It's getting interesting. Remember I mentioned we were focusing in-game on concepts & expressions of freedom? Now we're in the middle of a city-wide meeting to decide how to build the future of Fort River...and the dynamics are getting very interesting.
On one side we have several players pushing elections for a city leader or a city council (that one assumes would decide on its own leader, maybe rotate it like a council chairmanship). But how do you get anybody to agree first that elections could be done fairly? And second that those in power won't use the election to cement their power? Who do you trust? We've spent a lot of game-time building guarded partnerships, but elections would be something else. That's putting a lot of power into a small number of hands. Brings to mind leadership styles & examples from history--Stalin? Lenin? Hitler? Mussolini? Churchill? Caesar?
On another side are players who don't trust anybody & scoff at elections. Some want to see the tribes keep their power & work from there. Others seem to want to set up little "sector" feifdoms--I guess they'd become sort of like "lords of the manor," overseeing their territories & rubbing elbows with their sector-leader peers from time to time. Oh, and all these players are quick to describe how they'd treat everyone fairly...as long as the people in their sectors are willing to work because "nothing's free." Seems like this could develop into either indentured servitude or outright slavery.
There may or may not be a 3rd side brewing, creating a triumverate of possibilities. Some players seem to want the status quo--tribes fighting each other for resources; refugees & outcasts fighting the tribes; the "haves" staying strong by monopolizing food, power, fuel & other necessities.
In other words...in Fort River City Hall, power & chaos live!
-Chyna
No comments:
Post a Comment