A Homebrew Bureaucracy System

[Darkuwa]

The bureaucracy system in the book is simply the project system, and while this works okay for doing things with an organization it has no guidelines on difficulty. What is totally lacking is a system for organizing and manipulating a bureaucracy outside of some of the charms.

The system I've made creates a fairly simple hierarchy, as well as ways to manipulate it. It also leaves the possibility of affecting the organization through social influence by talking to one of the superiors.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

[Aretii]

Could you share "What deficiencies exist in the existing Bureaucracy system and how you attempt to address them/with what sorts of system elements" as well as linking to the google doc?

[Darkuwa]

Thanks. Edited.

[wastevens]

* When introducing a new or replacement subsystem, it's important to tell your audience what your goals are, and to establish how you believe the existenting infrastructure is insufficient for meeting those goals.

* Likewise, when you're going to be introducing new vocabulary (such as Direct Subordinates), it's not a bad idea to have a lexicon near the top.

* Example example example! Especially with more abstract systems, it's extremely valuable to provide too many examples than too few. What does this look like in play? What do people do with it? How does the individual scale (PCs fucking with a base unit or subordinate) impact the whole, and what does a PC who is acting on the macro scale 'see' when NPCs act against the individual?

* This system seems to implicitly assume that indsturial/post-industrial organization hierarchies are the norm- at least, it's very poor for modelling organizations that don't have strict hierarchies. (And even in strict hierarchies, there are often specialists or regulators that operate outside the 'normal' chain of command)

[Darkuwa]

* When introducing a new or replacement subsystem, it's important to tell your audience what your goals are, and to establish how you believe the existenting infrastructure is insufficient for meeting those goals.

Done

* Likewise, when you're going to be introducing new vocabulary (such as Direct Subordinates), it's not a bad idea to have a lexicon near the top.

Done

* Example example example! Especially with more abstract systems, it's extremely valuable to provide too many examples than too few. What does this look like in play? What do people do with it? How does the individual scale (PCs fucking with a base unit or subordinate) impact the whole, and what does a PC who is acting on the macro scale 'see' when NPCs act against the individual?

Example added. What do you do with it was one of the problems I had with the base system, I'm hoping adding something a little more detailed gives more places to grab onto the system. The last thing is something I'm still working on, but leaving individual members as people and not dots was important so that it could be interacted with with the social system.

* This system seems to implicitly assume that indsturial/post-industrial organization hierarchies are the norm- at least, it's very poor for modelling organizations that don't have strict hierarchies. (And even in strict hierarchies, there are often specialists or regulators that operate outside the 'normal' chain of command)

I've made it more clear that the pyramid doesn't have to be perfect, you can have those specialists outside the normal chain of command by creating a base unit you directly oversee, they don't have to be at the bottom of the Org Chart.

[Elfive]

So, just to clarify, your maximum level in an organisation is equal to your Bureaucracy plus speciality, right?

In that case, would it perhaps be better to start at Level 0? People without any Bureaucracy can still have jobs, after all.

Also, I have some concerns that using this system for armies may clash with the Command merit. What happens if you purchase more troops than you can technically lead?

[Xerxes]

A quick thought from an earlier skim-read; is there va cap on the number of organisations that can be run? I'd personally link it to an attribute rather than Bureaucracy, simply to avoid making it a power stat for its own system. Intelligence, maybe? Or the highest of Intelligence and Wits, with the attribute on question indicating managerial style?

[Elfive]

From my understanding "direct subordinates" and "organisations" are somewhat interchangeable. You could have all of them be part of the same one, but you can also have them all be the leader of one of multiple organisations under your control. Or some combination thereof.

[Darkuwa]

So, just to clarify, your maximum level in an organisation is equal to your Bureaucracy plus speciality, right?

In that case, would it perhaps be better to start at Level 0? People without any Bureaucracy can still have jobs, after all.

Also, I have some concerns that using this system for armies may clash with the Command merit. What happens if you purchase more troops than you can technically lead?

The maximum level you can have below you is Bur + Spec, but those leading base units don't have to meet that prerequisite. Since War can be used as Bur but at a penalty it shouldn't run into a problem unless you have Command 5. I've been juggling in my head what the penalties should be for going over your limit.

A quick thought from an earlier skim-read; is there va cap on the number of organisations that can be run? I'd personally link it to an attribute rather than Bureaucracy, simply to avoid making it a power stat for its own system. Intelligence, maybe? Or the highest of Intelligence and Wits, with the attribute on question indicating managerial style?

Each of your direct subordinates could look like the head of their own organization, but really there's only one organization that is headed by you.