'Souls RPG @ Tumblr

We generally try to respond to joiners and requests within 48 hours, though we know we've taken a bit longer in some recent cases. Things always take a bit longer when we need to discuss and decide how to address issues, since staff operates in different time zones and on different schedules, so we're often not all online at the same time to get through a discussion quickly.

Leaders are expected to respond to OOC joiners in a similar timeframe -- within 48 hours.

For other pack-related issues, maintenance, etc, a few days to a week is acceptable. If you haven't heard back about something within a week, we encourage a polite follow-up to check in on it. If you need to this multiple times for a leader, especially over a short period of time, do let us know.

That said, do remember that all players, leaders, and staff are adults and most have full-time jobs or schooling. Timely responses are, of course, ideal, and repeated failure to respond in a timely manner should certainly be addressed, but some grace is always appreciated. For the most part, we all wish we could respond faster too!

We're… not 100% sure we understand the scenario, but our understanding is:

Unless a formal contract or other agreement was in place that stipulates scenarios where Jackal should be returned to Player 2, Player 3 has the power to do what they wish with Jackal, including keep them as an NPC.

When a character is given to someone else to use as a cNPC (or to a pack as a pNPC), formal ownership of the character transfers to that someone else. Using someone else's available cNPC slot as "storage" isn't really encouraged for precisely that reason. If the intent was always to reclaim the character, a formal agreement should have been in place. In the absence of this, ownership defaults to the adopter for as long as they are active, even if the character is not active.

Even if Player 3 becomes inactive at some point, Player 2's avenues for reclamation may be limited, especially if Player 3 specifically has Jackal exit 'Souls or has other specific plans, as opposed to simply disappearing.

Pure stubbornness.

(And our long-supportive members, of course!)

Not in recent memory, no. It's happened a few times in the past, though the ruse never lasts long and it's never worth it! Ultimately, it's a lot easier to just wait out 30 days and the requisite number of posts than it is to keep up a charade indefinitely. Constantly having to lie to everyone -- staff, sure, but also your RP partners -- is a lot of work! Also, with OOC accounts now, that's a minimum of four accounts to manage just to play two characters? Or six if you wanted to do three? And multiple Discord accounts?? ...Just make the posts, man. :V

For what it's worth, we find that scenario pretty unlikely. The lowest number of packs 'Souls has ever had was three, mostly in its earliest years. Four was the baseline norm for a long, long time, and there were years where five felt like a lot of packs. The trend over the last few years has been for fewer and larger packs, which tends to mean each pack is more stable (higher number of very longtime members, lots of worn in routines). This does mean that it's more notable when a pack disbands though.

When we had many more packs (at our peak, we had nine?? packs -- eleven made it in the yearbook that year, with two disbandments and two new packs formed), it was always sad when a pack disbanded, but it felt less like a blow to the board on the whole -- and as mentioned, people were always eager to start new packs in their wake. Even if all the packs disbanded, we don't see a reason to retire the pack formation process -- why not keep it around for when someone else wants to start a pack? In the meantime, sure, loner bands are there to be utilised. It may be that 'Souls transitions into a loner band-centric place, which somewhat resemble the simpler, classic packs of yore. We don't think there's anything wrong with that. The game has always, to some extent, changed and adapted with its players. As our playerbase continues to age, it may be that that more relaxed model of group management (loner bands) is better or more desirable, but that doesn't mean the pack model can't still work for some players who have the time/energy. We've endeavoured to simplify leadership responsibilities over the years (for example, by eliminating requirements for pack sites and encouraging leaders to delegate some tasks to members), but the most integral parts of leadership will always be time-consuming. We're not sure there's much we can do to make things easier, but as always we welcome feedback from past and current leaders if they have input or suggestions. :>

Maybe, maybe not!

In general, we feel that "large" plots are better handled at the pack-level than at the board-level. Pack-level plots are better able to leverage lore, ranks, and relationships that are meaningful to individual characters, which usually means there's a lot more actual participation and interest.

Even if we wanted to orchestrate something like a big, board-wide war plot, we'd need all pack leaders to be on board so they can figure out how individual packs would handle the situation and break down plot-related threads within their space. In practice, it's usually easier for pack leaders to organise their own plots, whether within a single pack or involving other packs, rather than having to deal with additional administrative input and direction. Pack-level plots also allow players with characters in multiple packs to distribute focus better because it means all of their characters probably aren't dealing with chaos at the exact same time.

This is why board-wide plots tend to be weather-based. They're less complex and are usually easy to scale in terms of severity, so leaders (and individual players) can decide whether or not they want to deal with a big disaster or a little one. Still, the flexibility of weather plots also means they don't feel very urgent -- most players tend towards them not being very consequential and are demonstratably less interested in them than something like a juicy murder plot. Additionally, with packs spread out as they are there's not any easy way to do a centralized threat, such as an invasion or other violent adventure, without travel time and proximity issues to consider.

It's a tough thing to balance! Some players want excitement all the time and some players would much rather do their own thing with minimal input or influence from cosmic forces of nature that might scheme to destroy the very cool cabin they slaved over.

Pretty much that!

Running a pack is a lot of time and effort -- even setting one up is a lot of time and effort! Few players want to go through the trouble if they don't think they'll be able to dedicate time to a pack long-term. It's a big bummer to get through set-up and approval only to find that you have to let it all go soon after.

Many players are also already spending a lot of time on 'Souls in other ways, in other packs, through their many characters, etc.

We're not sure there's much that can be done about this unfortunately. Our primary playerbase has definitely aged and matured with the board, and while we're lucky that they're all extremely dedicated and loyal, we certainly can't begrudge anyone for not having the time/energy to run a pack when they've got a full-time job, family obligations, etc.

New blood is always great (have you voted for us recently? ;D), but it can take quite a while for a new player to become acclimated to 'Soul's hefty knowledgebase and feel comfortable enough to tackle a pack.

Yes, in the absence of humans, many species have expanded their ranges and repopulated historic territories. This is true of the grizzly, but even its historic ranges do not include Maritimes Canada. They remain on the western half of the continent, and while Luperci from those regions may have had encounters in the past, there should still not be any grizzly encounters in playable territories.

Correct.

If the only leader of a pack is removed for inactivity, the pack is automatically disbanded. If the leader is reachable, they have one week to create an IC reason for the disbandment; otherwise, it is assumed that the leader character simply disappeared, throwing the pack into chaos.