It gets worse because I play Exalted online more than anywhere else, which makes the delay for back-and-forth decisions on what Charms to use in each Step takes even longer. (I've no idea how anybody runs it by the rules as written in a play-by-post game!)
The way I handle it is, if there's going to be a serious fight, with outcome uncertain and meaningful consequences likely to result, all participants have to be online at the same time and resolve the blow-by-blow on Discord (or IRC, or some other platform optimized for simple, quick responses). Then when it's over, somebody posts a summary to the forum thread or equivalent.

If everyone involved can agree that a specific outcome is inevitable and/or that precise consequences aren't likely to matter, don't waste time and energy going through the motions, just move on to the appropriate aftermath.
 
I think people really over estimate how much thought is actually needed to process the steps. They're basically just your basic Action Resolution from Magic and that gets internalized pretty damn fast by even new players.

Edit: More to the point, the Steps are still basically there in 3e, they're just obfuscated to make it seem like they're not. You still have to declare Defenses before the attacker rolls, there's still Charms that can only be activated after the Attack roll, all that nonsense.
SUre, and that works face-to-face. It slows down significantly on IRC or Discord, and to a crawl in play-by-post.
The way I handle it is, if there's going to be a serious fight, with outcome uncertain and meaningful consequences likely to result, all participants have to be online at the same time and resolve the blow-by-blow on Discord (or IRC, or some other platform optimized for simple, quick responses). Then when it's over, somebody posts a summary to the forum thread or equivalent.

If everyone involved can agree that a specific outcome is inevitable and/or that precise consequences aren't likely to matter, don't waste time and energy going through the motions, just move on to the appropriate aftermath.
Right, that's how you'd go from play-by-post to at least resolving it in semi-real-time via chat. But it still takes forever due to all the back-and-forth.

Ideally, there'd be a way to announce all the decisions in 1-2 steps, 3 at most (call-response, with maybe a re-response from the caller). I've yet to come up with a good one, though, sadly.
 
SUre, and that works face-to-face. It slows down significantly on IRC or Discord, and to a crawl in play-by-post.

Right, that's how you'd go from play-by-post to at least resolving it in semi-real-time via chat. But it still takes forever due to all the back-and-forth.

Ideally, there'd be a way to announce all the decisions in 1-2 steps, 3 at most (call-response, with maybe a re-response from the caller). I've yet to come up with a good one, though, sadly.
Compile quick-reference documents so nobody needs to put the battle on hold while they look up exactly what a charm does, or how many applicable bonuses they have. Practice with simpler scenarios, to build familiarity with the basics, rather than diving right in to maximum complexity. For flurries, if the defender doesn't have a counterattack or some way to disengage, roll dice for all the attacks at once and resolve them in parallel.
 
Fundamentally though, it's not built for play by letter, it's built for play at table, thus the "resolution level" of discrete player action being what it is. You'd probably want a completely different style of system if you were designing a game primarily around play by post.
 
Fundamentally though, it's not built for play by letter, it's built for play at table, thus the "resolution level" of discrete player action being what it is. You'd probably want a completely different style of system if you were designing a game primarily around play by post.
Indeed, I agree with this. The idea of reference sheets and practice is nice, and might help, but it wouldn't resolve the fundamental issue of how long it takes to wait for responses.

I don't think I've ever seen a system developed for play by "letter" (or even text-chat), but it would be an interesting one.
 
I've toyed with the idea of a play by post system. One conclusion I came to pretty early is that defensive/reactive traits would need to be static, or toggled on and off. They absolutely could not be dynamic or adjustable on the fly, not without pre-set conditions.
 
I should note that pbp is not the only form of text-based online play. I cannot bear voice chat/in person play, so I pretty much have to play real time through text, a format in which I have a great deal of fun.
 
I should note that pbp is not the only form of text-based online play. I cannot bear voice chat/in person play, so I pretty much have to play real time through text, a format in which I have a great deal of fun.
I do this as well for a game. Only problem is that if your group talks fast it can be hard to keep up.
 
I've had a lot of success in writing/playing Exalted via Discord text. It seems like it might go a little quicker in voice/in person, but that's not to say text-based has to be slow. It's also worth pointing out that STing for a text game can require significantly different muscles than for a voice game; what approaches are useful for one medium might not carry over to the other, or be less effective.
 
Hey, so we were discussing Organization rules the other day, and I decided to write some up. Would really appreciate some feedback since it is still the first draft.

Organization Rules!

King Arthur. Joan of Arc. Tokugawa Ieyasu. These are the kind of people that Exalted is meant to emulate. Kings and Queens and leaders who achieved great things and went down in history. But the rules for running a large group in exalted are not very good. So I've decided to make my own. Hopefully, these rules should allow your group to simulate the running of an Empire, or any organization, without things getting too complicated.
Overview
How are we defining an Organization? What groups are these rules meant to emulate? For the purpose of these rules, an Organization is any group of people united in a common cause. That cause could be "Serve the Scarlet Empress" or it could be "Reform the Immaculate Faith" or it could be "Give every child a toy", but they must have some cause which unites them and changes them from a series of individuals into an Organization.

Each Organization is treated as its own character, with its own character sheet. This character sheet should contain its attributes and abilities, important characters within the organization as well as who leads it (usually a player).

A Character may never be the leader of an Organization whose magnitude is greater than twice her (Intelligence + Bureaucracy). While she may be in a position which gives her de jure control of a larger group, she simply lacks the ability and apparatus of state to control anything larger.

If a character does end up in a situation where she is the leader of a group larger than she can control, have the player pick out a group or series of groups within the larger organization which she can control and have this marked down as the actual Organization she controls, regardless of whatever title she may have. Example subgroups could be a political party in a larger nation, a religious movement inside a larger religious group, or the police of a city. Should she wish to command members of the Organization which she does not control, then she will have to convince them just as she would if she was not their leader, though her title may well give her an intimacy to work off of.
In cases where a character is initially not skilled enough to control the entire group, then she only pays XP for the group she actually controls. By the same token however, she may not gain control of the larger group simply by raising her stats. She must pay XP or go on a quest for control as norma;l.


SIDEBAR: Example of Play
Invincible Sword Princess (ISP) just became Queen of a small Island. But her (Intelligence + Bureaucracy) pool is 4, and so she can only control 5000 people. This is less than the total population of her Kingdom. She chooses to make her Organization her Captial city and pays XP accordingly even as she assumes the title of Queen. If she wants any of her Nobles to obey her, she will simply have to use her persuasive powers and larger military to keep them in line!

Attributes
An organization has 6 attributes which it uses for rolls, instead of the usual 9. These are:

Diplomacy:
This is a measure of the Organization's ability to convince other Organizations and perform mass social attacks. It is used for diplomacy, propaganda political reforms. If the organization is trying to convince someone, use this ability. It is associated with Performance.


Might:
This is a measure of an Organization's military might. It represents its ability to raise armies, fight wars and raid enemies. If the Organization is trying to do physical harm to another person or place, use this. It is associated with War.

Learning:
This represents the Organization's knowledge and research ability. It is used to develop spells, redirect dragonlines and educate its populace. If you are trying to do something which requires knowledge to achieve, use this. This stat also includes engineering and other public works, such as the creation of new fertile land or the building of a monument. It is associated with Occult and Lore.


Intrigue:
This represents the Organization's ability to gather information and perform sabotage. Spies, assassins and saboteurs fall under its purview. If you are trying to do something clandestine, use this. It is associated with Larceny and Investigation.
Resources:
This represents how rich an Organization is. All Organizations are assumed to be self-sufficient, and so this does not take into account the normal day to day upkeep of the Organization. This instead represents wealth the Organization has over and above what it needs to run.
This stat may be used to increase the rating of any other Attribute at a ratio of 2 Resources for 1 of any other attribute. This bypasses the need to spend XP, but not the training time required to raise that stat. It doesn't matter whether you are hiring mercenaries, buying books or bribing spies, raising an attribute takes time.
Reverting these attributes takes half again as much time as it took to raise them.


Each attribute is rated 1 through 6 as follows
* The Organization can Operate on the level of a small town or equivalent
** The Organization can operate on the level of a large City.
*** The Organization can Operate on the level of a City-State
**** The Organization can Operate on the level of a Small Nation
***** The Organization can Operate on the International Stage. It is a large and powerful nation. When it speaks, others listen.
****** The Organization rivals the Realm in Power and Prestige.
Abilities
When rolling a Project, the player must choose a person to lead it. The roll uses that person's relevant abilities for the (Attribute + Ability) score.
Getting things done
An Organization accomplishes a task in three stages.
  1. The player decides what Project they want to accomplish. This could be raising an army, assaulting a city or opening new trade routes.
  2. The player decides who will lead this project. This Character, referred to as the Project Leader, provides the ability rating for the task.
  3. The Organization rolls the relevant (Attribute + Ability) against a difficulty decided by the ST, with more successes. The ST should tell the player how long the project will take, as well as it's difficulty. A Project should never be shorter than a week in length.

Project Leaders
There are no limits as to who can be chosen as Project Leader, assuming the Player can get them to agree to perform that task. The Player's Character is a valid Project leader, if they can devote the time to such a large scale endeavor.
Once someone has begun work on a project, they are indisposed, and may not be used for other tasks without ending the Project as a failure. These characters may still be around and can be interacted with, but they do not have the time to perform any additional work without ruining the project.

Multiple Projects
An Organization may engage in multiple projects at once. Each project needs it's own Project leader however, and these suffer multiple action penalties as normal.

Example Projects
Sidebar:
Note that several of these Projects involve raising an Organization's attributes, or otherwise improving it. Such improvements do not require XP to purchase but, like any background earned in play, the Player should spend XP on them if they want to prevent them from being taken away.
For ease of use, such an XP cost has been listed.
Raising Attributes:
Time: (Desired Attribute Rating *4) Years
XP: (Desired Attribute Rating *10)
This can be anything from purchasing better equipment for your army to hiring teachers revise your educational curriculum.
Note: An attribute can only be raised one dot at a time. You cannot jump straight from Might 1 to Might 5.

Conquest:
Time: Varies
XP: Equal to the cost of buying the conquered Organization as a background
Difficulty: Varies
Roll: Might + War
The time this takes will vary by the size of the area being conquered. Generally, every city will take at least a month to conquer, before factoring in travel time, and well-defended cities will take even longer.
Phenomenal success may reduce the time this takes, representing a daring stratagem which bypasses the cities defences.
Areas larger than a city should be handled using multiple rolls.


Building a Grand Library:
Time: Varies
XP: Varies
Difficulty: 3
Roll:
Learning + Lore

Building a New City:
Time: Varies
XP: Varies
Difficulty: 7
Roll:
Learning + Lore
Getting an Organization
Most Organizations will be acquired in play. However, Organizations can be bought as backgrounds, and Players may wish to do so in order to start play already running an Organization. Players may also purchase Organizations with XP in order to make them permanent parts of their character sheet. While purchased Organizations may still be lost to the vagaries of fate (or the ST's machinations) such things should be rare and handled with Player consent, and all lost XP should be refunded.

The XP cost of an Organization is equal the cost of all it's Attributes combined.


The Importance of Information and Travel Time
The world of Exalted is a large one, and it deliberately avoids travel shorteners such as teleportation. Travel is important in exalted, and these rules aim to honour that. When performing a Project, make sure to also account for the travel time such an endeavour would require. When ordering a general in a far off city to go to war, remember that he has to recieve the order first, and add that to the time it takes for him to complete his task.

Similarly, the player should not be aware of everything that happens to her organization as it happens, barring charm use. She should be receiving reports and information days or even weeks after it has occurred.
 
I'm not a big fan.

In general, I think we need mechanics for people acting on organizations more than we need mechanics for organizations acting on the world.

This is, after all, a game about individual characters. I'm not nearly as interested in whether my kingdom can build a bridge as I am in whether I, the king, can make my kingdom build a bridge.

And the central problem of every leader, in Exalted and in the real world, is that an organization isn't an extension of its leader's will. Most of the best stories about leadership come from that problem. Think of Daenerys Targaryen in Meereen, or Alexander the Great in India.

My own bureaucracy rules are far from perfect, but one thing I think I got right is was giving organizations Intimacies and requiring that leaders roll to change or even (sometimes) to discover those Intimacies.
 
So, I'm going to be a bit harsh on it, sorry for that in advance but I don't think this is a very good system.

First off, it doesn't match with the three examples you've chosen. There aren't any stories about King Arthur's foreign policy or taxes, when King Arthur acts he does so personally or the Knights of his table take action on behalf of him, the wars are matters that focus on individual names and heroic deeds, not the attributes of a state acting in perfect concert. Joan of Arc didn't take command of the Kingdom of France, she led the armies of the king with sword in hand and God at her back, she didn't set his tax policy.

Next up, your system disguises itself as an omnipurpose tool to cover "organizations" with "goals", but all your examples are based on states, one of the oldest forms of social organization in the world, which do not exactly have any concrete goals. What is the goal of France? Having a singular goal to which an organization is devoted is nice for companies and similar organizations, not for states that arise naturally as a result of the monopolization of resources and steady stratification of a region under a local confederating elite class. In addition, having a leader be capable of controlling only a specific size of an organization is an interesting way of handling it, but doesn't work in your execution. The Magnitude scale is too small and fails to account for leaderless organizations rule in concert rather than by a single person. Magnitude 10 is not even a tenth of the size of ancient Athens and barely half of Sparta's non-helot and non-perioikic population. You say that an organization is any population united in common cause but this fails to describe most of the real world's historical states, because they are exactly not united in common cause, not even common identity. States consist of interest groups and the state itself is a forum, the attention of which they compete for. The medieval Crown of France was not a coherent state, it was many different Duchies and Baronies that competed for the attention of the King and the only commonality that they had was that they were subjects of the King of France. Most of them didn't even speak French.

In addition, the system wavers between treating an organization as a singular organization and as composed of people and makes it very hard to actually simulate a state with it. Magnitude 9 won't be enough to account for a large city in the Realm so how are you going to make this system actually play out. Ancient Athens had a population of 250,000 to 300,000, so will every city in the Realm have the administrators to account for that? The Roman Empire at its height barely broke a few hundred people in terms of administration needed for the entire empire and I don't assume it is the ideal goal of your system to model every single local elite, because it doesn't give proper guidelines or systems for how elites interact within the organization, just that one would need to use "persuasive powers and larger military to keep them in line!". What you've done is that you've created a very loose framework, but not one that actually models states very well.
 
So I was actually thinking about modelling organizations in line with some of the academic commentary I've read about organizational behavior, particularly in large organizations and states. This is very rough - it's designed as a schema, more than a specific system you could easily implement.

An organization is, by its very nature, a group of groups. Those groups can either be formalized (political parties in a state) or informal (Jane and Beth at the book club dislike Paula and Joanne), but they exist in every organization. The organization is a forum for these groups: they compete to exercise power within the organization.

An organization is comprised of levers. Levers are things the organization can do. These don't need to be really specific; they can be as general as you need them to be. Congress for example might be a 'lever' - it can pass laws. On the other hand, the military - or even a specific military command - can be a 'lever' - because it can move troops around. You can also have organizations within other organizations as you need, so perhaps the state is one organization and then the military is a separate organization within it, if you need to add more complexity for that.

At any particular time, each lever must be in the control of some group. Depending on the size of the organization and the lever, that group can either be formal or informal, as small as a single person or as large as a political party. Again, you can add more complexity or abstraction as required.

Pulling a lever - i.e, exercising that power - basically has a cost from every group for whom the lever does not advance a goal. We call that cost 'stability' or 'favor' or whatever you want to call it. Essentially, every time you pull a lever to do something, every group who does not want to do that thing loses a bit of commitment to the organization. The more an organization dislikes the lever you pull, the more commitment they lose.

As groups within the organization lose commitment, bad things start to happen (and vice versa, as they gain commitment, good things happen). Below a certain commitment threshold, a group will go into active revolt. Those thresholds aren't fixed though: it depends on the nature of the organization. Different organizations will have different thresholds for different kinds of bad things to begin happening, and different levels at which revolt occurs.

Think of it sort of like @EarthScorpion's "debt" system from The Dragon's Spite, but in...well okay it's only sort of like that at all.

The idea is that you can make this model more or less abstract depending on what you want to do with it, and in fact you can go from very abstract if the details are not relevant to very specific if they are without really changing anything. Each group could be a black box, but it also doesn't have to be - you can abstract individual groups to the level that suits you.

For example, you might say something like this:

Organization: United States
Levers: Congress (Lawmaking), Presidency (Executive Action), Supreme Court (Judiciary)
Groups: Democrats, Republicans

That would be a pretty simplified model, for a scenario where more detail isn't really required. But if you wanted more detail, you could easily add it by just suborganizing some, or all, of the relevant parts into their own meaningful organizations with levers:

Organization: United States
Levers: Congress (Suborganization: House, Senate), Presidency (Suborganization: Department of Treasury, Department of Defense, etc.)
Groups: Left-wing Democrats, Socialists, Centrist Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats... etc etc etc.
 
The medieval Crown of France was not a coherent state, it was many different Duchies and Baronies that competed for the attention of the King and the only commonality that they had was that they were subjects of the King of France. Most of them didn't even speak French.
Magnitude 9 won't be enough to account for a large city in the Realm so how are you going to make this system actually play out. Ancient Athens had a population of 250,000 to 300,000, so will every city in the Realm have the administrators to account for that?
So I can't respond to all of what everyone said yet since I'm traveling, but I wanted to single these two bits out.

It probably wasn't spelled out clearly enough, god knows I have trouble with scale, but under this system you aren't meant to personally rule all of France. You are meant to be ruler of a City within france or a province of it.

In this system, the "King of France" doesn't control all of France as an organization. He controls Paris and the surrounding region. This is his organization. If he wants to get all of France to do something then he needs to go and convince the Dukes of France to do so. Luckily he is still the "King of France" and so he has a lot of levers he can use for this (intimacies towards the king, towards the country, the fact that he has the largest army, the fact that he grew up and hung out with these people, etc)

Of course, this is assuming no access to charm tech. Solar Kingdoms and the Realm are so powerful because they would have charms which let them bypass these limits.

I should probably make that more clear.

Thank you for the feedback, and I'd rather you be more harsh then less. Like I said this was a first draft.
First off, it doesn't match with the three examples you've chosen. There aren't any stories about King Arthur's foreign policy or taxes, when King Arthur acts he does so personally or the Knights of his table take action on behalf of him, the wars are matters that focus on individual names and heroic deeds, not the attributes of a state acting in perfect concert. Joan of Arc didn't take command of the Kingdom of France, she led the armies of the king with sword in hand and God at her back, she didn't set his tax policy
Fair.
Next up, your system disguises itself as an omnipurpose tool to cover "organizations" with "goals", but all your examples are based on states, one of the oldest forms of social organization in the world, which do not exactly have any concrete goals. What is the goal of France? Having a singular goal to which an organization is devoted is nice for companies and similar organizations, not for states that arise naturally as a result of the monopolization of resources and steady stratification of a region under a local confederating elite class
Again, fair, might change that definition. Alternatively, I might make it clearer that the King of France can only really command people who share his common goal of "obey the king" or whatever. Others will need to be convinced as normal.
The Magnitude scale is too small and fails to account for leaderless organizations rule in concert rather than by a single person. Magnitude 10 is not even a tenth of the size of ancient Athens and barely half of Sparta's non-helot and non-perioikic population.
Yeah, I'm just bad at scale. I might work off the population you gave for Athens as the max and then scale from there.
The Roman Empire at its height barely broke a few hundred people in terms of administration needed for the entire empire and I don't assume it is the ideal goal of your system to model every single local elite, because it doesn't give proper guidelines or systems for how elites interact within the organization, just that one would need to use "persuasive powers and larger military to keep them in line!". What you've done is that you've created a very loose framework, but not one that actually models states very well.
Yeah, as stated above, if you're the Roman emperor and you want the governor of judea or whatever to do something then you need to convince him using the existing social system.

I think I got everything? Sorry this was in a weird order but I wanted to get that first point out first since it seemed to me the most important.
I'm not a big fan.

In general, I think we need mechanics for people acting on organizations more than we need mechanics for organizations acting on the world.

This is, after all, a game about individual characters. I'm not nearly as interested in whether my kingdom can build a bridge as I am in whether I, the king, can make my kingdom build a bridge.

And the central problem of every leader, in Exalted and in the real world, is that an organization isn't an extension of its leader's will. Most of the best stories about leadership come from that problem. Think of Daenerys Targaryen in Meereen, or Alexander the Great in India.

My own bureaucracy rules are far from perfect, but one thing I think I got right is was giving organizations Intimacies and requiring that leaders roll to change or even (sometimes) to discover those Intimacies.
This is fair, and it's something I considered but couldn't get to work. Instead my system is meant to give you control over a moderate sized Organization, city state at most, and then force you to go and convince the leaders of other groups if you want them to do something, even if they are nominally under your command.

Going back to the above example, if the Roman Emperor wants something to happen in Judea, then he has to use a social attack against the emperor to convince him. The emperor can't command Judea himself
 
Sort of. The burghers of Paris guard their hard-won privileges as jealously as any of his dukes.
Right, but theres only so much granularity a system can have. Since you aren't going to model literally everything, you need to draw the line somewhere.

And there's nothing in the system which forces you to pick "Paris" as your organization. It could be "The landed Gentry" in which case the Burghers are a power group you have to convince
 
Right, but theres only so much granularity a system can have. Since you aren't going to model literally everything, you need to draw the line somewhere.

And there's nothing in the system which forces you to pick "Paris" as your organization. It could be "The landed Gentry" in which case the Burghers are a power group you have to convince
Good old rule of thumb is that anything further than twice removed from your point of contact(whether up, down or sideways in the hierarchy) isn't modeled. They are part of the environment.
 
This is fair, and it's something I considered but couldn't get to work. Instead my system is meant to give you control over a moderate sized Organization, city state at most, and then force you to go and convince the leaders of other groups if you want them to do something, even if they are nominally under your command.

Going back to the above example, if the Roman Emperor wants something to happen in Judea, then he has to use a social attack against the emperor to convince him. The emperor can't command Judea himself

So the system is actively counterproductive at / below the city-state level and useless above it?

This seems like a bad idea to me.

Another problem I forgot to mention before: your system doesn't involve rolling Bureaucracy. Half the reason I want an organization system is to make Bureaucracy 5 worthwhile.

FWIW, here are the goals I think organization rules should have:

1. Let people roll Bureaucracy.
2. Facilitate stories about running stuff, and facing the challenges inherent to that task. In particular, support the "Solar shows up out of nowhere, takes over, and then struggles to rule wisely and well" story concept.
3. Make it possible to write good Bureaucracy Charms.
4. Bring organizations into the stories of individual characters without creating some kind of decker-y civilization minigame or making interesting problems into boring non-problems.
 
So the system is actively counterproductive at / below the city-state level and useless above it?

This seems like a bad idea to me.

Another problem I forgot to mention before: your system doesn't involve rolling Bureaucracy. Half the reason I want an organization system is to make Bureaucracy 5 worthwhile.

FWIW, here are the goals I think organization rules should have:

1. Let people roll Bureaucracy.
2. Facilitate stories about running stuff, and facing the challenges inherent to that task. In particular, support the "Solar shows up out of nowhere, takes over, and then struggles to rule wisely and well" story concept.
3. Make it possible to write good Bureaucracy Charms.
4. Bring organizations into the stories of individual characters without creating some kind of decker-y civilization minigame or making interesting problems into boring non-problems.
It's more, hm. So like it was designed, theoretically, to model any size system. But @ManusDomini 's criticism made me realize that when I was modeling it in my head I always thought back to how it would work for a city, and so it lacks the flexibility to really model anything else. Which obviously needs to be fixed.

Thinking further, I want it to be able to model smaller systems, but I don't think it should allow anyone to directly control an area larger than a city and its surroundings. If the King of France wants to mobilize the whole country he needs to go to his Dukes and convince them to take up arms. Otherwise he's stuck with only his personal troops.

If you want to directly control something of larger size, to bypass the need for regional administrators, you need charms.

You will note that the size of a holding is based Bureaucracy, but I could try to add more reasons to use it
 
Thinking further, I want it to be able to model smaller systems, but I don't think it should allow anyone to directly control an area larger than a city and its surroundings.

I don't think it should be possible to directly control even a single other person without high-Essence Solar / SWLihN Charms. That sort of thing directly undercuts the stories I want to see played.

You will note that the size of a holding is based Bureaucracy, but I could try to add more reasons to use it

Static values are no substitute for rolls. You should be able to feel the importance of your abilities, and your excellencies, on a regular basis.
 
Maybe it would be better for the design process to start from the bottom and work upward. Here's how much food a small village can produce, how much it costs to haul cargo a given distance, how much to build a road, how many secondary tradespeople you need to feed and house in the town to keep that master blacksmith supplied with raw materials... or that layabout noble with luxurious distractions. Once you've established a baseline, think about variation, and how much more efficiency a heroic administrator can plausibly squeeze out at any given level of that pyramid by mundane skill alone - or meaningful choices they could make about, say, short-term extraction versus long-term sustainability, diversify versus standardize, etc.

In the section of Compass: North talking about the Saltspire League:
In RY 766, the Bull's viceroy Raneth of Diamond Hearth arrived at Plenilune with a small icewalker entourage. He forced entry to the city by shattering the main gate of the western sprawl with a portable Essence weapon. Using social Charms to gather a mob and push forward to the Larkbright, he then forced entrance to the Plenilune Saltspire and confronted the autarch. Perceiving the autarch's complicity in the city's rebellion, Raneth killed the man in front of his court and claimed the throne for himself.
Although all of the city's oligarchs denied involvement in seditious activities, Raneth's Charms saw through to the truth. He placed them all under house arrest. Commerce immediately ground to a halt. Without the oligarchs—the city's aristocrats, leading merchants and senior bureaucrats—Plenilune couldn't function. The next week, Raneth released everyone but the rebellion's ringleaders, whom he executed with great fanfare in the Plaza of Black Doves.
Cowed, the oligarchs kept a low profile and waited for the Bull's emissary to go away. Raneth stayed. Moreover, he redirected city funds to his research, funds that the oligarchs would normally skim off the top. They tired of his intrusions into their affairs. Nobles nursed ambitions of autarchy, while friends and relatives of those executed in the initial purge craved vengeance. Assassins were bought, sent, died. A second purge followed.
Unwilling to remain hostage any longer to the oligarchs' intransigence, Raneth set about reorganizing the city's government. He stripped the ministerial councils of their authority. Nobles find themselves replaced by handpicked civil officials. Soldiers seize the assets of troublesome merchants. Bureaucrats divide consortiums into smaller businesses that are easier to manage. With power slipping from their grasp, the oligarchs have little left to lose.
An effective system for organizations in general and Bureaucracy in particular should be able to represent the ugly inevitabilities of that sort of situation just as clearly as the combat system can represent being murdered in a dark alley by five guys with sledgehammers. Abstractions, loyalty and levers and agendas, seem like the wrong approach.
You want an army? What kind of army, exactly? One soldier equipped to such a standard needs X amount of bread and beer and leather and iron, a thousand will need a thousand times as much. Where's it going to come from? Here's how you build a supply pipeline, here's how much a good bureaucrat in the right position can make it work better, and here's how somebody in that same position could use those exact same skills to enrich themselves by spreading rot through your army in ways you might not notice until it's too late. Who do you trust with that job? Could try doing it all yourself, but there are only so many hours in a day. Sometimes it might even make sense to deliberately appoint someone you know to be incompetent, so that when they inevitably misbehave it'll be in simple, obvious ways that are easy to spot and fix, rather than anything slow or tricky.
 
I think the problem with modelling any sort of governance or organisational system in Exalted is that what the game seems to expect - and what players seem to expect - from it isn't even really abstractly how organisations function or how they behave, so it's not entirely clear what a model that adopts those common tropes would actually look like.

The idea that some random Solar can just show up and take over a government is a very common trope in Exalted. So is the idea that "bureaucracy" is the kind of thing you can have a superpower in. Neither of these really mesh well with our concept of what governance means, and the extant charms in 3E don't really provide you with a better idea of what that model should look like.

Mostly, the bureaucracy charms seem to fall into three buckets. The first set are financial, because apparently haggling is bureaucratic in nature: things like Frugal Merchant Method, Insightful Buyer Technique, and so on. These could possibly be converted to general social/organisational actions, but that doesn't seem explicit in their descriptions. The second set seem to treat bureaucracy just as an independent extant thing you can manipulate. Deft Official's Way, for example, is just "Bureaucratic Spidy Sense" - you have supernatural powers of waiting in the passport office line! - while Enigmatic Bureau Understanding seems to explicitly treat an organization as if it were a single entity with the player at its head - interesting, but not really well-explored as a mechanism. The third bucket seems to be basically "magic bureaucracy": we have decided bureaucracy is complex and so we just give you the power to magic everyone into complying; things like Foul Air of Argument Technique, Taboo-Inflicting Diatribe, and so on.

In short, Exalted 3E's Charms model views bureaucracy less through the lens of a psychology of organization and more almost like a kind of medicine. In this conceptualization, the organization is essentially the player's (or another specific character's) body, comprised of endless cells which can be corrupted or damaged but which appear to have no meaningful free will or self-interest and which the Exalt (or Solar, I guess) can essentially command at magical will.

This doesn't really have anything to do with how organisations operate in the real world (which isn't per se a problem!) but it also seems to almost intentionally create a level of abstraction that turns the player away from social or political interactions. The system doesn't model conflicting interests in a governmental department or dynastic house or business in any way other than thinking of things as either "player wants" or "player doesn't want".

It ignores the fact that bureaucracy (or organization!) is not just a thing you put on a sheet, but a thing that happens naturally to groups of people, and that navigating a bureaucracy by its very nature means navigating competing interest groups. It's a very EU4 or Stellaris-style of 'government'. If actually dealing with government or organisations doesn't mean a lot in your particular case fine - but I think if you're trying to create and navigate a social sphere as a key part of the story, the extant system is highly disappointing. Not only is it oddly organized and very abstract, it's also not that intuitive. Most people grasp the idea of, say, shooting an arrow using a D20 and modifiers because they see hitting something with a projectile as essentially something controlled by both skill and randomness, which that mechanism provides. Nobody thinks of interacting with a bureaucracy as something that can be solved by having a "bureaucracy superpower".
 
I don't know how sound this is, but I feel the sorcerous workings mechanics could be expanded upon to be a general purpose 'projects' engine, which bureaucracy could be apart of. Maybe even crafting if you really wanted to double down on it.
 
I think the problem with modelling any sort of governance or organisational system in Exalted is that what the game seems to expect - and what players seem to expect - from it isn't even really abstractly how organisations function or how they behave, so it's not entirely clear what a model that adopts those common tropes would actually look like.

The idea that some random Solar can just show up and take over a government is a very common trope in Exalted. So is the idea that "bureaucracy" is the kind of thing you can have a superpower in. Neither of these really mesh well with our concept of what governance means, and the extant charms in 3E don't really provide you with a better idea of what that model should look like.

Mostly, the bureaucracy charms seem to fall into three buckets. The first set are financial, because apparently haggling is bureaucratic in nature: things like Frugal Merchant Method, Insightful Buyer Technique, and so on. These could possibly be converted to general social/organisational actions, but that doesn't seem explicit in their descriptions. The second set seem to treat bureaucracy just as an independent extant thing you can manipulate. Deft Official's Way, for example, is just "Bureaucratic Spidy Sense" - you have supernatural powers of waiting in the passport office line! - while Enigmatic Bureau Understanding seems to explicitly treat an organization as if it were a single entity with the player at its head - interesting, but not really well-explored as a mechanism. The third bucket seems to be basically "magic bureaucracy": we have decided bureaucracy is complex and so we just give you the power to magic everyone into complying; things like Foul Air of Argument Technique, Taboo-Inflicting Diatribe, and so on.

In short, Exalted 3E's Charms model views bureaucracy less through the lens of a psychology of organization and more almost like a kind of medicine. In this conceptualization, the organization is essentially the player's (or another specific character's) body, comprised of endless cells which can be corrupted or damaged but which appear to have no meaningful free will or self-interest and which the Exalt (or Solar, I guess) can essentially command at magical will.

This doesn't really have anything to do with how organisations operate in the real world (which isn't per se a problem!) but it also seems to almost intentionally create a level of abstraction that turns the player away from social or political interactions. The system doesn't model conflicting interests in a governmental department or dynastic house or business in any way other than thinking of things as either "player wants" or "player doesn't want".

It ignores the fact that bureaucracy (or organization!) is not just a thing you put on a sheet, but a thing that happens naturally to groups of people, and that navigating a bureaucracy by its very nature means navigating competing interest groups. It's a very EU4 or Stellaris-style of 'government'. If actually dealing with government or organisations doesn't mean a lot in your particular case fine - but I think if you're trying to create and navigate a social sphere as a key part of the story, the extant system is highly disappointing. Not only is it oddly organized and very abstract, it's also not that intuitive. Most people grasp the idea of, say, shooting an arrow using a D20 and modifiers because they see hitting something with a projectile as essentially something controlled by both skill and randomness, which that mechanism provides. Nobody thinks of interacting with a bureaucracy as something that can be solved by having a "bureaucracy superpower".
For me at least, and I still need to get my rules to reflect this better, Solar Bureacracy and War charms should basically unlock the ability to control organizations and armies like a EU4 game. It allows them to be the glorious solar godking who walks into the capital and takes over the country.

My current solution, which my rules need to be modified to reflect, is to say that up to the level of a city state, you can treat an organization as a singular unit, but you can't really do so for anything larger. The King of France can control his personal domains, but has to to convince the Dukes of France to go along with him if he wants to mobilize the country to war ,etc

I do realize that even this level of abstraction isn't a perfect simulationist model of how organizations really work, but its unreasonable to ask any ST to model literally every person in an organization.

Also, it fits in well with Exalted's roots in the "great men theory" of history. That's basically the fantasy that Solars are trying to convey, and so allowing Creation to work via that theory, at least in part, seems fine to me.

Plus it had the added gameplay benefit of giving the players a few "faces" they can interact with during play which represent the organization as a whole
 
For me at least, and I still need to get my rules to reflect this better, Solar Bureacracy and War charms should basically unlock the ability to control organizations and armies like a EU4 game. It allows them to be the glorious solar godking who walks into the capital and takes over the country.

My current solution, which my rules need to be modified to reflect, is to say that up to the level of a city state, you can treat an organization as a singular unit, but you can't really do so for anything larger. The King of France can control his personal domains, but has to to convince the Dukes of France to go along with him if he wants to mobilize the country to war ,etc

I do realize that even this level of abstraction isn't a perfect simulationist model of how organizations really work, but its unreasonable to ask any ST to model literally every person in an organization.

Also, it fits in well with Exalted's roots in the "great men theory" of history. That's basically the fantasy that Solars are trying to convey, and so allowing Creation to work via that theory, at least in part, seems fine to me.

Plus it had the added gameplay benefit of giving the players a few "faces" they can interact with during play which represent the organization as a whole
Honestly this just gives me Kim Jong'un vibes. Which... could work as a theoretical approach, I guess? It would be a very different, maybe interesting, approach to a bureaucratic system. It wouldn't be the extant exalted system, but you could probably reasonably straightforwardly create a set of charms to go with it. Actually...hmm.
 
Back
Top