Future game set-up concepts

Post Reply
User avatar
WB - Water's Blessing
King
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:01 pm
Location: Mind your own business

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by WB - Water's Blessing » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:36 am

I don't think it's really more work for him to have a way to express opinions he likely already holds, but it might not be a position he wants to be in. My concerns about giving it to players (aside from the previously-expressed metagame concern) is that we'll have a tendency to reward visible RP rather than subtle RP, which will tend to reward certain kinds of characters more often, and that it might tend to favor native English speakers. I also think it has the potential to breed (or exacerbate) ill sentiments among players, as different players have different ideas about what good role playing is. People who feel like they are putting in the work but aren't being rewarded for it could become angry about that.

I'm at best lukewarm to the idea of inspiration tokens. I think the most likely outcome is a rich-become-richer scenario, which wouldn't be ideal.
WB - Temple of the Water's Blessing

"You can be forgiven, if you make amends..."

User avatar
TF - The Fortress
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:54 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by TF - The Fortress » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:39 am

Can also make alliances (military, defensive, offensive, etc) require an actual action to setup and have a DC involved (must be successful by all parties involved).

The more parties involved in the alliance, the higher the DC (reflecting the difficulties of finding common grounds and agreeable terms between all parties as well as internal politics which may be seeking to derail said agreement by one side or the other).

Additional modifiers can be penalties for different races, languages, alignments, government systems (player A is a monarchy, B is a theocracy, and C is a magocracy), etc.

Once time (ie actions) and extensive resources (GBs/RPs to beat the DC) are involved, it becomes a lot less likely mega-alliances form.
The Fortress!

Morwe of Cuiraécen

Face each day like a storm;
Respect it;
Fear it;
Endure it;
Thrive in it!

User avatar
WB - Water's Blessing
King
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:01 pm
Location: Mind your own business

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by WB - Water's Blessing » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:42 am

RC - Riva wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:39 am
Can also make alliances (military, defensive, offensive, etc) require an actual action to setup and have a DC involved (must be successful by all parties involved).

The more parties involved in the alliance, the higher the DC (reflecting the difficulties of finding common grounds and agreeable terms between all parties as well as internal politics which may be seeking to derail said agreement by one side or the other).

Additional modifiers can be penalties for different races, languages, alignments, government systems (player A is a monarchy, B is a theocracy, and C is a magocracy), etc.

Once time (ie actions) and extensive resources (GBs/RPs to beat the DC) are involved, it becomes a lot less likely mega-alliances form.
That's the sort of mechanical thinking I think would be a good idea. Also, tying the number of agreements a domain can maintain to court level/2+1 can increase costs, as it makes working with others more action-intensive when you have fewer formal agreements and makes which ones you select more impactful.
WB - Temple of the Water's Blessing

"You can be forgiven, if you make amends..."

User avatar
TF - The Fortress
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:54 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by TF - The Fortress » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:45 am

MF - Morcuan the Fay wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:27 am
*eyeroll* It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. When people are afraid of rivals--even unjustifiably--they form into factions. When they form into factions they generate more fear, which increases the desire to factionalize. It's a positive reinforcement loop of harmful behavior, one that can be stopped at any point if those involved are mindful of the consequences of their actions and rhetoric. While I don't think artificial limits on alliances are the solution, an obvious solution is pointed toward: There should be undesirable consequences for those who push the game's political situation down the out-of-control crazy tracks, as well as for those who are foolish enough to permit themselves to be pushed so far.
Who would define what is a justifiable or unjustifiable political situation?

What one person sees as bad, another sees as good. Some want to 'live free or die' while others seek the safety or power of working with others. Whether it is good or bad can be debated forever, it simply is. Much like breathing air...we do it without thought.

This has been exemplified since the dawn of humanity with the first tribe gathering together and having the ability to defend themselves from others, take from others, or so more than they could ever realize as individuals.

Factions will always happen, it's human nature since the vast majority of people are social animals.
The Fortress!

Morwe of Cuiraécen

Face each day like a storm;
Respect it;
Fear it;
Endure it;
Thrive in it!

User avatar
TF - The Fortress
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:54 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by TF - The Fortress » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:48 am

AB - Alim Büyücü wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:42 am
RC - Riva wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:39 am
Can also make alliances (military, defensive, offensive, etc) require an actual action to setup and have a DC involved (must be successful by all parties involved).

The more parties involved in the alliance, the higher the DC (reflecting the difficulties of finding common grounds and agreeable terms between all parties as well as internal politics which may be seeking to derail said agreement by one side or the other).

Additional modifiers can be penalties for different races, languages, alignments, government systems (player A is a monarchy, B is a theocracy, and C is a magocracy), etc.

Once time (ie actions) and extensive resources (GBs/RPs to beat the DC) are involved, it becomes a lot less likely mega-alliances form.
That's the sort of mechanical thinking I think would be a good idea. Also, tying the number of agreements a domain can maintain to court level/2+1 can increase costs, as it makes working with others more action-intensive when you have fewer formal agreements and makes which ones you select more impactful.
Yes, exactly. It makes for forging NATO very difficult, but desirable over 30 separate agreements.

There's a DC breakdown for it in the 5E conversion. I've got it at home somewhere. Tied in with the diminishing returns RP/GBs (although I know that got cumbersome to recall and for everyone to annotate in their turns properly).
The Fortress!

Morwe of Cuiraécen

Face each day like a storm;
Respect it;
Fear it;
Endure it;
Thrive in it!

User avatar
BS - Torpor
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:08 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by BS - Torpor » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:55 am

Next game I am probably just going to be a Mercenary. Its pretty rough trying to understand all the Priestly things I can and /need/ to do (at least for me).
Tor'por
"When I was a fighting-man, the kettle-drums they beat,
The people scattered gold-dust before my horses feet;
But now I am a great king, the people hound my track,
With poison in my wine cup, and daggers at my back."
- Robert E. Howard

User avatar
TH - The Hunt
Emperor
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:27 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by TH - The Hunt » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:57 am

Factions will always happen, it's human nature since the vast majority of people are social animals.
Yes, but in reality it took thousands of years to happen at the largest scale, and there were many prerequisites. And even today, the world would be hellish--even before we consider the nuclear arsenal--if real governments weren't orders of magnitude more resistant to it than the ones we're role-playing.

The amount of time spent in the situation, how quickly it arises and how rapidly it returns, are what's in question. (Preventing it from ever happening wouldn't be a good thing.)

As for the 'who decides' question, we don't need to answer that because we already have a consensus that extreme polarization--the end result of out of control factionalism--is a bad thing. I barely hesitate to use the phrase 'it's common sense' on this.
Last edited by TH - The Hunt on Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The Hunt rides. The Hunt protects."

User avatar
TF - The Fortress
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:54 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by TF - The Fortress » Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:58 am

Additionally, having some initial pre-set alliances/agreements in place (designated by Juan in advance) would do a bit towards giving multiple factions more chances to get going.

Factions by themselves though really aren't bad. Even with the monolith of Mishrak's alliance, common ground could not be found to bring everyone together as a counter.

Mishrak Alliance (TRT, CH, Mae, MY, AA, MD, VV) = 7 realms
Islands Alliance (FTC, DD, JJ, BS, JbH, VM, RC) = 7 realms
Southwest Alliance (MM, BB, KT, Mag) = 4 realms
Shieldlands Alliance (BM, AP, JNG) = 3 realms
Raven Alliance (CBC, DCT) = 2 realms
The Fortress!

Morwe of Cuiraécen

Face each day like a storm;
Respect it;
Fear it;
Endure it;
Thrive in it!

User avatar
TF - The Fortress
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:54 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by TF - The Fortress » Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:05 pm

MF - Morcuan the Fay wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:57 am
Factions will always happen, it's human nature since the vast majority of people are social animals.
Yes, but in reality it took thousands of years to happen, and there were many prerequisites. And even today, the world would be hellish--even before we consider the nuclear arsenal--if real governments weren't orders of magnitude more resistant to it than the ones we're role-playing.

The amount of time spent in the situation, how quickly it arises and how rapidly it returns, are what's in question. (Preventing it from ever happening wouldn't be a good thing.)

As for the 'who decides' question, we don't need to answer that because we already have a consensus that extreme polarization--the end result of out of control factionalism--is a bad thing. I barely hesitate to use the phrase 'it's common sense' on this.
We're not playing cavemen seeking out other Neanderthals or Denisovans. More like the Italian or German principalities before/as Italy or Prussia came into being. The Medici's or the Holy Roman Empire or Hanseatic League. Factions were well esconced in all and while some factions rose and some fell, others tried to just ride it out.
The Fortress!

Morwe of Cuiraécen

Face each day like a storm;
Respect it;
Fear it;
Endure it;
Thrive in it!

User avatar
HaQ - Hakim al-Qadr
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 6:46 pm

Re: Future game set-up concepts

Post by HaQ - Hakim al-Qadr » Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:09 pm

This game has been somewhat more successful at avoiding the formation of a game-wide mega-alliance or a strict bipolar structure. Obviously "The Hunt" is powerful - but in the grand scheme - it is 4+3 out of what - 29 characters? Our power mostly rests on the fact that my constant warmongering was more action efficient for our group than it has been for the rest of the game - allowing an action-efficiency edge. The nature of these build-from-scratch games is that early game efficiency is irreplaceable. It is warping the situation in my opinion. If it was a more established game from the get-go efficiency would be comparatively less important.

The only question I have for the action + DC for alliances. Do I need alliances? I played Rhyel not signing a single alliance at all - and yet I meddled in the world politics all the time - helping friends and enemies - opposing enemies and friends. The inefficiency of not being able to send armies without a declare war is... a minor inconvenience. Just properly contingency war actions if you are a warlord to respond to your not-quite-an-ally. Make sure allies have forts up to delay invaders if you cannot respond as quickly. If you do the politics right you pretty much know what is coming so you can respond even without heavy contingencies.

I am not saying limiting alliances is bad - I am just saying people can play around not having alliances on paper - but playing as if they do.

I am undecided but - maybe Alliance Forums are a problem that reduces communication between non-allies and reduces subterfuge between allies.
Turn to Avani before you return to Avani
Hakim al-Qadr
Mayor of Barniere

Post Reply