Add a Difficulty Mechanism for the game.

[Daniel]

Suggestion to add to rules – To add a difficulty mechanism to the game.

Advancement could be aligned to a difficulty mechanism.

1) The amount of positions you run, clan, city EF. Have a sweet spot.
2) The choice of position declaration(s) you make across kingdom faction group religion
3) Characters combo secular/religion. Make a scaled table only know to the GMs
4) known associates with different diversity position cooperating.

Difficulty is how dangerous your make the game for yourself.

Things may be ok but then bang.. you need to deal with the GM endorsed “fun” that will come your way. Expect it, love it, make memories.

Some considerations

Make it upfront to the players of difficulty scaling

If you’re in it for the roleplay… for the story and not worried so much about war/power/economic game aspects… go ahead and spend!

It should be obvious your roleplaying not for the power, information, economic gains to feed into your main so difficulty apply appropriately.

Want a balanced game? Then sign up for that optimal sweet spot

If your main faction requires it, don’t over diversify in declarations of faction/religion. That way you can war game… power game… economic game… gimme all the stuff game… plus roleplaying…

Spit balling some numbers,
Conceptually the more you move away from a main declare “sovereignty” the more stacking of difficulty numbers…

Sure you could do it…. but… how dangerous will it be.

Amount of positions you run
Player position + city = (1) the difficulty wold be
• 1 = -20% difficulty
• 2 = -10%
• 3 = 0% (e.g. sweet spot)
• 4 = +10%
• 5 = +20%

Player Declared in how many other different kingdom or faction or group
Difference Table for each Faction. This would be a example for Banner Primary declare showing difficulty by declaring otherwise
• 1 = 0% difficulty
• 2 = +10%
• 3 = +20%
• 4 = +30%
• 5 = +40%

Declare religion
(Each faction has its own tables, some might be flatter or exponential rates)
This Table is for Primary Faction = Boda
• 1-2 Ring Characters = -10% Difficulty
• 3+ Ring Characters = 0 (to many diviners… out of sweet spot)
• +1 Banner Characters = +20% for each +1
• +1 Gift Characters = +10% for each +1
• +1 Seekers = +10% for each +1
• +1 Cult etc…
etc…

Some factions or religion tables might encourage sweet spot diversity but in very particular groupings. (that might even get affected over time if in-game a faction to faction relationship sours etc)

Associates with different diversity

You take each players difficultly from the above and average out the amount of associates. Each associate then gets that difficulty applied to them.

People tend to group play.

its like a list of how does the factions #0 trust you with faction eyes only stuff

All factions have a different calculation.

Some factions might insist on diversity (within limits), some many absolutely not

Thoughts?

[Nazareth]

Certainly potential here for ‘encouraging’ players to not stray far from their factional commitments and obligations. Shame we would have to need this tho. The question is how much effort would this place on Jon to track all this, considering followers, associates, etc?

[wordsmith]

I vote for limiting the number of factions a player can play in to 2 or 3. I say this a as a person who played many different factions in 2 different versions. I just think starting out that would be the best way to go. ESPECIALLY if senior positions are in the mix.

And honestly, if I play a clan in a secular faction, I see no advantage at all to declaring a religion for that clan. That would just be a giant mess (as it was in the US game with a few secular clans obviously supporting their religious cousins to the detriment of their own secular faction). I guess you can have that option open if you want but I’d never use it.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by wordsmith.

[DreamWeaver]

I would say limit it to (3) factions that a player can play in. I would also advise that a player must declare what is their “primary” faction as well too. Now my question is what benefit does a clan obtain for a religion. Maybe the secular faction gets to train in the skills of their supported religion that they declare for. Maybe doing that some how helps the religion faction in some way to for their resources base.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by DreamWeaver.

[wordsmith]

Maybe a clan declaring for Gift religion gets a mancycle bonus to building or a Ring religion clan gets info/spy bonus? Just spitballing here…

[Daniel]

The question is how much effort would this place on Jon to track all this, considering followers, associates, etc?

If there is unlimited positions a player could have that would be exacerbated also. I agree that would be alot of effort for Jon to track, thanks for the constructive reply. Automation may work, but how and where to apply the difficulty is a factor.

Keep it simple is the ideal way.

The way to get good ideas is to get lots of ideas and throw the bad ones away

How would you apply the difficulty and when? Front page orders? Special actions? or to other areas like the having stuff like skills, abilities or stuff, the economy, renown or influence?

The conundrum is trying to think of a different solution to those eternal questions of how many positions, what factions, what about game balance. What bonus should the faction get just for being in it.

Sometimes there are compelling reason to give people what they want and let them play how they want… the impact of that is the question?

There might be already something in the Knightsguild programs Jon mentioned Midgard will eventually get moved onto.

Maybe jumping to far ahead

[Galan]

I laid down the Midgard system on top of Knightguild. It caused some interesting problems; some things I had to turn off. You will see some of the differences when you get your turn.

[Nazareth]

If voting, I vote for max 2 factions per player. The more factions a player and his ‘posse or compatriots’ can acquire, the more self reliant they become. They could cover all the factions they need. They can choose those secondary factions secular or otherwise that provides them with the benefits they will need to achieve their goals (whatever those are). How does that effect the game? It removes the need for player interaction, diplomacy (needed if you require something you can’t provide yourself), negotiations and sometimes conflict. You will have no need to deal with anyone unless you choose to and in some cases provide benefits thru a secondary clan faction to another, thus ‘stepping’ on the buffs of the original faction and depriving them of the opportunity to profit from their specific factional advantages.

Even allowing two factions per player to a faction with multiple players probably wouldn’t blunt this to a large degree, but would force those players to give more thought to the two factions they choose and possibly force them to spend more time coordinating between players to reap the advantages of choosing multiple secondary factions between them. With the ability to create ‘clones’ and the like, there’s no real way to stop a faction from securing all the factional advantages they need thru secondary clans, but no need to make it any easier.

[Steve-Kort]

I don’t see the number of factions being an issue as much as what factions you run. I see playing a Banner or Cult clan as pretty much eliminating you from another religion as a conflict of interest. Pretty much the same if your playing one of the Kingdom factions. I could see Factions like Guilds and Getham working with about any group some clans might favor some groups over others but the faction as a whole would like to be on good terms with all. While I doubt many would want to play in more than 3-4 factions. The key is not being in opposed groups, especially with your main declared faction.

[Nazareth]

It’s not the conflict of interest between your main factional clan and your secondary factional clans that bother me. The GMs I believe wouldn’t allow players to ignore the long history of animosity, conflict and hatred in some cases between factions to be corrupted by multiple clan ownership. It’s picking up multiple factions which would/could preclude you from the need to work with those other factions that could provide advantages you seek. Factions that tend to favor one another would/could still work together, you just now have to deal with them instead of having them in your pocket and not having to worry about negotiating for their services. You’d already have those services. The game should be about making tough choices, especially when dealing with other factions when in need of their services. If you’ve got it all covered with those factions that provide you what you want/need, then you don’t need to deal with anyone unless you choose to and even then you deal from a more powerful position.

If you’re allowed many positions (and I’m not aware exactly what that number will be or if it will be capped at all), then the ability to play many factions coupled with numerous clans severely weakens the value of the other main factional positions. They have nothing to offer to those player/players that they don’t already have except fealty!

my unprofessional opinion…..

[Steve-Kort]

I am confused on your argument as you trust the GM’s enough that a player could play opposing factions and they will be able to make them play them both correctly but then don’t trust them enough to make sure a player is not using other neutral faction clans to the benefit of their main or to the harm of the neutral faction. I find this hard to believe, but going with your concern here then.

With that line of thought then anyone that has a friend that is not in the same faction would be a major concern to you in this game and far harder to police or check. Anyone with a large group of friends would scare you to death. I have played games with friends in an enemy faction that if they gave me their word I could count on it and vice versa. I have also had people that were in my faction that would not do anything to benefit the faction unless it was to there benefit.

So for the most part your going to have to trust the GM’s that this is not happening and if you find out issues of concern report it to them as they can accurately look into it because they see all turns. I have seen people lie about issues in the game to either cause others to cheat or violate codes of conduct to get them kicked out of the game or make them quit so they could get what they wanted.

Your not going to prevent what some people will do in games to get an edge. You can only try to keep everyone honest and keep the GM’s in the know of what is going on and why. Doing anything that limits the game will ultimately hurt everyone and the game.

[DreamWeaver]

I understand your concern and everyone knows that I have pointed out abuse to the various GMs over the years. I feel that 3x factions is what I feel is the idea allowed. A player could play a primary and then have a secondary faction, then maybe a 1 off clan in a 3rd faction. Example: Boda player has (3) clans as his primary faction, then (2) Ring clans as a 2nd faction, with (1) Seeker clan as their 3rd faction. They could all support their factional goals but could very well work with each other. I trust in Jon and the other (3) GMs to watch and look for abuse. I believe in the GMs!

[Nazareth]

Hmmm, changing the narrative of this discussion into a trust of the GMs? Clever, well kinda.

I believe I stated that I believed the GM’s wouldn’t allow player activities that would be construed as a conflict of interest. I think I said that…

The issue was/is the ‘legal’ (legal being what would be allowed if more than 2 factions per player were approved) advantage of having more than two factions per player. Those advantages being that the power structure in question would or could be self efficient without ever needing to do business with other factions if they so chose.

Sorry Steve, I’m not as articulate as you in expressing my thoughts. To your point of being scared to death. Trust me, nothing scares me in Midgard. Also a game with absolutely no limits may also ultimately hurt everyone and the game.

However, if you think you need multiple factions to be successful or to fully enjoy playing the game, then by all means go ahead. As Penn stated, he was hoping to start discussions and stimulate an exchange of thoughts and ideals on various subjects. Perhaps I misunderstood that also.

It is interesting that the negative response to limiting the number of factions to 2, at least initially, is from past and assume present Seeker players.

So, if I play, to be competitive (depending on my goals for the game) I perhaps would also have to choose clans in multiple factions.

You see, I’m already playing the game!

[Steve-Kort]

Naz the problem is the concern you seem to present can be accomplished if everyone just has one faction. Most players in the game have friends and people they trust in other factions. In the past I know of both the Imperials and Boda using the Getham to get stuff brought to them. While in theory you would think the Getham to be Neutral in this matter and all about making money. The thought that because my friends in the Getham could hoard certain items to keep away from an enemy is the exact same issue.

Also if you limit to say 2 factions. I see that greatly hurting groups like the Getham, Gift and Ring as most were not playing them as a primary faction. I know most had a Gift clan to help build up places and Getham to do the merchant thing. While I would say most all were playing them to the benefit of the faction they were in they were also to the benefit of their main. After all what Boda, Imperial, Roder, would not want a Gift clan in town building their temples and other things for their benefit or a Getham building offices and bringing in more goods. Both factions would love having more offices/temples built so there is no real conflict that the GM’s could say that is wrong unless one of them is doing it after they start having issues with that faction but then they would catch that issue.

This coming from a player that is only in one faction and may end up in 2 once things are all done. Personally I give all my clans a personality most are fairly similar but my #1 was always more open minded on issues then most of my other clans in the faction and limited the things he took a firm stand on since many things that may be wrong might be justifiable at times or unfortunately necessary.

[DreamWeaver]

Ok I have no issue with how many clans or how many factions a player chooses to play in. I do believe the realist matter is that 3 factions might be the best or most extreme option. I see players as doing the following choices:
Imperial – Guild – Naval Merc
Boda – Religion – Guild
Getham – Religion – Guild/Naval Merc
Roder – Religion – Guild
Cymru – Religion – Guild/Naval Merc
Now if you have a player that their primary focus is on a Religion, then you have the following breakdown:
Banner – pick one of the above – Guild/Naval Merc
Gift – pick one of the above – Guild/Naval Merc
Ring -pick one of the above – Guild/Naval Merc
Seeker – pick one of the above – Guild/Naval Merc
Cult – pick one of the above – Guild/Naval Merc
I honestly don’t see to many more combinations happening, maybe you might have a Religious player, also have 1 off clan in another religious clan Ex: Ring primary, Gift secondary, with a Seeker third choice.

My thought is as long as the player stays true to their primary faction then that is ok, but they also must play true to their other factions positions as well too. Now I am not sure how many clans is being defined as possible, is it 3, 6, 9 or more. I could see myself playing 9 clans as I did before in Midgard USA – Zan’s game, but remember we are talking about playing every 2 weeks. Will I be able to keep that up and run that many of positions every two weeks, plus if I have any cities that even adds more complications to the mix. Also lets not forget about the cost as well too.

So that being said I feel that players will play what they feel is best to play. If the collective wants to vote on what is the acceptable amount of allowed factions that a player can play in then go for it. Seems like the choices would be 1x, 2x, 3x, no set value. So lets vote on it, can we set up polls on this forum Jon? Lets vote on it if everyone feels that strongly about it.

[Galan]

While I appreciate the trust aspect, I have the advantage of total recall. If a player feels that another player is abusing their position, they can always ask us to look into it. We will have copies of all the turns and a history of changes in the system.
The GM’s are always aware of other positions you might be playing. There really isn’t a game mechanism where we can stop the flow of information – players can have friends in other factions and can share information that way. The key thing I watch for is the “sacrificial” lamb – where someone creates a clan purely to start a fight with another faction (which they may or may not be involved in). Normally we can stop that sort of thing before it gets started.

[Nazareth]

Steve,
Everything you mention is correct of course. Friends and close associates can provide the services, goods, etc that you might require. However, when you do it all yourself, it usually is more efficient, less opportunity for error and more coordinated. Also no need to offer a quid-pro-quo to others, friends or otherwise to accomplish something. Additionally, sometimes you find yourself having/needing to deal with adversaries to gain or accomplish a task. These type of agreements, with those that aren’t always your friends sometimes, is what makes the game interesting imho. Having to give to be able to take. Oftentimes, necessity forces unlikely bedfellows, but that isn’t nearly as likely if you can have everything you need up front.

All in all, I don’t really care one way or the other concerning the number of factions or clans etc, although I do believe having everything easily available (and by that I mean not having to make tough negotiating decisions to acquire a goal/task) does take something away. I just enjoy the verbal sparring!

On a personal note, if you truly believe that the Getham, Ring and Gift are factions that most likely wouldn’t be chosen as a primary faction (and you may be right), then something needs to be done to make these factions a little more attractive I would think. Otherwise, we end up with 8 or so factions and everything else just being npc or secondary clans ran specifically for the benefits and not really for the benefit of the faction as a whole I think. I believe secondary clans would be more accountable if there were primary factional leadership present.

[Daniel]

I think this suggestion of difficulty mechanism has been superseded by something that is already in the game. A better way of phrasing this would have been adding a chance of success built in. Seems it already is and that it is based on Rank. I didn’t know. Also how the GM’s will function in the game, I wasn’t sure on that.

When I read the rules to be used for the playtest, I read it as you declare a single faction.

People started talking about in the forums about also declaring a religion on top, then in various posting people started saying they would like to play in multiple factions so on and so forth… to me, after reading the rules for the play test it put in my mind, oh this version of Midgard players should be encouraged not stray far from their factional commitments and obligations if they did.

Now it sounds there is going to be GM moderated, cool good to know. It wasn’t clear and known that was the case.

When reading the Knightguild website it talked about automation.

The game is mostly automatic with an umpire that creates various situations that will be resolved by the players.

I guess I should have references to my thoughts on this being one of the reason I was asking in the first post about difficulty mechanism.

I was wondering about combining both the Old Midgard Program with the new Knightguild it made me wonder if this automation worked on a difficulty mechanism.

Jon mentioned some things had to be turn off.

[Author]

Posts