Which is why Hiems is suggesting we put some way to determine access ressource. It's not very difficult, and seems vital given our situation.
The magi may have a number of tokens, gained through service to the covenant and passage of time, lost through use of covenant ressources.
For exemple:
Magi gain 1 token per year.
Service to the covenant grant one token per season.
Access to vis for priavte usage cost x token per vis grant. A grant being equal to 1/20 of the covenant's yearly output of vis.
The council can decide to grant any number of vis to any given magus. This requires a majority vote. This is to be used for the Aegis and over services to the covenant, but a magus can petition for a personal project.
When in conflict over a ressource, the magus with the most token get it. Both magi lose one token, above those eventually expanded. This is to encourage previous negocitions between the magi.
A magus may propose to the council that another magus is fined a token. If his case fails, the prosecutor loses one of his token.
Which is fine, but it is not at all what was spec'ed out according to boons and hooks. Which is why I brought it up over here. At one point the original players (you, amul and Peregrine were there) thought it was a good idea to have the Vis Grant boon. As it stands now, I think it is more of a hook. I certainly don't consider it a boon, and could create more PC conflict than anticipated (given the paucity of vis of a single type, PC preferences for types of vis, and the difficulty in trading in quantities). What your proposing, in character, is what I proposed in mechanics, out of character.
We drop the Vis Grant boon, and pick up the Vis Salary Hook. By dropping Vis Grant, we no longer need Illusory Resources. By picking up Vis Hook we could add another boon. Given the paucity of vis available, I suggested Hidden Resources which could cover vis sources nearby which we haven't discovered. 250 bps in vis sources is 50 pawns of vis annually. That's probably a bit too much to be entirely allocated to Vis. But we should have the discussion on whether or not we drop some boons and pick up others, and likewise with the hooks.
I think for now, we table discussion of how to split resources, and instead accumulate said resources and resolve issues such as Vis for the Aegis. I'm willing to revisit it at next month's council meeting which should be sometime within the coming decade.
I don't understand the Vis Grant boon, especially in a spring covenant, where PCs are the masters and can decide to grant themselves vis at a moment's notice. Same thing here. If we don't have the hook, what's to stop us from giving ourselves vis?
So I don't see any problem in dropping it (and the Illusionnary Ressources hook).
For the rest, I have no objection, we can do with or without.
You did say in character that 26 was a small amount, would you also say OOC that 31 is still a small amount for the number of Magi we have, given that this has been characterized by amul as a medium-high power saga?
whew - thanks. I was trying to get back into posting on the Council Thread but I may have been a bit premature - I've been logging on at work but I'm still going to spotty at best until the end of the month.
Primogeniture is leaving land/title to the firstborn son, and I can't find a secondary definition that fits what I think you're getting at here.
This is problematic in light of Heims' previous suggestion about trading resources for donating acts to the covenant. If we wanted to do something like this, I'd like to see perform services for the covenant without renumeration. For example, create an item for the covenant. The covenant would cover the expenses of item creation, but wouldn't pay anything above and beyond, and if he requested no other resources in exchange for this, then this would be a selfless act. This also kinda becomes an accounting nightmare.
I can't see a group of Magi giving power to a failed apprentice, let alone any mundane. Speaking as Ra'am, "We, of the Order, are equal and I can't see that we'd give equal status, for even a specific circumstance, to someone not of the Order." Yes, she appears to be neutral, but we've known her only a few days, why would we trust her? Azura hasn't even met her, Arya should indicate if she'd be on board with this plan (letting Claudia vote in cases of a tie). From a mechancis point of view of Claudia is disceptator, it is problematic from the Council of Cijara, in that she, as disceptator is giving that council directions, which would be a bit of an issue...
The luck thing. I dislike that as much as I dislike die roles for determining PC actions, but I could live with it. I'd much rather Heims take on the role of disceptator (even be forced to take on the role by a unanimous vote of everyone else on the council, which is why I had Ra'am nominate him). Think of the stories!
Yeah, I interpreted it that way based on the context.
Since Claudia is your character, what's your take on her having have a voice on the council? Honestly, I'm not bothered by this in either way, I'm just killing time until amul reappears...
Ooc - I'm not seeing it, for a few reasons. First off, she's not a "magus in good standing of the Order of Hermes," which is a requirement to be a probationary or full member of the Council, and full membership is, in turn, a requirement to be disceptator . For her to become disceptator would require amending the charter. Secondly, she's still a child, of only twelve years of age. Third...we are going to lose any street cred we ever had any hope of having if the other covenants find out that we're being led by a twelve-year-old failed apprentice. Magi will invent "Accio Pampers" spells just to rib us.
In character? She wouldn't want it. She has the Low Self-Esteem flaw, so she's not going to feel she's worth all the effort and trouble it would take to make her disceptator. (Plus...she has the Reckless flaw as well - are we sure we want to be led by a disceptator who's Reckless? )
We're starting to get stuck again. Hope everything's alright with Amul. Just checked his profile and he hasn't been on since last Saturday, based on past experience and reading the threads, he's normally good about announcing extended away times.
Spend a season advancing the covenant's goals instead of your own => gain a "+1".
I don't see this as that difficult to compute, or I miss something
Well, I do it IRL when I don't know how to chose
Beats being stuck between multiple choices.
This is not rolling guile to convince another PC of something. This is not a player using dices to force another player into a choice. This is the characters saying "We can't agree on something, so we'll trust in fate to chose its side".
I thought she was in her thrities
Anyway, I only wanted to give the tiebreaker voice to someone, that's all
What determines that it is a covenant's goal? The way things seem to need so much effort from all of us, I think we're going to accumulate so many +1's for a time that it's challenging. And then, someone does have to track the +1s. It's not particularly challenging, but it is more work that needs to be done, accounting is the best description of it. It's close enough to what I do for %WORK%.
No, I understand that it's not the same, I'm just not wild about dumb luck sometimes. I tend to prefer agreeing to things before hand, and having a disceptator determine tied votes is not an element of chance. It just means that if you expect a tie vote, you make sure that the disceptator is on your side. This is the art of politics. And even then, it's a small part of the job. Making sure that the council wants done get done is probably the biggest part of the job.
Well, I think Heims being the first disceptator is giving it to someone...
I can't see a single magus deciding that what he's gonna do is service.
But a magus can tell "I want to do that for the covenant", with the covenant agreeing that it is service (and giving ressources for it)
Or the covenant may ask something of a magus.
And what of the majority +1 vote, then? It avoids a lot of the disceptator problems, while being more democratif.
THe problem Hiems has with the disceptator, is that it encourages internal policitics and factions: With 6 magi, 3 allies can effectively control the covenant. With 4 magi, 2 are enough.
Depending on any single person is bound to cause problems when taking decisions.
Which is something that, if and when we amend the charter, can be solved by either of 2 simple, non-disceptator mechanisms.
Requiring a quorum (say, 2/3 of the magi), and a vote of majority +1 of magi present.
Requiring a vote of Majority +1, period.
With Viscaria, Amos, Jaime, Azura, Ra'am, Cygna and Hiems, that makes 7 magi.
Under option 1, this'd mean a quorum of at least 5 magi (with 3 agreeing), or 6 magi (with 4 agreeing)
Under option 2, this'd mean 4 magi agreeing, period.
BTW, a word of warning about the IC thread: Hiems, in his fashion, IS agressive. I ain't
A quorum is already mentioned in the charter, more than half the members. I'm fine with that number. I'm going to exclude Jamie from these discussions, because if Phoenix is to be a true spring covenant, managed by new members and he's really leaving, it doesn't make sense to include him.
A quorum in this case of 6 total members is 4 members, one of whom must be the disceptator. In the majority scenario, you need 3 out of 4 on a side to decide an issue. In a disceptator scenario, you need two, one of whom is the disceptator, which will always be the case with so few members, the disceptator is always going to be the deciding vote, unless the three others present just don't like it at all and vote no. And I am honestly OK with that. I prefer someone exercising their judgment, rather than leave it up to chance. Sure, the disceptator might be wrong, but it's been given some thought, and hopefully has a better than 50% chance of being correct.
)
