How to make clans more appealing?

[Nyr]

in summary, things that will be reviewed for clans, regardless:

pay scales
schedules
documentation (when applicable/necessary/desired)

things that will be trialed because it is better to see how it works on a smaller scale first:

perks for longer-lived PCs in clans (leaders)
perks for longer lived PCs in clans (non-leaders)

The other stuff like "let's just close down everything except super small clans and leave open maybe one noble house" definitely has merit.  It also requires tons more work than just saying it, and perhaps is more appropriate to review once noble houses have been brought into the 21st century with regards to their documentation and roles for PCs.

[Quirk]

The other stuff like "let's just close down everything except super small clans and leave open maybe one noble house" definitely has merit.  It also requires tons more work than just saying it, and perhaps is more appropriate to review once noble houses have been brought into the 21st century with regards to their documentation and roles for PCs.

This is a place I'm perfectly happy with. If the idea's out there and getting real consideration, that's all I can ask. I will return to being patient.

One more little thought:

Schedules were listed by many people as offputting. An earlier comment of yours suggested that only four clans have schedules and all of those have caveats for when other clanned players aren't around. It's possible that a lot of the people writing have formed an opinion from past experience which doesn't reflect the current reality very closely, much as my perception that PC political action is somewhat circumscribed may be outdated. Might it be an idea maybe to have some kind of occasional update / post addressing misconceptions to ensure people who are perhaps not in a position to be informed of these things in game can get up to speed on how things are now, so that they don't continue to be put off by things they've experienced in the past?

[Lizzie]

I think it's great that Nyr and the rest of the staff will be taking a serious look at the perceived issues. I keep saying perceived, because - just because players see something, doesn't mean it's necessarily so. And just because we don't see something, doesn't mean it isn't necessarily so. Pointing out what we perceive, and letting the staff take a closer look to see what's truly what, seems to be working. If it weren't working, Nyr (et al) wouldn't bother taking a closer look.

So thanks staff, for taking a closer look and taking our perceptions seriously.

[Malken]

in summary, things that will be reviewed for clans, regardless:

pay scales
schedules
documentation (when applicable/necessary/desired)

things that will be trialed because it is better to see how it works on a smaller scale first:

perks for longer-lived PCs in clans (leaders)
perks for longer lived PCs in clans (non-leaders)

Awesome *excite*

[James de Monet]

Suck it, indies.  ICly, I mean.  OOCly you have support from independent staff.

Hahahahaha, so sigging that.

[Chettaman]

SHEDULES (totally did it on purpose)

When it comes to schedules, I believe people see them the wrong way. Me included. Maybe we should see them more as... bulletins. You know... like you go to the local Y and you see fliers and papers up letting you know that this is gonna happen. (excluding militaristic life-styles)

Every night at 6pm there will be zumba class
Tuesday and Thursdays there's karate at 4pm
Wednesdays  at 4pm there's soft-ball
----
Sparring is every morning from dawn until noon.

You don't have to show up. It's just for your own good. Or other's own good. For the good. But if you joined a militaristic group, I mean... who's fault is it you can't do everything you want? It's no longer your character's life. The city owns you, suckuh!!

with that said... is the byn a military? I mean they're just mercenaries. Well I guess a byn leader would be the one to take offense to someone not showing up. dirty mercenaries, (i just imagined) wouldn't really care. It's mostly just fun to make fun of runners.

[Marc]

There is no real feasible way to fix the Armageddon economy.  It's all but universally viewed as unrealistic and that is before you come to consensus on what a realistic economy would look like.  This proposal runs under the assumption that changes to the buy/sell/sid nature of the game will remain functionally the same.

Currently it is possible to make vast quantities of obsidian in short periods of time.  Independent characters usually work outside IC constraints and are free to utilize all avenues of obsidian making, but most characters, regardless of station, are capable of turning a profit.  The whole stripping dead bodies of everything that can be pawned off phenomenon, crafting skills, selling of resources, trade routes, theft etc.  There are many routes to wealth.

I am under the impression things* work this way because it is a pragmatic system.  It can be abused, but it's not broken.

(*haggle/barter, foraging, crafting, npc merchants etc)

With those things in mind I propose two changes.

1.) Get rid of the bank.  If you have wealth you have to have it on your body or hide it someplace.  Auto payouts of salaries, noble withdraws and other, exceptional situations would need to be handled by other, clan specific npcs. That could even be a "perk": "Naw, you don't -have- to get paid this month.  We'll pay you for two months next month" i.e. don't have to withdraw pay until you need it or even have house and location specific bankers.

This would force people to travel with their wealth.  No more withdrawing extra sid because you see something you want on your trip to Luirs.  People could not craft for profit quite as severely, spam forage/hunt so extensively nor burglarize to extremes as they'll need to use or stash their gain, not simply sell and deposit.

While this does mean that someone could possibly get in situations where they lose everything, I feel that would add to roleplaying opportunities.  No extra 300 sid in the bank for water or food when times get tough.  Better keep it in your boot or be prepared to have to go do something desperate.

2.) Nobles receive VASTLY increased salaries.  Whatever  they get paid now, it sure seems like it is not enough.  A noble should be able to get sid.  Just get it.  If they want more, they get more.  They'll be held accountable by their higher ups but in the short-term they get the coin.  This would allow for real trickle-down wealth as nobles would be buying from the GMH and paying for their plots.

From here it would be a matter of massaging IC reactions to wealth.  Combined with a lack of a bank, wealth would be harder to hide and as a result those with it beyond "their station" would be singled out for fleecing.

Should GMH members selling to the unaffiliated be frowned upon, the amount of "cool gear" filtering out to the player-base would be restricted to the nobles with plentiful wealth (and places to store it), noble households, city-state bureaucrats and fellow GMH'ers.  Not absolutely, I wager, but without need to fund-raise from indies what motivation would a GMH merchant have? (rhetorical) This might even lessen the vendor-machine nature of GMH merchants as they could get their operating budgets from a few well-heeled clients and focus more on their plots.


Combined, these two suggestions would make the nobility seem richer and the independents seem poorer without having to revamp any existing system.  Those just able to eek out a living will still be able to as there is no change to the bottom end of the spectrum.  It's the upper end.  People could not put together huge fortunes without some kind of secure place to store it.  This would allow others to potentially make off with it, but then where do THEY keep it. 
If you do have a huge fortune, what will you do with it?  The nobles have all the money AND the influence so why would a GMH member sell you something special over the nobility?  Sure, you can pay, but so can they and they might even remember the service fondly.  Since one cannot simply add to the number with Nenyuk, hunting one more duskhorn or sewing one more silk dress will be balanced against other activities.

In the end you have richer nobles, more secure and "perky" clan membership and an independent experience not much changed yet with a lowered glass ceiling.

This is not a perfect suggestion as there are a 1001 different scenarios which would cause issue but I do not believe this is any different than the current scenario and might even add a little harshness without screwing with the learning curve excessively.

[Lizzie]

I like Marc's idea. Can someone find the flaws in it? I thought of a couple, but the situation addresses itself neatly (eg: twink raider robs everyone of ALL their sids - which is all they have. Solution: Twink raider is now stuck with 100,000 sids weighing down his pockets, and Uber Twink Raider is right around the corner, ready to lighten his load).

[Malken]

I like Marc's idea. Can someone find the flaws in it? I thought of a couple, but the situation addresses itself neatly (eg: twink raider robs everyone of ALL their sids - which is all they have. Solution: Twink raider is now stuck with 100,000 sids weighing down his pockets, and Uber Twink Raider is right around the corner, ready to lighten his load).

Pretty sure I proposed that same idea a few times in this thread and the previous one.. And probably the previous previous one..  It also come close to the other idea I proposed of placing a 3000 cap on non-clanned PCs in the bank.

[Delirium]

Things would get pretty broken unless the 5-item cap was removed from shops at the same time.

[Delusion]

I think I'd prefer to see a solution that actually makes clans more appealing, as opposed to making an independent harder to play to the point that you should probably go for a clan whether you like it or not, while simultaneously harming playability for clans to boot. Increased noble stipends is good, though.

I wouldn't, however, be averse to giving the templarate access to unclanned PCs' bank accounts upon request (that is to say, request to staff to roll out a Nenyuki NPC to deal with it).

[Lizzie]

Things would get pretty broken unless the 5-item cap was removed from shops at the same time.

Or change the limit (I'm regurgitating this idea because I still think it's the best, plus it's mine:)

No more cap on items, and instead, caps on characters. All characters can sell up to 2 of *whatever* the NPC buys, per <insert arbitrary time period>, per NPC.

So - if I have
10 red stone daggers
5 green stone daggers
3 sandstone daggers
5 unpolished amethysts
4 rough brown hides

I can sell 2 of each color dagger to the Salarr shop, 2 red and 2 green and the last sandstone one to the wandering trader in the market, and I'll just have to hold onto the other green one and the other 6 red ones til the next <insert arbitrary time period.>

In addition, I can sell 2 amethysts to the stone buyer, unless I can polish two of them - in which case I can sell 2 polished and 2 unpolished.

I can also sell 2 brown hides to the hide buyer - unless, again, I can tan the other two, in which case I can sell 2 rough brown hides and 2 tanned brown hides to the hide buyer.

That's no matter how many other people are trying to sell them, no matter how many of each other people have, and no matter how realistic or not it is that the NPCs have unlimited funds.

Of course diamonds would need to only be worth maybe 200 sids each, before haggle, in the most remote area - maybe 300 sids max after haggle in a more publically accessable area.

[Marc]

Things would get pretty broken unless the 5-item cap was removed from shops at the same time.

I do not see how that is the case as the amount of obsidian made in a given time-frame would be the same.  No less money is being sucked out of the npcs.  The only difference is that one person will have a harder time making many thousands selling to npcs.

IMHO it will spread the wealth out more.  It might also promote other forms of fungible wealth like gems and jewelry which might even alleviate the 5-item cap (make value more worthwhile as well).

I think I'd prefer to see a solution that actually makes clans more appealing, as opposed to making an independent harder to play to the point that you should probably go for a clan whether you like it or not, while simultaneously harming playability for clans to boot. Increased noble stipends is good, though.

I wouldn't, however, be averse to giving the templarate access to unclanned PCs' bank accounts upon request (that is to say, request to staff to roll out a Nenyuki NPC to deal with it).

I do not see how this makes an independent harder to play.  If by harder you mean successful independents will be targeted for their wealth, I guess that is the outcome I was looking for.  If by harder you mean survival will be more difficult, I have to disagree.  The mechanics for generating money will not change as all the same avenues would be open.  There would just be no hoarding unless said hoard is a physical presence in the game.  Grebbing for salt or cotton or whatever will still provide the same income.

If you don't want the templarate to have access to your "bank account" (read: backpack/belt) maybe keeping money with friends or in your apartment or hidden in your sock is more engaging then RPing with a Nenyuki clerk and hoping an immortal is available.

[Narf]

I think I'd prefer to see a solution that actually makes clans more appealing, as opposed to making an independent harder to play to the point that you should probably go for a clan whether you like it or not, while simultaneously harming playability for clans to boot. Increased noble stipends is good, though.

I'd tend to agree that positive inducements are better, but this isn't so cut and dry. It makes grebbers harder to play, certainly, but it makes thieves and raiders easier, and they're almost always independents.

[Malken]

Oh man, are we just going to start re-stating all the pros and cons of all the ideas that's been written since the start of this thread?

[williamson]

1.) Get rid of the bank.  If you have wealth you have to have it on your body or hide it someplace.  Auto payouts of salaries, noble withdraws and other, exceptional situations would need to be handled by other, clan specific npcs. That could even be a "perk": "Naw, you don't -have- to get paid this month.  We'll pay you for two months next month" i.e. don't have to withdraw pay until you need it or even have house and location specific bankers.

This would force people to travel with their wealth.  No more withdrawing extra sid because you see something you want on your trip to Luirs.  People could not craft for profit quite as severely, spam forage/hunt so extensively nor burglarize to extremes as they'll need to use or stash their gain, not simply sell and deposit.

While this does mean that someone could possibly get in situations where they lose everything, I feel that would add to roleplaying opportunities.  No extra 300 sid in the bank for water or food when times get tough.  Better keep it in your boot or be prepared to have to go do something desperate.

This will not work. It's simple economics. If you're playing a noble, templar, or GMH family member and you want to hire someone successful, you can no longer offer them money because they have all they can carry and their apartment is full. To motivate them, these leaders have to offer "something" that players want. Now, the new currency is not money but whatever players will accept as payment for services. Currently, when players die, the bank helps to remove a lot of their wealth from the game. This is a good thing. We've all had the delight of renting a new apartment and finding a bunch of valuable stuff inside it. Now, imagine finding the same apartment with all that stuff and a bag filled with most of their life savings. Worse, when you die, the next player finds the apartment with the stuff and the life savings of two players. This causes inflation and devaluation of currency. Eventually, finding money is like finding piles of skinned scrab and gortok parts laying unwanted along the road.

2.) Nobles receive VASTLY increased salaries.  Whatever  they get paid now, it sure seems like it is not enough.  A noble should be able to get sid.  Just get it.  If they want more, they get more.  They'll be held accountable by their higher ups but in the short-term they get the coin.  This would allow for real trickle-down wealth as nobles would be buying from the GMH and paying for their plots.

From here it would be a matter of massaging IC reactions to wealth.  Combined with a lack of a bank, wealth would be harder to hide and as a result those with it beyond "their station" would be singled out for fleecing.

Should GMH members selling to the unaffiliated be frowned upon, the amount of "cool gear" filtering out to the player-base would be restricted to the nobles with plentiful wealth (and places to store it), noble households, city-state bureaucrats and fellow GMH'ers.  Not absolutely, I wager, but without need to fund-raise from indies what motivation would a GMH merchant have? (rhetorical) This might even lessen the vendor-machine nature of GMH merchants as they could get their operating budgets from a few well-heeled clients and focus more on their plots.


Combined, these two suggestions would make the nobility seem richer and the independents seem poorer without having to revamp any existing system.  Those just able to eek out a living will still be able to as there is no change to the bottom end of the spectrum.  It's the upper end.  People could not put together huge fortunes without some kind of secure place to store it.  This would allow others to potentially make off with it, but then where do THEY keep it. 
If you do have a huge fortune, what will you do with it?  The nobles have all the money AND the influence so why would a GMH member sell you something special over the nobility?  Sure, you can pay, but so can they and they might even remember the service fondly.  Since one cannot simply add to the number with Nenyuk, hunting one more duskhorn or sewing one more silk dress will be balanced against other activities.

In the end you have richer nobles, more secure and "perky" clan membership and an independent experience not much changed yet with a lowered glass ceiling.

This is not a perfect suggestion as there are a 1001 different scenarios which would cause issue but I do not believe this is any different than the current scenario and might even add a little harshness without screwing with the learning curve excessively.

I like the idea of nobles having more money. However, it only works if there are banks. What good is having more money if no one has the ability to store or keep much of it?

You can't drive people into clans by making independent characters more and more difficult to play. It's going to work much better and be more fun (which is the point of the game) if you make clans better, not independents worse.

[James de Monet]

Pretty sure I proposed that same idea a few times in this thread and the previous one.. And probably the previous previous one..  It also come close to the other idea I proposed of placing a 3000 cap on non-clanned PCs in the bank.

I kind of like these ideas, but I'm worried about playability. Also, the 3k cap would be good for keeping indies lower on the food chain, but it isn't realistic from Nenyuk's perspective.

Now, what you could do is just have Nenyuk skim anything over 3k from anyone without a clan.

Code Select Expand

>balance
>The Nenyuki banker tells you:
"You have 2896 coins in your account."

>deposit 500
>With an utterly straight face, the Nenyuki banker tells you:
"You now have 3000 coins in your account."

>You say:
"What?! But I just gave you 500!"

>The Nenyuki banker tells you;
"You have 3000 coins in your account."

>Storming out of the bank, you say:
"Son of a bitch!"

Alternatively, you could also have Nenyuk refuse to deal with indies in small denominations, either by skimming remainders (as above) or simply refusing.

Code Select Expand

>deposit 238
>The Nenyuki banker tells you:
"Stop wasting my time, grebber. Come back when you have three large."

>withdraw 238
>The Nenyuki banker tells you:
"Do I look like your assistant? Either withdraw more money, or stop wasting my time."



Edited to add:
What this accomplishes is:
Overall caps keep indies from having too much totally secure money. It makes them more vulnerable, which they should be.

Conversely, deposit/withdrawal limits mean more liquid currency. This doesn't reduce the playability or prospects of indies at all, but it means when they get robbed or fleeced, it will be for larger amounts, hurting them more, and increasing the amount of money floating around the game world.

[James de Monet]

Or, hell, for that matter, just introduce a random chance that Nenyuk will fleece you.

If you are noble or Templar, the chance is incredibly small, and will be some small percentage of your deposit (but not less than 500 coins - why risk robbing someone important for less?), and they don't tell you (you find out when you next check your deposit).

If you are GMH family, the chance is higher, but the percentage even lower, and they tell you with a smile. That's business camaraderie (they're letting you know they're charging you for their services).

If you are any other clan, the chance is medium, and the percentages are low. They don't tell you, it's just an aggregate over time for them.

If you are indie, the chance is quite high, and the percentage taken is anywhere from very little to half of your deposit. They tell you, because they don't care how much of a stink you throw.

Code Select Expand

(as indie)
>balance
>The Nenyuki banker tells you:
"You have 583 coins in your account."
>deposit 300
>The Nenyuki banker tells you:
"You now have 757 coins in your account."

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Just a quick point: small and gritty clans exist, in non-coded form, within small groups of indies. I don't see why the GMH should be gritty, nor the NHs. Neither are positioned in the world as struggling entities, and if you are not struggling, then you are not dealing with the grit. And that's realistic, and I don't really feel like it hurts anything.

What we're struggling with is making clans make sense overall, and not just deciding that you have to suspend your belief to want to be in a clan. We're suggesting all sorts of things, and some of these things have real merit (life-sworn house, pay scale increases, exclusivity). But the real struggle, from a God's-eye perspective, is balancing both clans and indies so that it all meshes to create an exquisite whole.

Indies are a crucial part of the game. That's reality, from an OOC perspective, and probably less of an IC perspective. Maybe the reality is that GMHs and NHs should really be homes for plot-makers, in most cases, non-staff story-tellers in a way. Maybe GMH merchants should be bringing indies into the story not by just providing cool tools to them, but sending them hither and thither to do the work the run of the mill GMH hunter does. Maybe GMH hunters should not exist as recruits, in the way they do today, but instead be selectively and rarely drawn from the clamoring masses who seek to attain a non-gritty experience.

Maybe the ladder of player roles needs to change a tad - instead of newb/recruit/contracted/life-sworn, perhaps it should be newb/indie/lifesworn for GMHs and NHs. Maybe the de-facto way for new players to get into the game should be service in the Byn/Sujaal's School, or the Atrium/Northern equivalent (which, yes, I know it isn't open, but ya know ... it could be), and not as a recruit to some clan. Then you stay in those clans, or go indie, and do your thing, and prove to the GMH/NH that you're worth it before you ever attain the colors of your preferred house (if you ever do).

This isn't a suggestion - it's a rough thought that I choose to share.

[FantasyWriter]

I can did it, but Nobles and Templars should not be fleeced. This would go against Nenyuk's political and financial well-being.

[Marc]

1.) Get rid of the bank.

This will not work. It's simple economics. If you're playing a noble, templar, or GMH family member and you want to hire someone successful, you can no longer offer them money because they have all they can carry and their apartment is full. To motivate them, these leaders have to offer "something" that players want. Now, the new currency is not money but whatever players will accept as payment for services. Currently, when players die, the bank helps to remove a lot of their wealth from the game. This is a good thing. We've all had the delight of renting a new apartment and finding a bunch of valuable stuff inside it. Now, imagine finding the same apartment with all that stuff and a bag filled with most of their life savings. Worse, when you die, the next player finds the apartment with the stuff and the life savings of two players. This causes inflation and devaluation of currency. Eventually, finding money is like finding piles of skinned scrab and gortok parts laying unwanted along the road.

2.) Nobles receive VASTLY increased salaries

I like the idea of nobles having more money. However, it only works if there are banks. What good is having more money if no one has the ability to store or keep much of it?

You can't drive people into clans by making independent characters more and more difficult to play. It's going to work much better and be more fun (which is the point of the game) if you make clans better, not independents worse.

It's not a perfect system, but to these specific issues I answer as follows:

"This will not work. It's simple economics. If you're playing a noble, templar, or GMH family member and you want to hire someone successful, you can no longer offer them money because they have all they can carry and their apartment is full."

They can still offer money.  Money still spends as well as it did the day before but it's not quite so easy to hoard.  If someone has all the money they can carry and their apartment is full why is offering money a temptation?  I believe this harkens to the more-loot-is-good argument.  An attempt to side-step the problem with acquiring too much stuff I'd just say it would be no more of a problem without a bank as with.  P3oples like their lewt.

"Currently, when players die, the bank helps to remove a lot of their wealth from the game. This is a good thing. We've all had the delight of renting a new apartment and finding a bunch of valuable stuff inside it. Now, imagine finding the same apartment with all that stuff and a bag filled with most of their life savings. Worse, when you die, the next player finds the apartment with the stuff and the life savings of two players. This causes inflation and devaluation of currency. Eventually, finding money is like finding piles of skinned scrab and gortok parts laying unwanted along the road."

This, admittedly, is a problem.  Simply solution is apply Nenyuk's requisitioning to apartments in addition to the banks.  Rent runs out?  Sorry, we had to sell your belongings to make room for the next tenant.  It would allow more "stuff" to disappear into the void to replace the bank account money sink and would snub the apartment lottery right quick.  Finding piles of money shouldn't be a huge problem as money would lose some of its value vs tangible goods yet it would still be used to buy everything in the automated marketplaces.   Which means if you find yourself with too much coin you might be forced to buy something from Salarr or Kadius, or bribe a soldier today instead of tomorrow, buy drinks or do something with it instead of it sitting in a bank.

And I am still curious how no-bank makes an independent harder to play.  It's been repeated a few times now but without example.  It makes accumulation for all characters harder, but harder accumulation does not equal a harder game.

As for fleecing, any coded system would have to ignore the political milieu that is pc to pc rp.  Influence is hard to code.

[williamson]

Just a quick point: small and gritty clans exist, in non-coded form, within small groups of indies. I don't see why the GMH should be gritty, nor the NHs. Neither are positioned in the world as struggling entities, and if you are not struggling, then you are not dealing with the grit. And that's realistic, and I don't really feel like it hurts anything.

What we're struggling with is making clans make sense overall, and not just deciding that you have to suspend your belief to want to be in a clan. We're suggesting all sorts of things, and some of these things have real merit (life-sworn house, pay scale increases, exclusivity). But the real struggle, from a God's-eye perspective, is balancing both clans and indies so that it all meshes to create an exquisite whole.

Indies are a crucial part of the game. That's reality, from an OOC perspective, and probably less of an IC perspective. Maybe the reality is that GMHs and NHs should really be homes for plot-makers, in most cases, non-staff story-tellers in a way. Maybe GMH merchants should be bringing indies into the story not by just providing cool tools to them, but sending them hither and thither to do the work the run of the mill GMH hunter does. Maybe GMH hunters should not exist as recruits, in the way they do today, but instead be selectively and rarely drawn from the clamoring masses who seek to attain a non-gritty experience.

Maybe the ladder of player roles needs to change a tad - instead of newb/recruit/contracted/life-sworn, perhaps it should be newb/indie/lifesworn for GMHs and NHs. Maybe the de-facto way for new players to get into the game should be service in the Byn/Sujaal's School, or the Atrium/Northern equivalent (which, yes, I know it isn't open, but ya know ... it could be), and not as a recruit to some clan. Then you stay in those clans, or go indie, and do your thing, and prove to the GMH/NH that you're worth it before you ever attain the colors of your preferred house (if you ever do).

This isn't a suggestion - it's a rough thought that I choose to share.

I'm in complete agreement.

[ale six]

The crafters/hunters thing is one that mainly concerns GMHs. Although GMHs were talked about a lot, and the thread is supposed to concern all clans, but not much was brought up about noble houses besides "lack of 'grit'" (whatever grit is to people; if you want to talk about "harshness" and "murder/corruption/betrayal" then noble houses have plenty of that) and the argument about clan pay and perks that apply broadly to all of the clans. I would be interested in seeing what people think of noble houses beyond that, considering there are far more of those than any of the other types of clans, typically 2-3 open per city at one time.

I said I'd bow out of the thread, but actually I'm gonna bow back in just for this topic. I love me some nobles.

We all love to talk about grit, which I think generally means poor, hardened, sand-worn, and without much social or political cover from the dangers of the world. I can get behind that definitely, but I don't think "grit" should be put on a pedestal to the point where we want to reduce clans that aren't. If everyone is dirt poor, the guy with 500 sids to his name is suddenly rich, grit or no. You need the upper crust around to make everyone feel poor, uncultured, and meaningless by comparison. And, frankly, some players have more fun with conflict of a more social/political sort. Luckily our game is big enough for all stripes. I'd hate to see any of the existing Noble Houses get closed down.

I agree with others who say nobles should have lots and lots of money. That's their raison d'etre, after all. But it's not so they can just look the part and blow their whole stipend on silks and tea, it's so they can spend that money in ways that will cause plots. The more money they have, the more Byn missions they can fund, the more PC merchants (indie and clanned both) they can buy from, the more spies and assassins they can hire, the more rumors they can spread, and so on. Servants in noble clans should be showered in bonuses and gifts when they're doing a good job.

I think another way to keep Noble Houses appealing is to make sure that we keep a lot of active nobles in both cities and make sure they get good support. Nobles, in my experience, feed off of conflict and competition with their peers. Social and political intrigue, which is what nobles do best, needs a critical mass of PCs in the noble strata for alliances to be made, broken, and so on. When only one or two nobles are active in a location, I think it's easy for the plot engines to sputter out. At that point, you become a sort of quest-giver, trying to keep your minions busy while you sit in the Trader's (RIP), hoping one of the other 2 PCs that are your peers might drop by. Ideally, I think two nobles in each active House is a good number to strive for.

[Fujikoma]

Without getting into specifics, I am playing in a non-NH clan which some think "doesn't have conflict). I can say that my PC encounters plenty of conflict, likely half of which they generate themselves, and I see other PCs getting a decent amount of conflict as well. You can't always expect someone else to bring conflict to your door, sometimes you have to make it. Does my PC feel safe? No, there are the benefits of being in a clan, and those can protect somewhat, but that just leaves you free to start more conflict, within reason (don't damage the reputation of the house, damnit! A mistake I've made before in other clans). From my experience, no on is safe, ever. I fully expect the eyerollers and duel challengers to throw down the gauntlet and refute this, but whatever, I know what I see.

And, also, I am having a blast. A lot of the recommended "fixes" to clans, well, in my current clan PCs have been making an effort to provide that since before my PC started working there. I don't know how they make it work, nor could I get into detail if I did. I'm not sure about this, after thinking a while it struck me that maybe it's better if there is no "automated" fix, and no rules set in stone, but let the individual PC leaders decide how things are to go. Give those in authority more coin to do with as they wish may be a good idea, and let them decide where the coin goes. PC hunters and crafters been doing a bang up job? Provide them with bonuses, within reason. Need to grease a few palms to get the house what it needs? Take that extra coin and slip some bribes, and maybe tell the PCs you'd like to give bonuses to they're doing a great job, and you'll see they are rewarded in a few weeks. Greedy? Just keep it and tell everyone they're horrible and about three steps away from being unemployed.

[Malken]

Fujikoma - The kind of RP and conflict that would make you think, "Christ, that's the reason I play this game and even G R R Martin couldn't come up with that shit!" or the kind that makes you think, "Christ, I swear I've read the same "storyline" in last week's Archie while on my five minutes toilet break at work today ..." style?