That's right boys! Denam's back to yell at you some more about RP. Isn't this fun? Isn't it? Today, I'll be talking about Power Structures and Social Constructs, and what RP can do to save us from these nasty beasties. And boy, they are nasty.

When looking back, one of the most well-followed patterns is how we define who is "with us" and who is "against us". In the absence of super groups (a la 303, UN, CP), power structures tend to form in the following way:

• A war smashes the game to pieces.
• Surviving cities are the seeds of the upcoming generation of players.
• As the crews in these cities fill up, the cities expand into other crews, districts, or cities (depending on the era).
• The crews with the same seed will tend to view each other as allies, and tend to view crews from another seed as enemies.
• A crew viewed as an enemy will make a mistake.
• A war between these two factions smashes the game to pieces.

Super groups throw a wrench in this because the members of the super group with different seeds will view each other as allies instead of enemies, leading to a significantly extended form of this cycle.

So what's the problem?

This causes three unique and plaguing problems for our game.

• Everything is exactly the same save for different names and faces each time the cycle repeats. This cycle has been in place for years, and the only disruptions to it are supergroups (and those are actually accounted for in the cycle) and rogues (which would effectively be the "mistake"). This cycle is boring as there's nothing exciting or unexpected. You know how I knew LV was next on the chopping block? They were from a different seed (their seed died in NY a long time ago). They were the only group that every other city could view as an enemy. It's just a natural part of the cycle, and we adhered unanimously to it.
• Particularly devastating wars (wars that brought us Marietta, Odin, etc.) and takedowns (eliminating all crews from another seed) force ALL existing crews back to one seed; which lengthens the cycle in the same way that supergroups do. It takes a long time for two groups from the same seed to view each other as enemies (unless one of them makes a particularly heinous mistake, which prompts the next war). These periods where all crews come from one seed are particularly stale; and it has nothing to do with any form of "overlord" hegemony by the survivors. People simply don't want to attack where they came from or the others who came from the same place. Marietta and Odin weren't oppressing their peers, they simply had no desire to fight her/him (and no reason to), and were simply following the cycle.
• The constructs surrounding the cycle inhibit RP. Imagine this; a leader can choose between someone who adheres to the OOC social constructs or someone who lives by their character. The OOC social constructs would prevent them from ever fighting, save for some extreme mistake (and the bounds of OOC are much more permissible than RP). The player who lives by their character may find a reason to fight them or someone else sooner than the former, and is therefore a threat to existing powers if he were authed. This naturally pushes people who actually behave like mafiosi away from leadership positions because they'd violate the social constructs and potentially put people in danger. When you auth people who play entirely OOC, no one in their crew has any reason to RP, and the cycle brings a new batch of OOC candidates for auth that won't break the social conventions.

These problems force us to look for something outside the cycle for entertainment. This is why the coders have been scrambling to give us features for years or shorten the cycles, because it's hard to appreciate the same cycle over and over without any additional "fun" features. In the absence of competition, they gave us things to cooperate on like NPC Durdens and district expansion crews. The game used to be the cycle and the forum; and nothing else was required. Do you know why? RP. I'm not talking about writing stories; I'm talking about acting like a mafioso. I'm talking about your mentor teaching you the four pillars of the mafia: honor, respect, blood, and silence. I'm talking about you gunning down some twerp who had the audacity to mouth off to you in the Streets. I'm talking about really being a mafioso in this game.

How does it help?

• It frees you from the social constructs of the cycle. The reason you feel obligated to those from the same seed is because that's the social construct we dragged into the game. That's a 2015 thing, not a Mafia thing. That "blood" that I spoke on earlier; is your crew. There is nothing outside of your crew except future occupants of pine boxes. Your crew is everything. Now, you maintain respect for your peers in the same way you'd want respect back, but the moment your boss needs someone put down you're ready for it. Do you know why you can do that? Because there aren't any 2015 social constructs in the 1920s mafia. The game allows you to act like a mobster instead of a college student.
• It's new every time. Every time you sign up, you are jumping into a world with different people. The reason I used to struggle with signing back up after wars was because regardless of who was in power it would be exactly the same. There would be some people pushing for more Street Presence, some fighting against member whoring, some wanting to make a newspaper, and most just doing what they had always done. But if you (and everyone else) play like a mafioso: everything's new every time. Reputations, betrayal, alliances, honor, etc. all come into play because you're no longer just maintaining a status quo of social constructs; you're bringing something new. And to me that's the reason people play games; it's fun to escape the modern social constructs and have the liberty to do something you wouldn't in real life.

I want to get back to this, because it's what I fell in love with all those years ago. The freedom to act like a member of the mafia was an adrenaline rush (back before we had perks) for a puny kid in 7th grade (don't tell Izzy I wasn't 18). And that's what people expected; Sal_Giaquinto took me in and make damn fucking sure I knew those four pillars by heart and play my accounts by them, regardless of whether or not we were in the same crew. And every account after that, that's precisely what I did. And the most fun I have ever had in this game was when I was thinking entirely like a mafioso; not a 21st century nerd.

So if you're sick of the cycle, sick of the social constructs, or just sick of feeling like nothing ever changes, stop by my office. I'm not going to lead a revolution of war-mongers and rogues; actually quite the opposite. True RP will promote more unity within crews and we can only get to the players and teach them these things in peacetime. And if we really taught everyone what it means to be a mafioso (and damn is it awesome when everyone does), the game would be radically different. People could be bold without being afraid of the OOC social consequences. People could forge alliances with cities they would ordinarily reject because they come from a different seed. People could have duels over insults in the Streets! I don't know! But the fact that people are mafiosi instead of ordinary modern "players" makes it infinitely more interesting.

I'm tired of putting the onus of this process on the leaders, because I've heard leaders from every regime talk in support of RP and do fuck all to realize that support into anything meaningful. So I'm putting the onus on the players; if you want to start behaving like mafiosi and escape the social constructs, ask your leader what it means to be a mafioso. If he doesn't know (which at this point he may not), ask your Godfather. It's time to bring back the simple pleasures of being a mafioso, and you don't have to write up stories for yourself to do it.

I like the idea of being a complete Mafioso, yet I also like to not die every 30days! So I really can't say I'm sick of there being no changes! I haven't been about to last longer than a 303 focused war, so I'm quite happy and excited for this new GF commission and the unity it will bring all cities. Maybe now I can actually have a character last a tad bit longer, and have some of my goals come into being. I will, hover, be at the forefront of any wars that come involving my family. I just like to be in the thick of things. Live, or die. And it's been 100% die so far.

It's actually quite realistic to have some kind of hierarchy in the mafia. In the 1930's it didn't really exist in South Philly, yet more so a little after it was put in place as the commission in NY and the structure we know as associate, soldier, capo, underboss, boss. From this 'supergroup' it handled all auth requests, and made sure all organized crime was moving forward and everyone involved was basically making money. Those who weren't, and were looking to cause havoc to this way of being, were doneski. This didn't, and doesn't, deter others from making waves. It's the mafia after all, and the kind of people in it means power struggles will always be going on.

In the 1930s people were killing each other over power struggles in South Philly, which can be realistically reflected in the recent state of things. There's still realistic mafia game play to be had, and I'm sure things will swing about again.

I have to disagree with you saying having a super group inhibits RP. RP is a creative endeavour, and no matter the environment or the social structures RP can be had, and can be enjoyed, regardless. It's the thing that actually goes beyond the game mechanics, and allows the users to enjoy the game however they really want to. Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve. If one only focuses on the game mechanics, then it can be a little stale in general. Thinking outside the box, and creating RP through written form, can get beyond the need for upheaval and consistent deaths.

I do like the four pillars you describe, and that can be taught and implemented regardless of their being a superpower in play. I'm not sure how traditional families are with their mafia teachings, yet it's something I personally like and enjoy.

In conclusion I think being a Mafioso and true to what it is to be a Mafioso is really fun and makes for a better gaming experience, yet it shouldn't be constricted based on how the current members in power choose to direct things. In fact, RP is more a personal choice and can be done and enjoyed regardless.

I am curious though, what kind of changes you would like to see, as this might get more people posting and commenting here.

On the first point of wars; I may be wrong about this but I don't think the time between conflicts would change. So, according to the cycle we have some form of conflict when friction arises between crews with different seeds. If we were to more genuinely pursue that crew-first mentality in the pillar "famiglia," I think districts would be effectively viewed as separate seeds. That, the moment you leave your district or city, you are a brand new seed for a new syndicate or group of syndicates. What this changes is the perspective: crews that would have previously been viewed as allies (due to being from the same seed) would now be viewed as neutral or enemies (if they do something disrespectful or dishonorable).

Now, conflicts originate from those disrespectful/dishonorable actions to "spark" a conflict between crews of different seeds. In both the current implementation of the cycle and if the principle of famiglia were more valued, this would still be the case. Wars would not arise unnecessarily (unless a particularly violent player came to power), they would only arise more frequently if the war-causing mistakes were to arise more frequently. It could be possible that those war-causing mistakes already happen more frequently than conflicts do, and that adhering more audaciously to crew, honor, and respect would allow these sparks to ignite into wars.

I would also like to mention that wars would not be fought the same. Because of the with-us/against-us mentality that the cycle facilitates, wars very rarely don't involve the entire game. Crews that originate from the same seed will fight together for two reasons: the social construct of the cycle pushes them together as allies, and the last thing anyone wants is to be viewed as being outside that seed. So leaders from other districts and other cities fight wars together because they want to preserve that same-seed mentality. If they don't, they may be viewed as outside the seed and could be targeted next. If districts and crews were more independent, wars would not be site-engulfing, so the fear of dying every 30 days is less applicable. Even if wars were to become more frequent, they would be wars between less-networked entities and therefore allow other crews, districts, and cities exist without participating.

On the second point of supergroups; I consider a supergroup to be a group of players that dominate the game and are connected via OOC relationships rather than in-game ones. Their OOC power structure puts a strain on the game and suffocates it, as those wanting to rise up must either become a part of that OOC power structure (thus removing them from their character) or simply be content with having no power. This is why I consider it to inhibit RP, because from the top-down the focus is on whether or not you are a part of an OOC entity rather than any RP allegiances. I don't think supergroups inhibit individual RP, but are a force moving people away from it (and that force gets more irresistible the longer they are in power).

On the third point of what I'd like to see changed; behave like a mafioso. Family, honor, and respect are thrown around superficially in Street discussions but aren't really legitimate principles. Your family is everything. Not where you came from and not your OOC buddies but your crew. And once you're Made, that should be like second nature. If someone disrespects my crew members, they're gonna hear about it. If someone attacks my family, they're gonna feel it. That's what crews are supposed to be, or at the very least Made Men are supposed to be.

So what would I change? I'd like districts to be more individual and independent. I'd like the social construct of seeing crews and districts from the same seed removed as I think it creates this "all or nothing" scenario everytime a conflict arises. What this does is force players into a corner; they can't fight people from the same seed and they can't form alliances with crews from other seeds.

Being a leader is easy; you just follow the social constructs I outlined above. You train, earn, and buy bodyguards, and prepare for when a crew from another seed inevitably makes a mistake and you remove them for it. There's no skill in this form of leadership, there's no challenge, and there's nothing to be proven. The only way you "fail" in this form of leadership is if you are the one who makes the mistake that gets your seed removed. Anything short of that, and you go down as a "good run". I don't like this; I think we've manufactured this simplistic form of leadership to save us from strategy, diplomacy, or adherence to principles.

Aye I actually agree. I do see OOC connections as the reason groups are what they are, and it's a bout less in character and in game decisions and connections, and more about past connections made OOCly.

I also understand I think a bit more about what your idea is and how the traditional Mafioso 'familia' values come into play. When less connected through seeds it forces families to rely solely, and fundamentally, on themselves. Some alliances may spawn, yet not game wide alliances.

I can also see through your explanation of things how the current cycling and seed based power groups do make the game one dimensional and leave less room for a whole lot of gameplay.

I would still rather to have a long ass character, yet it's not realistic given the times, since this period was quite unstable.

An idea popped into the cranium as I read through your post, and its this:

Have an OOC user implemented and enforced wartime strategy.

It would/cold entail much more than just this idea that popped up, yet the idea is to have allegiances. Two in total, and they can be the only ones that accompany an instigator come wartime. 

Only one specific ally can be from outside a Sister City (NY/PH, CH/DT, LA/LV) and two per family, yet two could be from in the same city, or in the sister city. These alliances would be continuous and displayed in the crew info page under 'other details'.

Meaning, instead of having as it stands, CH, NY, DT and PH allied. It would mean the families would have to choose two 'Crews' to be definite allies, and be quite specific about it in the 'other details' page of their crew info. Two families that could help the instigator in takedowns and retaliations.

This seems more realistic and would be simple to implement, not so simple to enforce. Just make sure the crews involved in starting a war are allied.

As it stands we have minimal OOC set rules around wars. Protection orders. That's pretty much it. Other than that a war can be done in anyway possible. Which is fine creatively, yet giving some 'rules' like we have to training the gun, posting business in the business district, and now GF commission rulings, it wouldn't be hard from a community standpoint to agree/disagree upon and enforce as a whole if agreed upon.

Other than setting specific kinds of 'guidelines' regarding wars, the game setup speaks to 'seeds' and OOC contacts ruling and gives that kind of power structure you speak of.

Having a minimum explicit allied structure would mean more diplomacy would be needed with no specific allies, so sit downs would actually occur to sort shit out before an all out war.

It would mean the power structures would split and become more even as only 3 crews can be allied together, and it creates a sort of 'cap' like we have for BG's. So if someone wanted to war another crew, it would cap the fire power, and a whole city may not necessarily be wiped out of existence in one sitting.

It would mean if a crew took another out, and their allies, then the diplomatic non specific allies, might see that crew as a threat, and take them out in response, and so on.

It would mean this 'mi familia' mentality over the OOC seed mentality could work, as it focuses the individual characters connections fundamentally on the crew first and its members, and allies are more a upper structure tactic for protection, and power. Yet, it's capped to two other crews, so at the most three crews may act like one big family, yet it's still creating stronger bonds within this group only. Anything outside this group is iffy, and sceptical.

Just my lengthy ass idea as it came to mind, yet some structure may be needed to promote more realistic 1930's game play.

I think the root of the problem is where the seed mentality comes from; and that's the way we auth people. Being given the authorization to set up your own crew seems more like a gift than an act of ambition. Let me elaborate.

People generally don't strive to be crewleaders; for a long time this game somewhat shunned that notion as being treacherous. That being loyal to your leader and wanting to be a leader yourself are conflicting motivations. This claim is preposterous, as you can pursue your ambitions of being a crewleader while still serving your leader loyally and honorably. I think the seed mentality actually originates from this myth: you must keep your ambitions a secret or it betrays the dynamic. The perfect candidate for auth within the seed cycle mentality is someone who will perpetuate it; and so the less ambitious they seem the better. The more likely they are to carry on the legacy of dying in protection of or service to their seed, the better.

So how do we disrupt this and start encouraging ambitious leaders? Revamp the auth system. Make it something that anyone can earn without being afraid of being seen as a traitor, and you'll get; honest ambition, street presence (as they'll need to make a good impression), and a willingness to be bold. It's no surprise that we see bloodlines getting authed four or five times in a row; they've mastered the art of perpetuating the dynamic and made plenty of friends in the process. What we need are fresh leaders; leaders not beholden to the seed dynamic. I think there are a slew of ways to go about this, but as I figure few people will even care about this post I'll save my words. If any wish to hear my suggestions for this matter, I'll happily supply them.

So if auth becomes a reward for ambition rather than a gift for loyalty, crewleaders will behave vastly different. They will undoubtedly be partial to their origins, but as their crew grows they will instead see their crew as their own independent success instead of something given to them by their superiors. There are certain methods of authorization that will inspire even more independence and ambition than others, but I think generally we can do better than what we have now in terms of moving past this seed mentality.

Back in the day one wasn't simply authed by their CL, they had to find a sponsor, and get permission from the other CLs. This generally involved writing an auth application mail that you'd send out to the various CLs. If they were generally against it, you didn't set up. I always missed this when the system changed. I remember writting mails to posti, silky and the like to get permission to set up. Only thing your CL had final say over was wether you could buy out and actually set up shop.

it also meant that if you and your CL didn't see eye to eye that getting to be a CL was still a possibility.