|
Post by CaptainM on Jul 30, 2013 17:01:22 GMT -5
I feel like Factions are more dinamic than PC's and I might suggest that instead of picking one type have a raiting from 1-3 saying which one the group has deemed as most important (3) to least important (1) and this would be a subtracted bonus to faction perks. Basically each skill has a +3 buffer that is added on and your rating is subtracted from it based on which group the skill comes from. Does this make sense to anyone else?
|
|
evakos
Mardrun Trading Consortium
Posts: 53
|
Post by evakos on Jul 30, 2013 21:50:22 GMT -5
I second the non-class idea for factions. I'm not always a big fan of class based systems to begin with, and I think the 1-3 system offers a lot more freedom and would make things more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Jul 30, 2013 22:02:56 GMT -5
True, but the "class" based factions merely show specialization. Phoenix are obviously economical, so they should not be able to raise an army as easily as a military unit. Pack Longfang is obviously a military unit that is highly specialized, they should not be able to open trade routes and build settlements as easily. I've done a LOT of exp crunching with how factions can branch out and this covers a lot of angles I wanted to cover and rather smoothly. This class system is most likely going to stay, but I will take a look at some other options. I am making looking for input on things such as the perks, any additional ones we can think of, how the perks might be played out and how we will handle the upkeep costs of maintaining large-scale stuff in the game. Thanks for the ideas and the more the better!
|
|
evakos
Mardrun Trading Consortium
Posts: 53
|
Post by evakos on Aug 20, 2013 10:30:29 GMT -5
I had a question about Messenger Hawks. Specifically, how does between game communication work? Do you need Hawks to talk to people between games, or is there some other mechanic at play?
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Oct 9, 2013 14:39:41 GMT -5
Hello everyone! Thank you so much for your help in giving ideas for factions. I have completed the Faction rules for Last Hope and this will be ruleset we will use for 2014. I will take notes and tweak it as needed. This will be published separately from the main rulebook as a downloadable PDF soon. With the rules set, October (this month) will be the official start to the faction mechanics. Check your faction boards soon! Thanks for your patience! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Nov 26, 2013 21:30:56 GMT -5
Revised faction rules (expanding more info) will be posted soon. This will be up on the wiki/website along with trades and some other documents soon.
|
|
|
Post by ungrim123 on Dec 2, 2013 17:00:40 GMT -5
Am I the only person that isn't all that keen on this mechanic?
I don't mean the rules themselves, I'm going back and forth with Ryan on those, I mean factions at all.
Last Hope has always been a cliquey game. I can say that, having been a member of the dominent clique (the Bastards) for the first year of the game. Just getting back into the game with new cliques and power bases, I've seen it from both ends of the spectrum now, and it's all the more apparent.
A cliquey game isn't necessarely a bad thing. Real life is cliquey. Adding different races into the mix would just make it more so, and breaking through those cliques is part of the fun.
What is going to happen now that those cliques have established rules, benifits, and tangible losses and gains to go with them?
I don't know. I dont think anyone really does.
I do know my favorite LH days where before we had a map, the world was a mystery to be explored, like the best roleplaying games are. There's no mystery anymore, hell, most of Mardrun is populated!
The Mordok where un-explainable creatures in the dark, chewing on my leg. Why? Who cares, stop the chewing!
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy LH. Swinging swords and 'protecting' people with Arnaths might by hitting them in the chest never gets old. Neither does killing Mordok with my Saga's tome. The players and npc's are fun, as always.
I'm afraid that the faction system will change whats effectively a good game of dnd in real life into something else.
|
|
|
Post by mcerysjenks on Dec 4, 2013 18:51:28 GMT -5
I definitely see what you're saying, but the way I look at it, the game blew up into something big-picture and faction-y whether or not we have a ruleset for said factions - that can't be undone. The game has gotten to big to NOT have faction involvement, so introducing a formal mechanic for it just gives players more control over their factions between games, rather than leaving it all up to the Heralds and the relatively few players with a knack for writing prose. Given that choice, I'd rather have it in the players' hands.
Plus, even with the factions, there is very little that could drive the game in a PvP direction (well, except pirates. But would you expect anything less from pirates?) - all the existing factions are allied (except pirates), and the existing cliques contain members from multiple factions. Heck, we just had people up and switch factions for the LOLz mid-event!
Not saying you're wrong, I think if Last Hope had STARTED with the faction mechanic in place we might have a problem. But as you said, the players and NPCs are fun, and so long as we keep those same core players, and they all train the noobs properly, we should be able to keep the fun D&D vibe... just as a full-map campaign, rather than as a series of dungeon crawls. (And I think there's plenty of mystery left, it's just gotten deeper and more complicated - it's a good time to be a player with Lore.)
|
|
|
Post by stanrick on Dec 4, 2013 19:29:49 GMT -5
and its not like the factions are all "Look at us you cant join!" any one can make a PC to join a faction, as long as you fallow the rules of that faction. yeah a Ulven could not be a Pheniox, but the player can make Pheniox Syndar if they want to.
|
|
blueruby
Order of Starkhaven
Plot Staff
Captain Anne Cash
Posts: 924
|
Post by blueruby on Jan 30, 2014 19:57:54 GMT -5
So, recently, we have gotten a lot of great feedback from players about the faction mechanics in the game; some positive, some negative. The mechanic has been a source of frustration for a lot of people, and as such, will be a point for us to focus on in the upcoming weeks. What do you like about it? What do you hate? What would you do differently? How can we change it to make it better/more realistic? Please let us know what you honestly think, so we can work towards addressing everyones' concerns, and keep this game as much of a community-told story as possible.
|
|
lz129
Player
Dedicated Staff - Story
Posts: 230
|
Post by lz129 on Feb 2, 2014 13:51:26 GMT -5
I had already talked to Ryan about it, but one thing that caused frustration was the different sizes/scales of factions using the same mechanics. We had entire clans, which are made up of thousands of people, that were being run using the same PC numbers based mechanics as little trading companies, adventuring parties, or independent packs. That is already being addressed as far as I know, but it was really hard to sit and watch as an entire Ulven Clan got stomped into the ground because they only had one unit of troops, whereas other Clans had about 6-13x as many units. The solution to this problem seems to be to disband the current organization of the Watchwolf faction so that the overall clan isn't PC run or PC based, but rather is a big NPC faction like the other Clans. From the sake of the story perspective and in the interest of realism, the Watchwolves should have had multiple units of troops, especially after preparing for war all summer. The idea that an established Ulven Clan that has been around for centuries was so helpless in the face of their neighbor really doesn't make sense. Because of this, we have an incident where the mechanics screwed up the metaplot and overall storyline a bit. From a purely mechanics based standpoint looking at our membership of PCs, we only got one unit of troops, and got completely steamrollered to the point where our settlement was routed. Stuff like this isn't readily apparent to designers when they write mechanics. That's what beta testing is for. In the meantime, though, I am glad that the burden of making all the life or death decisions for the Watchwolves is no longer on my shoulders. I will happily let some NPC General or Warlord make all the important decisions from here on out. What we need to do here, is learn from it and make some decisions. Should a Player ever have control over a faction on the same scale as an entire Clan? Probably not. In order to keep the player from totally stomping everyone in their path with the grossly overwhelming resources that such a large faction would give them, you have to nerf them down to a similar scope of influence as the smaller packs, parties, and companies that make up most of the other factions. As we saw with the Watchwolves, that makes them TOO weak, and they cannot stand on their own, and then weird stuff happens.
Letting players have influence on the game world in the way that these mechanics do is a unique idea, and I don't know of any other LARP that does it. It does, however, create the potential for too many cooks in the kitchen if the players are given too much influence. Not enough influence, though, and the players get resentful and upset when nothing they propose or try to do seems viable.
In conclusion, I think that the players need to be made aware that though the chance for them to influence the world is there, they are not getting invited to sit at the herald's table and play god with the world. Yes, they have a CHANCE to influence the game through their actions, as the allied factions have already by swooping in to save the Watchwolves of Luna, but at the end of the day, even faction leaders are still small fish in a big pond.
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Feb 17, 2014 20:35:47 GMT -5
I have been taking a lot of notes on the faction mechanics so far and it is both very rewarding (as we are able to come up with a way to show more influence by PCs and their groups on the game world) and very frustrating (the beta testing period was clunky, seemed to have more questions than answers, takes up a lot of herald and player time, and is difficult to show everything). This mechanic was almost scrapped entirely but I feel that the benefits outweigh the negatives.
I am going to be making a number of changes to streamline a bunch of things, but I still need a lot of feedback... on everything. Almost every aspect of the faction mechanics needs a revamp or streamlining.
The scale of the mechanics is going to be dropped down, making this something that doesn't encompass entire colonies or Clans, but just a fraction of them or a group within them. I know that change alone will make some things easier.
The faction mechanics are meant to be a "Last Hope Mini game" where faction leaders and faction members can participate in the game on a completely different level... but this is not meant to take over the main goal of the game, which is to play in a LARP. The faction mechanics can very easily become a time sink and a little overwhelming as players need immense amounts of information to make sound decisions and factions can influence parts of plot that are not thought of previously. The balance is important and still needs to be found.
The other aspect is narration VS mechanics. When faction's actions are narrative, all their decisions and the outcome of actions are told via a story from the heralds plot team. For example, "I commit my troops to fighting near the pass in the north" could be an action and the heralds could reply with "Your troops push on through the winter, where the cold weather is harsh on them and makes their trip dangerous. Upon arriving, they are not as effective but do their best, moving to contact with the enemy in the pass and trying to fight. The two groups pick away at each other, neither one really gaining an advantage or moving to an all out fight. After two weeks of this and a handful of casualties on both sides, your troops are in the pass but were unable to push the enemy out." In this example, the feel of the fight and the overall story is told but the details are lacking... it is more like reading a story and being told what happens instead of having more of a direct influence on it. When more detailed mechanics are applied to the faction's actions, it begins to look like a tabletop or wargame. For example, "I commit my troops to fighting near the pass in the north" would then be replied with "By moving your troops more than 50% their movement rating in cold weather, they will have a -2 penalty on all rolls this month. You move the unit to the pass. An entrenched enemy is there with supplies, giving them a +2 bonus on their attack and defense rolls. You attack anyway, getting a combat value of 9-2=7. The enemy rolls for defense, beating your roll with 8+2=10, meaning you inflict no damage nor push that unit out of the fight. They retaliate, rolling 4+2=6 and you roll defense of 9-2=7, just barely beating them but not taking any damage yourself. Your unit has a strength of 24 and the enemy a strength of 28, meaning you wound an equal number of fighters to their unit as they do to yours, reducing your fighter pool from 24 to 22 and theirs from 28 to 26." In this example, every aspect is captured (or close to it... I just pulled numbers and stuff out of thin air for an example, these are not how the fights actually play out) and it is a very mechanically driven outcome of bonuses, negatives, variables and dice rolls. This is fair, as players can see how the actions play out but it is immensely complex and time consuming as everything in the game needs to be figured out, but it can be harsh as well. Which one is the best option? Narration is much easier but has caused problems in the past as players did not understand or did not believe that "things were going in on the game world" because there was no proof, which mechanics can give. More mechanics make the game easier to influence and understand as variables can be gained and more strategy can be used, but it becomes very "crunchy" and time consuming. Again, balance is key... but how to get there is the real challenge.
I would still like to encourage everyone to keep posting their ideas and their feedback on the faction mechanics as this is critical for me to make sound decisions on what to do with this angle of our game. To help, I have numbered a couple points I would love more feedback on. This can be specific or generic, anything helps.
1) Factions, how they earn and spend EXP, how their influence grows
2) Scale of factions (big or small) and what that means
3) Complex actions available for factions or brief summaries? (this would be the normal "stuff" that a faction can do)
4) Complex military attacks and outcomes or brief summaries? (this is where it focuses on different units fighting each other)
5) Keep "types" (martial, political, economical) or remove... or pick a type and provide exp discount for those perks
6) Monthly actions, bi-monthly, or quarterly actions for the factions? More frequent = more chance to react and more work. Less frequent = more descriptive and easier to handle, much less likely to react to things in the world.
7) Should factions be brief and summarized (overall gist of faction, things they can do, no crunching numbers) or detailed like they are (perks, exp, their money amount, alliances, exports and military actions, etc.
8) Should money & supplies be detailed out heavily with factions or should the operating costs and supplies needed to function be more self sufficient and summarized? (Assume factions are self sufficient with money flow/supplies, only have profit or debt influence from major things happening or supplies running out if something big happens)
9) Open feedback for things you LIKE regarding the faction mechanics. Please be descriptive.
10) Open feedback for things you DO NOT LIKE regarding the faction mechanics. Please be descriptive.
|
|
|
Post by ungrim123 on Feb 18, 2014 8:51:52 GMT -5
My response is going to be in chunks, as I'm writing this on my phone and don't want to lose anything. Please bear with me.
1. I'm ok with the current way factions get xp, but as for using it... I'm for xp being a benchmark for getting skills, as in you can't have a hawk till your faction has y xp, or an elite unit till x is reached.
I would like to see influence added as a quest/awesome stuff reward. 1-3 per quest/cool thing, something to differentiate between questers and tradespeople. Right now it seems like tradesmen may be getting an advantage with $$ from their trades, and influence from doing shit while they get the $$ makes sense to me.
2. I've already made my thoughts clear on the scale, so I won't beat a dead horse here. I will say that a smaller scale may allow for a happy medium between narrative and detailed factions. Smaller scale allows more control to the factions while keeping bigger deal stuff under more narrative control.
3+4+6. Im ok with monthly, but I would make it more clear just how much shit can happen in a month. Mardrun is pretty small area wise, it won't take long to get places most of the time. Multiple battles, caravans making multiple stops, all if this would be possible.
Ill use my habit of getting super detailed with my actions as an example. I can't try and lay out anything beyond the most general battle plan when multiple battles can happen during month.
Laying out a few things in order of importance and leaving it at that could be enough.
Bi-monthly soul also be ok, but planning ahead that far with faction strengths as tight as they are could get iffy. There could also be an issue with people forgetting things if more then a bi-monthly is used.
|
|
|
Post by mcerysjenks on Feb 18, 2014 10:57:59 GMT -5
1) I kind of liked the experience structure for factions in the beta version... it could use some tweaking, but I don't really have suggestions as to how. 2) The size of a single faction should not exceed the size of a medieval European feudal lord, at least not at this stage of the game... ie, a network of very small villages, or one big central village, contained within an area whose radius is approximately one day's journey. Or, to put things into scale using an Arthurian reference... If Nightriver/all of Mardrun allied against Grimward is King Arthur, then the Watchwolf Clan is King Lot of Orkney, and any given faction is the holdings of one of the KotRT. Each knight basically controlled an army out of an estate the size I described above, but it's a fraction of what a king would muster (depending on which version you read, King Lot had as many as FOUR sons sitting at the round table - five if you count Mordred), and what a minor king had paled in comparison to what King Arthur, the guy who got all the other kings to listen to him, could control. 3&4) I think all the crunchy numbers the Heralds use to calculate things should exist and be available to players. Like, there should be a page or so in the faction mechanics rules that lists all of the terrain penalties/bonuses, base unit strengths of various unit types, etcetera... similarly, things like specific unit strength should be visible to the faction that controls those units (whether or not they know such things about opponents depends on how good their scouts are). That said, I don't think the specific actions need to be that crunchy... maybe include stuff like unit strength, but generally we can tell you what we want to do narratively, and you respond the same way... so long as we can crunch the numbers on our own time to make decisions, we don't need to know what's going on behind the DM screen or even what our exact dice rolls are, just the story and where we stand at the end. (I'm using military aspects as examples because that's what I can think of now, but it should apply to more general actions, too.) 5) I'm torn... having what are essentially "classes" for factions makes sense to me, but I don't know if it's actually necessary... that could be a place to simplify the rules a bit. Maybe organize the perks by type to clarify their in-game intent, but keep the prices even? 6) I assume bi-monthly in this case means "every other month?" Because monthly actions nearly turned Last Hope into an internet strategy game that occasionally meets dressed up in costumes. I think faction actions (tee hee, it rhymes!) should happen less often than events. I'd be all for quarterly actions, that gives us plenty of time to RP strategy and diplomacy between actions (and gives time for that RP to happen in game, rather than on the internet), although I suppose that has a risk of creating more distance between the event plot and the faction plot... overall, though, I think 1:3 is a good internet-to-event ratio for gameplay. 7) I like the more detailed faction descriptions - just a gist is fine for describing the faction to non-members, but the crunchy numbers make it tangible. 8) I think that somewhere in the middle with this one would work - assume that every faction can feed, shelter, and supply itself year round without the faction leader having to mess with it, but can still stand to make a profit from, say, having a lot of blacksmiths or whatever, and even minimal Ulven War involvement, etc. is going to cost more than its usual operation. Then there's still a balance you have to strike to keep supplies from running low, but the risk of that is relatively small... ie, the faction economy is tilted towards black rather than red or breaking even. 9) I like the IDEA of faction mechanics? 10) There's just not enough information on HOW the factions work... I think I covered my main point for this one in my 3/4 answer. Also, I'm concerned with whether or not the faction mechanics will either A) extend the Ulven War, B) not survive the end of the war, or worse, C) both. Basically, it makes sense to introduce the faction mechanic as part of the war - when you have something that large-scale happening, you need a way to let players be involved in the big picture that doesn't automatically tilt the game to the few prose writers among the player pool - but I can also easily see the war getting dragged out just to give the factions something to do, and frankly? Not only does my character want to end the war, but as a PLAYER I am getting tired of this story arc, and would like to see it wrapped up relatively soon (soon = a year or so, in this case... I'd still like a narratively reasonable end, not a deus ex machina )... there are other cool plotlines I'm more interested in going on, but they keep getting lost in the mess, and RP-based events have started seem to be rather removed from the overall plot of the game (except the political dinner, but lets try to keep those to only once or twice a year)... actually, I'm going to make that it's own paragraph... The faction mechanic is creating more distance between the overall plot of the game and what happens at events. It's becoming harder and harder to see how the events influence the plot, whereas factions are ALL ABOUT plot influence. We're at risk of becoming an internet pen & paper game with occasional LARP events, not a LARP with an optional pen & paper element. ::ahem:: The other potential problem of introducing the faction mechanic during the war is that it means it's going to be very difficult not to design it strictly as a wargaming platform - everybody's point of reference for faction involvement is going to be "how do we fight/survive this war?", and rules feedback will reflect that. So what happens when the war is over? Do the faction mechanics work in Sandbox Mode? I'd LOVE it if the factions basically turned into one big game of Settlers of Catan, but I'm worried what we'll actually have is the world's most boring game of Risk. (That's also one of the reasons I prefer a crunchy-number version of things - it gives us something to do when the war is done.)
|
|
evakos
Mardrun Trading Consortium
Posts: 53
|
Post by evakos on Feb 19, 2014 0:08:36 GMT -5
Okay, I'm sorry. This is really long. And there will know doubt be questions. I would like to remind you, you asked for this. 1. Eh, I think the xp thing is fine. As it's been writ, I think it's a bit strict. I understand not wanting people to be able to play the game via the faction mechanics without ever showing up, but I'm also not usually in favor of punishing people for missing a game here or there. I could also see expanding people's ability to earn exp by helping the game (building things, making food, etc, etc). . .though that's not a strictly faction thing. I think individuals should be able to earn xp that way too. That said, whenever it's come up, in practice or conversation, your calls have always been reasonable. So, yeah, TLDR: I think it's fine. 2. I've already mentioned that I believe scale was a bit of a problem. I think scaling down the larger factions (the Order and the Watchwolves, for example) will probably help smooth things over. Your bit about the factions not being the key to saving the world was also very helpful. I think a lot of us have sort of been dealing with an Atlas complex. I know I've been thinking that the outcome is on our shoulders. . .if we do it wrong everybody dies. That said, every large group on our side sitting the hell out of it hasn't helped remedy that impression. I get what you're doing, I think. Just remember, dramatic tension can only last so long before people just start giving the hell up. 3. For both of our sakes, I'm in favor of simplicity. I've been doing my actions mostly in brief narrative form (I think) and it's been working pretty well on this end, at least. 4. Ditto 5. Well, I was not in favor of the faction classes to begin with, as I'm generally opposed to class oriented systems. I don't actually think it's been that detrimental and I wouldn't entirely mind if it stayed. That said, I feel like it's an unrealistic mechanic for mechanics sake. Yes, a faction will likely have a focus, but that doesn't mean they have no ability to gain things in other areas. An economic faction could have strong political leanings. Or could need military support, and thus train their own armed personnel. Nothing in nature is as cut and dry as a class system, that's all I'm saying. As far as perks, I've mentioned before that there should be a pool of general perks and I stick by that. Hawks, again, as an example. I know you needed more for the political groups, but I can say from experience that economic factions need them. And one of the examples of their use (communicating during a battle) is pretty specifically military. 6. If you're good with monthly, I say we keep monthly. Any more than that is pointless and, frankly, way too much work. I could see every other month, maybe. I would think quarterly would limit people's ability to react to things, but it might be workable if you tweak things a bit. For example, I've had to put in monthly actions to move my ship around in order to actually put the trade into the MTC. But if you changed how the perks work, to make them a little more autopilot and a little less “I must micro manage everything” I could see it working, I suppose (I'm probably going to address this a bit later on as well) . And it might make it easier on you. 7. Personally, I like fluff. But that's not going to work. If you're introducing factions as a thing, then there needs to be some crunch. I'm not saying, necessarily, numeric values for everything. But there needs to be some kind of mechanic behind them. 8. Honestly, I think going a bit more abstract with the faction's actual holdings could be a really positive change. There are ways to abstract out things like that. In fact, I'd love it. I'd love to not have to figure out all this stuff, and I'm sure you would to. When I first took the “trade route” perk, I thought it was sort of one of those abstract things. Something like “you've got these dudes, and they move things. They trickle a little money in now and then, but you don't have to keep an eye on them most of the time.” Not so. I'll address a suggestion of a mechanic that does this well a bit further down. 9. I actually really like the role play I've had with the faction mechanics. Online rp has it's ups and downs. Yeah, it's an imperfect mode of communication and sometimes things get out of hand. On the other hand, it often gives people a chance to get to know each other. I've had a much easier time at other games approaching people because I talked to them online first. I think it makes everything richer. I've never really been a part of a game that added a new way to get involved and was less fun for it. Sure, every type of game interaction isn't for everyone. I know people who really just like to swing swords, or throw spells. I know people who like to plot, and talk. I know people who specifically make characters that do not like to talk to people. We all enjoy different things, and I've never played a game that added an extra way of playing and was actually worse for it (with the exception of driving the Sts insane, that's a real danger). 10. I think there was a lack of focus as to what the faction rules were actually meant to accomplish. If it was simply to give people a way to play the influence game, I think it definitely does that. But there are also ways to make it possible for individuals to do that. If it was to create a mechanic for people to play more closely with their friends and gain perks from having their own little group, it does that too. I can see how people might argue that this makes the game “clique-y”, but I'm not necessarily sure that is as evil as people think. Games are almost always “clique-y”, but sometimes that gives people reason to interact with new people. I've said it a number of times, I've played a lot of werewolf. One of the cores of that game is the pack. But this hasn't made the game less fun. One of the best LARPs I've ever played had crews, and a pretty intense rivalry between them. And it was freaking awesome. All that said, I think we definitely need to decide exactly what we're trying to do with this whole thing.
Afterword: I want to mention a section of mechanics that I think are relevant here. I mentioned “the influence game” and it happens to be a phrase I've picked up from years of playing the World of Darkness games. . .specifically werewolf. That game has the two elements I mentioned earlier. It has a mechanic for people who want to play with their friends, i.e. Packs. It also contains a mechanic to allow people to interact effectively with the outside world (I suppose specifically here I am referring to big important npcs and big important npc groups). It lets a person play someone who knows a guy that knows a guy, a person who can call on friends in high (or low) places and basically Get Shit Done. This mechanic is called Backgrounds, and it was what I thought or when you started talking about revamping the Resources skill. There is a background for being rich, there is one for being connected, there's one for having cool stuff. There's a whole family of backgrounds dealing with Influence. . .in everything from Church to High Society to Bureaucracy. They don't just accept that you know people, you can even specify which people you know. I would really, highly recommend you give them a read. Because adding something similar with the Resource skill revamp might take some of the pressure off of the faction mechanic as far as giving people a way to interact with the larger world. And I know there are people out there who would love to play this part of the game, but don't want to run a faction (I know Shana asked about it at midwinter). And even if you still want all of this to be more focussed on people in factions, it could be helpful in revising the faction rules. They're good guidelines for abstracting things like a group's holdings or ability to Get Shit Done (I believe this phrase must be capitalized. . .it's the Glasswalker in me). Just something I respectfully submit for your consideration.
I want to finish by saying I love the MTC. I really do. That's why I've been so adamant in defense of the factions. I love what I've built in your world, small as it might still be. I love the role play it's led to and the potential it has. Perhaps more than even losing my character (and I love my character) I would hate losing it. I can only imagine other people must feel the same about their factions.
|
|