesting) as well as the additional resources required to maintain it separately from the templarate (i.e. it'd require PC involvement to manage separately from existing PC sponsored roles).

Would you be happier with a system that had templars more involved and biased in it?  How much more involved and biased should they be, then?

[Armaddict]

Super secret registration with super secret unbribeable middle men, you mean?  Totally inherent in this proposal.  Yes, that's sarcasm.

Regardless, it's a super nice writeup, and from my own opinion, these systems are pretty much the coolest systems in literature.  But they don't fit in roleplaying games right.  They just don't work well, particularly where omission of information is commonplace.  By that, an oblique reference...if every person used think, feel, and mood the way they are filled out and realized in literature, mindbenders would be far more capable in far more areas.  Because this is a roleplaying game instead, and thus with far more personal interest invested in the storyline rather than progression of a predetermined plot, it doesn't work out the same in practice, generally speaking...all the necessary information doesn't get conveyed, which makes personal protection more a basis of being able to respond in different ways than 'catching things in motion'.

This will be subject to the same thing.  It becomes far more beneficial to the player on all sides to do things the good old fashioned way, which makes you succeed or fail based on your own judgment rather than another's attempts at being plotty.

Likely convoluted, I'm taking a test as the same time, but I'm just always a skeptic.  But the literature vs RP angle is pretty much where I've always felt like Tuluk suffered, and this will likely continue down the same line.

More directly...flock to the izdari board as a valuable piece, for the coolness factor, until you realize that you've literally restrained yourself to the game board, and are sacrificed freely or sniped at any time because you've made your role on the board open and easy to access.  Bad blood will rise, and the freedom to stay off the board aside from your own chosen participation points will reign again.  Just my prediction.

[janeshephard]

interesting stuff

I like the idea of it; my main concern is the additional work involved (though that is immaterial to the idea being interesting) as well as the additional resources required to maintain it separately from the templarate (i.e. it'd require PC involvement to manage separately from existing PC sponsored roles).

Would you be happier with a system that had templars more involved and biased in it?  How much more involved and biased should they be, then?

Assign Templar to oversee it to begin with. Then recruit the 'face' from within. This face would be someone who got up to master through playing. I always prefer to see "promote from within" then sponsored roles in these types of situations.

I only have one problem with this type of institution. It will be pretty obvious who attends it and who doesn't. Shadow Agents will become known for simply going there to 'train.'

EDIT:

I actually dislike this TBH. Nobles don't have any reasons to nurture their own team if they can just outsource everything.

[Fredd]

interesting stuff

I like the idea of it; my main concern is the additional work involved (though that is immaterial to the idea being interesting) as well as the additional resources required to maintain it separately from the templarate (i.e. it'd require PC involvement to manage separately from existing PC sponsored roles).

Would you be happier with a system that had templars more involved and biased in it?  How much more involved and biased should they be, then?

I don't think that a templar should be in charge of said group. But the very fact that all work comes from the templar's makes them closely associated.

[Sayyadina]

Those that want more utilization have probably felt hamstrung by the existing system; those that don't want mandates are probably enjoying the way the current system works out for them.  We don't have to pick a perfect position right in the middle, nor does our implementation have to make every single player happy.

I think that almost everybody that's chimed into the thread wants more utilization, but many don't want mandates.  I'm not trying to balance two opposed poles, I'm trying to suggest a parsimonious system that achieves the goal that everybody wants (utilization) without the thing that many don't want (mandates).  Is there a reason that the staff wants implement the mandates other than to increase utilization?   I haven't seen one, but if so then my argument is moot!

I don't think it's a chicken or egg argument, which is a question of timing and causality.  It's plausible that uncertainty and lack of documentation may cause artist PCs to be reluctant or too loyal to participate in a system they don't know exists, but how does it logically follow that being reluctant or overly loyal will cause PCs to become uncertain about a poorly documented system?

This disagreement can be definitively settled by implementing a well documented system without all the mandates and looking at system utilization after the change.

Or we can settle it by implementing a well-documented system with mandates and looking at system utilization after the change.  We're definitely on opposite sides of this issue.

So if X = a well documented system and Y = mandates and we implement X and then see the increased utilization results we want, then we've proven X works.  How can trying X + Y prove that Y works or is even necessary?  To prove that you would need to implement Y without X.  You can implement X + Y if you want, you're the staff and I'm the player so it's clearly not up to me!  But if X + Y works you still can't claim that you've settled the question of whether Y was necessary or that X alone was insufficient by that single experiment of X + Y.  Implementing both would only prove that X + Y > Z, where Z is our current "system" of uncertainly and lack of documentation and I don't dispute that because I've already made it clear that I think all that's necessary for improvement is X = a well documented system.

What's the harm in trying the well documented system minus some of the mandates?  The advantage is you may not even need to make the less-strict-to-more-strict change and you may be able to thread the needle of achieving the greater utilization everyone wants without the mandates that some people don't want.

Ultimately, some restrictions are going to be implemented and you are not going to like all of them, we will see how it works, and that's that.

I was hoping that there was reasoning behind the unshakeable decision to go straight to the mandate-heavy regime that I could get behind, but I haven't found it.  But as you say, "that's that."

Now, if the heavy-handed mandates are included because the staff thinks that's the way Tuluk should be, then that's a separate issue and that's fine because they run the game.  They can make 1+1 = 3 in Zalanthas and players will adjust.

...Including this player!

Thanks Nyr for being so diligent in responding to my posts (and to so many others) in this format!

[Fredd]

Hell, Nyr even answered my submitted question already. I'm not sure what he put in his coffee, but I want some!

[Jherlen]

interesting stuff

I like the idea of it; my main concern is the additional work involved (though that is immaterial to the idea being interesting) as well as the additional resources required to maintain it separately from the templarate (i.e. it'd require PC involvement to manage separately from existing PC sponsored roles).

You'd need one or two PCs to be around for brokering contracts; the equivalent of another merchant house clan or so in Tuluk. They'd probably need to be sponsored at first, but later on might not necessarily have to be. The Shadow Brokers (I mainly just wanted to use that term cos of Mass Effect) don't need to be shadow artists at all, they just need to be stone-faced, tight-lipped negotiating badasses. Besides the need for absolute secrecy, there really aren't that many other requirements on the role in terms of player responsibilities.

And let's be honest, if the system as outlined takes off, it's going to be an extra burden on the players of templars anyway to administer. Templars have never seemed like a role that has problems with too little to do. They can keep themselves plenty busy with politicking, running the militia, chasing down criminals, fighting amongst each other, and so on. Administering the shadow artist contracts sounds like a half-time job at least, it's way more involved that just handing out dull black gems or merchants' licenses. Why not acknowledge that and let other players handle the load?

Would you be happier with a system that had templars more involved and biased in it?  How much more involved and biased should they be, then?

I'd like the templars to be way less involved in fairly, impartially running the shadow artist system, and way more involved in using it for their own personal ends. And in general, I'd love to see templars as biased and self-serving as possible. I think templars as a role would be far more interesting when they have to pay lip-service to city propaganda and to the Sun King, and give the appearance of being above the fray of petty squabbling politics, but in reality they're neck deep in it. Templars should not, ever, be someone you expect to treat you fairly or be your friend unless you've given them a reason to (reasons being money, power, or something else that advances their personal goals.) The recent upheavals in Tuluk sound like the perfect time to dispel any illusions to the contrary. That's why I don't want to see them straightjacketed into having to run Shadow Artist contracts fairly in order to make a system work.

[Fredd]

interesting stuff

I like the idea of it; my main concern is the additional work involved (though that is immaterial to the idea being interesting) as well as the additional resources required to maintain it separately from the templarate (i.e. it'd require PC involvement to manage separately from existing PC sponsored roles).

You'd need one or two PCs to be around for brokering contracts; the equivalent of another merchant house clan or so in Tuluk. They'd probably need to be sponsored at first, but later on might not necessarily have to be. The Shadow Brokers (I mainly just wanted to use that term cos of Mass Effect) don't need to be shadow artists at all, they just need to be stone-faced, tight-lipped negotiating badasses. Besides the need for absolute secrecy, there really aren't that many other requirements on the role in terms of player responsibilities.

And let's be honest, if the system as outlined takes off, it's going to be an extra burden on the players of templars anyway to administer. Templars have never seemed like a role that has problems with too little to do. They can keep themselves plenty busy with politicking, running the militia, chasing down criminals, fighting amongst each other, and so on. Administering the shadow artist contracts sounds like a half-time job at least, it's way more involved that just handing out dull black gems or merchants' licenses. Why not acknowledge that and let other players handle the load?

Would you be happier with a system that had templars more involved and biased in it?  How much more involved and biased should they be, then?

I'd like the templars to be way less involved in fairly, impartially running the shadow artist system, and way more involved in using it for their own personal ends. And in general, I'd love to see templars as biased and self-serving as possible. I think templars as a role would be far more interesting when they have to pay lip-service to city propaganda and to the Sun King, and give the appearance of being above the fray of petty squabbling politics, but in reality they're neck deep in it. Templars should not, ever, be someone you expect to treat you fairly or be your friend unless you've given them a reason to (reasons being money, power, or something else that advances their personal goals.) The recent upheavals in Tuluk sound like the perfect time to dispel any illusions to the contrary. That's why I don't want to see them straightjacketed into having to run Shadow Artist contracts fairly in order to make a system work.

This. I was trying to say this..

[Jherlen]

I only have one problem with this type of institution. It will be pretty obvious who attends it and who doesn't. Shadow Agents will become known for simply going there to 'train.'

EDIT:

I actually dislike this TBH. Nobles don't have any reasons to nurture their own team if they can just outsource everything.

That's true, SA's seen coming and going would give themselves up. Unless the training area was placed in a commonly-traveled part of the city, like Poet's Circle or something. But yeah, that's a downside. However, a city that's openly tattooing people as shadow artists probably isn't placing complete secrecy of who is and isn't one as highest priority.

Re: nobles nurturing their own team, I think you want to encourage insourcing and outsourcing both. The patron relationships that Nyr outlined seem to be the insourcing option, and there's no reason those would need to change or go away under this.