I couldn't have put it better, so I wont.
Discuss.
What A Player Character Makes?
I couldn't have put it better, so I wont.
Discuss.
First, a point of clarification; I have long taken the acronym "PC" to mean, in reference to In Character content and in the context of the same, "Player Character" as opposed to the term "NPC" which to me has always inferred a "Non-Player Character". The differences are purely semantic, I believe, but just so everyone is on the same page: PC = Playable/Player & NPC = Non-Player/Playable Character.
On to terms of definition, and thanking Omnae for putting everything in such a concise format...
A PC, as I have understood it, has always been a members main character development project. This is to say that, of any given member, most have one or two or perhaps three Player Characters. Which, in terms of scope and scale, means that on average each member has one PC per faction with which they are affiliated. Using myself for an example, follows as such...
Beff Pike (the Member)
= Beff Pike, Bounty Hunters Guild
= Lord Silk, The Palestar Crusade/Sith Order
= Lance Shipwright, Gestalt Colonies
The problem arises, in my case, where various other characters are involved. These examples, largely relegated to the GC, include Mat'ko Ko'Vic and Paunch. And while these characters lack a level of development, these characters do have their own accounts and/or biographical submissions.
Which brings me to...
Answer; Yes. But! I do not feel this is enough. Technically, as it was explained during the phase of TRFs development, a Player Character is defined by the inclusion of a separate account and a biographical summary. The idea being that a) said biography would encompass enough character development that it would provide the reader with an understanding as to the details of that characters nature and disposition and b) that posting under a segregated account would give those involved (be they posting themselves or simply a reader) a clear definition as to who exactly a given post reflected.
However, as is the nature of our community, this was quickly taken advantage of. Biographies became increasingly abridged and in some cases no accounts were provided for separate character perspectives.
Additionally the term "PC" was never adequately explained in the rules or by the Staff responsible for such explanations. Between the sometimes scandalous tendencies of members like myself and the hands-off approach of staff members... also like myself, this conspired to create an inequality that would, as many of us knew, eventually come to a head.
And at that head we find ourselves (thank you oh-so-very much Corise and Wes).
To that end I suggest an open discussion. What do you believe a Player Character to be? What do you believe defines the differences between a Non-Player Character and a Playable Character.
My opinions reflect my belief that TRF should dispense with its childish tendencies and understand that, as many of us have grown up with this community, we should be able to handle these issues with a level of maturity and understanding without reducing ourselves to the level of competition that made the Math Faction such a confusing and confounding place in the days of old. Even I have to admit, however; that measures of gameness will prevail and as such we need to have rules and guidelines to address those prevailing factors when they should arise.
A Player/Playable Character is...
... a members main character project, the perspective from which he or she tells the majority of their tales and involves themselves with the community in an In Character sense.
... a character belonging to a member which is involved with a faction, as we are after all The Rebel Faction and much of our history is tied to the development of our factions in as much as the characters. For each member one Player/Playable Character per faction should suffice. This does not restrict a member from including additional perspectives, it does however relegate these additional perspectives to Non-Player/Playable Character status.
... a character, belonging to a member, which has a certain level of development behind it. This includes a separate account and a biographical submission. Included with these two factors are numerous other less quantifiable factors. For instance; a PC will be more then a simple means to an end, it will be a character which is or will become an integral part of the In Character aspect of our community. A good way of looking at this would be to consider the Star Wars films - Han Solo would be a valid representation of a Player/Playable Character because, as a viewer, we understand the intricacies of the character. Where as Jabba The Hutt would represent a Non-Player/Playable character in so far as his role is purely supportive and though we may get a glimpse of his nature, his history, these aspects are only included to further bolster the character of Han Solo and the rest of the leading characters.
... etc?
A Non-Player Character is...
... a character perspective which is the public domain of the community.
... a character which has been created for a singular purpose, be that to further a story, or further the development of a faction. Unlike a Player/Playable Character, which can also add to the development of the faction to which he or she is attached, an NPC does not require a back-story, a separate account or a biography submission.
In effect this would create a balance between what a PC is and what an NPC is but leaves a markable level of vagueness between the two so that, should a member decide to develop and NPC to PC status, he or she can do so.
Now, using the example of Christina Thorn...
In my opinion Christina Thorn has always been a Non-Player Character for a number of reasons. She exists only to further the goals of the Confederation. Her only contributions have been to the faction to which she is attached and the Player/Playable Character in charge of said faction; Corise Lucerne.
For me the key difference between an NPC and a PC can be found here for an NPC is usually created for and used to advance the achievements of a faction. Very little is done purely for the sake of character development that does not lend itself directly to such efforts as Planetary Take-Over threads, Fleet Action threads or otherwise faction-vs-faction actions.
But here again another problem arises...
There are, I would say, characters which are regarded by their owners/creators as Player Characters because they boast Biographical Submissions and Separate Accounts, however; their entire history has lent itself to the furtherance of a faction. And I know you're going to aim guns my way for this guys, but Corise and Wes are two of the biggest offenders. They do little for the sake of story, and though these characters are considered Player Characters unto themselves, the vast majority of their contributions have furthered their factions, not their characters. Versus, say, Simon Kaine...
While Simon Kaine has done more for his faction as a character then most any other character currently active, he also boasts a plethora of Character Development threads which were written for the sole purpose of expanding the character in question. Most Jedi and Sith characters represent my understanding of what makes a Player Character better then most faction-based PC's. These are characters which exist for the members that own them to expand on the development of that very character as opposed to the aims of a faction.
So what I propose is a re-working of the terminology. I propose the following...
The creation of a new understanding of what defines a character based on its place and purpose. To which end:
Faction-Character; this is a character which exists to further the goals of the faction to which he or she is attached. While this character may feature some level of character development it is understood that the motivation for said development is only to further enable the character in question to achieve goals for his or her faction. As with Player/Playable Characters before these cannot be harmed, maimed or killed without the express consent of the owner of that characters creative property rights and these characters are not part of the public domain of TRF contributors.
Story-Character; this is a character which exists for the sake of writing stories within the TRF environment which are more aligned with fan-fiction versus role-play. These characters are the vehicles for members to write stories of various types of which the majority do not lend themselves to the furtherance of a faction. As with Player/Playable Characters before these cannot be harmed, maimed or killed without the express consent of the owner of that characters creative property rights and these characters are not part of the public domain of TRF contributors.
Now, again, the lines between the two would blur and cross under certain circumstances. Here I am going to use the example of Simon Kaine. No one would argue that Kaine represents a valid Player/Playable Character despite the fact that he continued to add his efforts to faction. So, the qualifier here at least for me would be this...
A Story-Character (PC) may be a Faction-Character (NPC) as well, but a Faction-Character (NPC) may not be a Story-Character (PC) simultaniously. This requires members to put in the work to actually create a Story-Character (PC) such as background development (the inclusion of a biography and separate account) with a level of detail sufficient that no doubt exists as to the validity of this character as a PC. This character would also be able to contribute to the development of one or more factions, but only in a lesser capacity to that characters continued development as a character first.
It reads as more confusing then it seemed in my head, but I believe the point of clarity is still present and creates a clear understanding of the differences between the two.
As to the advantages and disadvantages...
It has long been believed that a PC trumps an NPC in all cases, but this is an ancient understanding which relates to a now somewhat forgotten aspect of TRF - fleeting and forcing.
In example:
A Player Character Force-User vs a Non-Player Character Force User.
PC Forcie > NPC Forcie
A Player Character Fleeter vs a Non-Player Character Fleeter.
PC Fleeter > NPC Fleeter
Under my proposal, this would be changed to reflect the more modern approach to writing here at TRF.
On a Character to Character level, a Story-Character could be considered the greater value versus a Faction-Character. This is because; while the Factioneer has developed his character to further the ends of his faction, on a purely singular level, his or her development does not rival that of the Story-Character.
However, on a Character to Faction level, the reverse would be true. It would be the Faction-Character who could be expected to muster ships, direct policy, command troops and so on.
But! And this is important...
I believe it is time we came to regard characters of all sorts as more then a means to an end. A Story-Character represents a members devotion to the development of a single character and the stories involved with him or her. A Faction-Character would conversely represent a members efforts to develop his or her factions. Neither could be considered more valuable then the other over-all, but in specific interactions each would be better suited to their own areas (be they Character or Faction development).
Furthermore, the idea of a Non-Player/Playable Character would remain. Each character type (Faction or Story) would require supporting roles and these roles would spawn NPC's. Perhaps a wiser definition then would be Support Character. Support Characters would exist to, expectedly, support the stories of either Faction or Story based characters.
So:
Supporting-Character; these characters exist to support the events told from the perspective of Story or Faction based characters. Unlike Player/Playable Characters before these can be harmed, maimed or killed without the express consent of the owner of that characters creative property rights and these characters are part of the public domain of TRF contributors. Supporting characters will not have separate accounts, biographical summaries or extensive histories attached to either the Faction-Character or Story-Character with which they are affiliated. Supporting-Characters may become either Faction-Characters or Story-Characters with sufficient effort as described above.
Those are my thoughts.
I do realize I am likely in the minority when it comes to my PoV on this, but I'd thought I'd share it.
All my characters are Story-Characters, however I personally don't see why we need to create a separate account for each PC: it gets you into the habit of looking at the screen name instead of the story itself to see who is talking. Since I read the content of the post itself to see which character I am dealing with, it only confuses me with all the different screen names on who's who in terms of the writers themselves. To me, knowing who the writer is for a particular post is more imporant then the character name. That's why the majority of my posts are with this account, so you know which writer you are dealing with.
In addition, as those who follow my threads will have noticed, I usually have multiple PCs of mine interacting with each other in each post, which pretty much makes it senseless to use separate accounts to post each characters PoV. Not to mention a pain to keep having to switch between accounts (did it once with one of my earlier stories...wasn't fun). So I use one main account (this one) for stories with multiple PCs in it.
I rarely have any story with just one PC in it and when I do it's usually for only one story and I have no way of knowing when that character will be going 'solo' again, so making a separate account for that character is a waste of time for me. There are exceptions of course, such as during the period when Trazu was a dark jedi (that account is now retired IMO) and Demonakos (you'll only see him interact with my other characters briefly, if at all).
Now...if there was some board feature (I believe I suggested something like this before long time ago but was shot down due to securty reasons) where I could have a 'master' account with the ability to select an different account/character name to be the screen name for that post (EzBoard gold had this feature), then perhaps. But for folks like me who have just too many PCs, the 'have a separate account for each PC' requirement for them to be officially PCs according to the board rules...it's too much.
You could say I have what I will dub Major and [/i]Minor[/i] PCs. The major ones are basically the ones I am focusing on the most at the time (eg: during Separatist series, the Major PCs would have been Naosha, Tiosk, Rissonik, and later on Asri. Now it's Trazu and Asri). The minor PCs being characters that are 'PCs' and are going through some development in the story, but largely they are 'support' for that particular story (using the Separatist example again: The Kids (particually Trissan), Varcanna, Besk and Silliss were minor PCs).
Reguarding Bios, I can see why they necessary. However (and I know I'm not the only one) I struggle with them and only barely managed to put up the ones I have (Naosha, Trazu, Asri, Tiosk and Demonakos) and those are sorely outdated now (writers block and RL stuff keeps me from updating them). And I'm sure there are other's here whom have PCs that don't have a bio written.
Also, while bio's are useful, I think it would be best, especially if you know your PC is going to be interacting with anothers PC, to not read the bio: at least not in it's entirity. Reason being is the tempation to use OOC info IC. Now granted some of the info can be 'common knowledge' in certain circles and in a more limited way outside of them, but while (for example) Trazu may know that Telan lead 'this' many campains and brought 'that' many planets under the Empires control from news bulletins and the like, there's a lot he's not going to know about him and what he does know may or many not be true at all. Separating OOC knowledge from IC can be hard, especially for a new writer (it can be hard for me and I'm certainly not new, hense why I don't even read other's bios to avoid temptation).
Couple of suggestions:
First: While I realize there is a search function, even so it can be annoying to try to find a bio of a particular person. Maybe someone can make a master list that's stickied in the Bio section that has links to all the people's bios? This would not only give an easy(er) access to people's bio posts, but also serve as a list of which characters belong to who and not to mention perhaps giving those that haven't written a bio a kick in the pants to write it.
Second: Perhaps as an option for the bio post is a block called 'Common Knowledge' with tidbits that may be known throughout the galaxy (or just parts of it, depending on the character). This could even be put in the list in my first suggestion instead. This could be particularly useful for those that have a bit of a reputation in the galaxy (like Simon Kaine) and could give people the 'quick info' they need for their characters to interact with another's character for the first time. I'll use one of my characters as an example:
(Trazu)
Common Knowledge: Son of the leader a powerful warrior Clan and one of the Elder Councilors on Trandosha. Rumored to be not only force sensitive but a Jedi in some limited circles, but has yet to be varified.
If you went on to read his full bio you would find out that the rumors are indeed true, but because this is going by 'common knowledge' of the public itself, it's uncertain at least or not even believed at all until you interact with the Trazu yourself (and even then there's no gaurintee since he prefers to keep his 'jedi' status a secret as much as possible).
My thoughts, my suggestions.
All my characters are Story-Characters, however I personally don't see why we need to create a separate account for each PC: it gets you into the habit of looking at the screen name instead of the story itself to see who is talking. Since I read the content of the post itself to see which character I am dealing with, it only confuses me with all the different screen names on who's who in terms of the writers themselves. To me, knowing who the writer is for a particular post is more imporant then the character name. That's why the majority of my posts are with this account, so you know which writer you are dealing with.
In addition, as those who follow my threads will have noticed, I usually have multiple PCs of mine interacting with each other in each post, which pretty much makes it senseless to use separate accounts to post each characters PoV. Not to mention a pain to keep having to switch between accounts (did it once with one of my earlier stories...wasn't fun). So I use one main account (this one) for stories with multiple PCs in it.
I rarely have any story with just one PC in it and when I do it's usually for only one story and I have no way of knowing when that character will be going 'solo' again, so making a separate account for that character is a waste of time for me. There are exceptions of course, such as during the period when Trazu was a dark jedi (that account is now retired IMO) and Demonakos (you'll only see him interact with my other characters briefly, if at all).
Now...if there was some board feature (I believe I suggested something like this before long time ago but was shot down due to securty reasons) where I could have a 'master' account with the ability to select an different account/character name to be the screen name for that post (EzBoard gold had this feature), then perhaps. But for folks like me who have just too many PCs, the 'have a separate account for each PC' requirement for them to be officially PCs according to the board rules...it's too much.
You could say I have what I will dub Major and [/i]Minor[/i] PCs. The major ones are basically the ones I am focusing on the most at the time (eg: during Separatist series, the Major PCs would have been Naosha, Tiosk, Rissonik, and later on Asri. Now it's Trazu and Asri). The minor PCs being characters that are 'PCs' and are going through some development in the story, but largely they are 'support' for that particular story (using the Separatist example again: The Kids (particually Trissan), Varcanna, Besk and Silliss were minor PCs).
Reguarding Bios, I can see why they necessary. However (and I know I'm not the only one) I struggle with them and only barely managed to put up the ones I have (Naosha, Trazu, Asri, Tiosk and Demonakos) and those are sorely outdated now (writers block and RL stuff keeps me from updating them). And I'm sure there are other's here whom have PCs that don't have a bio written.
Also, while bio's are useful, I think it would be best, especially if you know your PC is going to be interacting with anothers PC, to not read the bio: at least not in it's entirity. Reason being is the tempation to use OOC info IC. Now granted some of the info can be 'common knowledge' in certain circles and in a more limited way outside of them, but while (for example) Trazu may know that Telan lead 'this' many campains and brought 'that' many planets under the Empires control from news bulletins and the like, there's a lot he's not going to know about him and what he does know may or many not be true at all. Separating OOC knowledge from IC can be hard, especially for a new writer (it can be hard for me and I'm certainly not new, hense why I don't even read other's bios to avoid temptation).
Couple of suggestions:
First: While I realize there is a search function, even so it can be annoying to try to find a bio of a particular person. Maybe someone can make a master list that's stickied in the Bio section that has links to all the people's bios? This would not only give an easy(er) access to people's bio posts, but also serve as a list of which characters belong to who and not to mention perhaps giving those that haven't written a bio a kick in the pants to write it.
Second: Perhaps as an option for the bio post is a block called 'Common Knowledge' with tidbits that may be known throughout the galaxy (or just parts of it, depending on the character). This could even be put in the list in my first suggestion instead. This could be particularly useful for those that have a bit of a reputation in the galaxy (like Simon Kaine) and could give people the 'quick info' they need for their characters to interact with another's character for the first time. I'll use one of my characters as an example:
(Trazu)
Common Knowledge: Son of the leader a powerful warrior Clan and one of the Elder Councilors on Trandosha. Rumored to be not only force sensitive but a Jedi in some limited circles, but has yet to be varified.
If you went on to read his full bio you would find out that the rumors are indeed true, but because this is going by 'common knowledge' of the public itself, it's uncertain at least or not even believed at all until you interact with the Trazu yourself (and even then there's no gaurintee since he prefers to keep his 'jedi' status a secret as much as possible).
My thoughts, my suggestions.
I pretty much agree with Beff...
Beff is teh smart.
Beff is teh smart.
Why is this an issue? Were pretty carebear as it is... Used to be a time I would complain people were sending semi-developed characters into situations crafter to kill an npc merely due to the fact these characters couldn't be killed. Now it's a given that these things happen and it's all water off a ducks back. Did something happen where someone complained? Have a brainstorm while on the toilet? Why is this coming up?
Plus whats wrong with simply having a discussion for the hell of it, just to see opinions nd the thoughts, even though thats not quite the main reason for this particular thread :P.
I'm saddened people have a stronger opinion about what forms the difference between PC and NPC than a discusion about an ideal government.
EDIT: Doesn't your 'Cure All' rule cover this?
EDIT: Doesn't your 'Cure All' rule cover this?
I've been a bit busy with exams and catching up on schoolwork, so I'll present some more ideas later and delineate on them and previous ideas later on...but for the most part, I pretty much agree with everything that Kaine has said, and a lot of Slaskia's as well.
Not Guns...lightsabers... :P
Admittedly, there are people like myself who tend to see TRF more or less as a literary war game, and hence, we tend to focus on our factions instead of our characters. Why? Because early on, TRF was a tumultous place, with nearly everyone engaged in wars and battles; perhaps some would call these the golden days. Everything was about war, and mustering resources, etc, and we would be fools to not recognize that there are some vestiges of that era still manifesting themselves today. Case and point, there was a forty or so post on if the Confed could own a star destroyer if it had six planets. Maybe this attitude needs to change, but the fact is, it still exists, and some people try to compensate for that (like myself). Some people aren't here for writing or the stories sake, but for the game itself. It's an important distinction to note that not everyone is here solely for writing. If that was the case, why is this a RPG and not a fanfiction site? It strikes me that we are somewhere inbetween, and increasingly leaning towards pure fan fiction writing, for better or worse.
I have to say that Beff's system has its merits, but at the same point, it's important to realize that although every system has its merits, it also has associated weak points. It strikes me that it would be very good system if we had a lot of RPers doing everything at once, but such really isn't the case at TRF any more.
My main objection to the proposed system is that it is making some assumptions about how people use and see TRF, and how they roleplay. Slaskia just made an excellent example.
I am going to argue that Kalshion and Slaskia have both done an extriadionary amount of work in character development. Throughout their years here, I have seen a lot of work being put in just for the story's sake, character development, or developing the history/culture of their organization. Actually taking planets for resources and such seems to be minimalistic given their time here and the group's size. It is almost more of a fanfiction than an RP because of how little interaction takes place between Serendivius and other groups.
But one has to realize that this is because of the flow of many different characters and PCs, some of them core, and others not so much as Slaskia has described as above. Their stories aren't based really on character development and experience, but rather the collective experience of the entire group.
Does that make their stories and efforts any less than those of a person who focuses on one character?
What I see from these proposed rules is an attempt to limit people to focusing on one character if they want to have some sway if it comes to conflict. And frankly, discouraging people from creating other characters is the discouragement of the art and creativity itself in my opinion. Why create and develop another cool character if it's going to be instantly downed in a conflict, simply because one developed a character initially for the same group?
For example, I very much doubt that I would have bothered to put much effort into developing Adrian if these rules were going to be in place, because he could then be marginalized by the main character of another player because that person's main character is a Force-user. And no matter what, even if Adrian's character is more well-developed than the other's persons, because Adrian could be viewed as support character or a faction character, and the other player's as his main because it was his only character, then the other player's character would triumph.
Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've been trying to get across Beff, but that's what I currently am seeing.
Just my two cents. More to probably come later...
Not Guns...lightsabers... :P
Admittedly, there are people like myself who tend to see TRF more or less as a literary war game, and hence, we tend to focus on our factions instead of our characters. Why? Because early on, TRF was a tumultous place, with nearly everyone engaged in wars and battles; perhaps some would call these the golden days. Everything was about war, and mustering resources, etc, and we would be fools to not recognize that there are some vestiges of that era still manifesting themselves today. Case and point, there was a forty or so post on if the Confed could own a star destroyer if it had six planets. Maybe this attitude needs to change, but the fact is, it still exists, and some people try to compensate for that (like myself). Some people aren't here for writing or the stories sake, but for the game itself. It's an important distinction to note that not everyone is here solely for writing. If that was the case, why is this a RPG and not a fanfiction site? It strikes me that we are somewhere inbetween, and increasingly leaning towards pure fan fiction writing, for better or worse.
I have to say that Beff's system has its merits, but at the same point, it's important to realize that although every system has its merits, it also has associated weak points. It strikes me that it would be very good system if we had a lot of RPers doing everything at once, but such really isn't the case at TRF any more.
My main objection to the proposed system is that it is making some assumptions about how people use and see TRF, and how they roleplay. Slaskia just made an excellent example.
I am going to argue that Kalshion and Slaskia have both done an extriadionary amount of work in character development. Throughout their years here, I have seen a lot of work being put in just for the story's sake, character development, or developing the history/culture of their organization. Actually taking planets for resources and such seems to be minimalistic given their time here and the group's size. It is almost more of a fanfiction than an RP because of how little interaction takes place between Serendivius and other groups.
But one has to realize that this is because of the flow of many different characters and PCs, some of them core, and others not so much as Slaskia has described as above. Their stories aren't based really on character development and experience, but rather the collective experience of the entire group.
Does that make their stories and efforts any less than those of a person who focuses on one character?
What I see from these proposed rules is an attempt to limit people to focusing on one character if they want to have some sway if it comes to conflict. And frankly, discouraging people from creating other characters is the discouragement of the art and creativity itself in my opinion. Why create and develop another cool character if it's going to be instantly downed in a conflict, simply because one developed a character initially for the same group?
For example, I very much doubt that I would have bothered to put much effort into developing Adrian if these rules were going to be in place, because he could then be marginalized by the main character of another player because that person's main character is a Force-user. And no matter what, even if Adrian's character is more well-developed than the other's persons, because Adrian could be viewed as support character or a faction character, and the other player's as his main because it was his only character, then the other player's character would triumph.
Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've been trying to get across Beff, but that's what I currently am seeing.
Just my two cents. More to probably come later...
To Beff:
I am in agreement in most parts. That there are repeating, developed NPCs and we need to classify the difference between them. I am slowly developing a cast for Sinsang, but they're still just a cast of NPCs for the better part.
But I think the whole thing still needs some more work.
I don't like the account thing. Or else that means Regrad is a NPC since Dolash just uses Dolash for the whole mess. :P
What's the difference between a Faction and pure PC? Like... what if I just create a single thread talking about the character's life outside of the faction? Their interests? IE A thread about Chao going to an art expo and enjoying his personal interest. Is he then a PC just from one personal thread? Or does it take two? Etc etc etc.
Personally, I think we just can the whole thing and have characters and time invested represents skill. We're all (semi)responsible writers here and we're unfortunately strapped for writers. I'm sure that Corise would love to have PCs to fill his positions in the Confed, and I'd love to have an actual living cast for Sinsang, and the Crusade would love a series of blood thirsty generals, and so on and so forth. But we don't have the manpower.
To Gue:
It's because we're an RP board. IE. a discussion about the operation of a RP board SHOULD peak our interest more than a discussion on politics. Why? Because we're all RPers, and not all of us ( I don't think ANY of us) are politicians.
I am in agreement in most parts. That there are repeating, developed NPCs and we need to classify the difference between them. I am slowly developing a cast for Sinsang, but they're still just a cast of NPCs for the better part.
But I think the whole thing still needs some more work.
I don't like the account thing. Or else that means Regrad is a NPC since Dolash just uses Dolash for the whole mess. :P
What's the difference between a Faction and pure PC? Like... what if I just create a single thread talking about the character's life outside of the faction? Their interests? IE A thread about Chao going to an art expo and enjoying his personal interest. Is he then a PC just from one personal thread? Or does it take two? Etc etc etc.
Personally, I think we just can the whole thing and have characters and time invested represents skill. We're all (semi)responsible writers here and we're unfortunately strapped for writers. I'm sure that Corise would love to have PCs to fill his positions in the Confed, and I'd love to have an actual living cast for Sinsang, and the Crusade would love a series of blood thirsty generals, and so on and so forth. But we don't have the manpower.
To Gue:
It's because we're an RP board. IE. a discussion about the operation of a RP board SHOULD peak our interest more than a discussion on politics. Why? Because we're all RPers, and not all of us ( I don't think ANY of us) are politicians.