A new set of thoughts on how to bring Midgard back

[TheDarkSide]

Maybe the Cult cities should show up as 'Independent' cities, now that would add to their mystique. Or maybe they don't have cities of their own, but instead have hidden secret shrines within a city.

[Davin]

Maybe the Cult cities should show up as 'Independent' cities, now that would add to their mystique. Or maybe they don't have cities of their own, but instead have hidden secret shrines within a city.

I expect there to be some cities that are technically Independent, but under the covers really support dark gods (with hidden temples and widespread worshipers) and Bandits (by fencing stolen goods and providing food and other support), and other such behavior.  None of this would be easy to prove to any "authorities", but everyone would have heard rumors about what kind of a city they would be.  These would make fine places for clans on the darker side of the law to live and "work", at least until someone else puts together an "army" to put a stop to it.

[DreamWeaver]

I remember way back when, The Cult was a NPC faction in Zan's game. They were talked about, but not seen. Heck the Cymru faction was originally sponsored by the Cult #0, and then once they were stood up they Cymru #0 stepped down and we had NO #0 at all. I had stepped down as the #1 and once I had gotten the Seeker Religion going, I was going to turn over my founder clan to Zan to become the new Cymru #0 NPC. Now in the next version of the game where the Seeker of Knowledge came live, the Seekers had a connection to the Cult as well too. I had heretic clans that were in the process in becoming Cult clans.

I like the total description for the Cult redesign, but I still do not understand Davin's resistance to allowing them to be live. I don't get the purpose for playing a Independent clan where you can't ever increase in rank, you can't get real Independent Influence, and you have no factional support or benefit at all. What is the point of playing like that? Sorry I am a old timer and I just do not see it's point or value. I can see wanting to play a Bandit, Pirate, Heretic, or even playing a Cult, B&F, or Serkeanar clan.

[Davin]

Hmmm...  I'm not sure how to explain my reticence.  For one thing, I need plenty of (and varied) "bad guys" for everyone to be able to fight against.  If they're all PC factions then I have no control over them at all and can't provide you general resistance.  This might be fine for "builders" but not so much for players interested in combat.

In addition, if the "bad guys" are NPCs then I can control how tough your opponents are and how widespread they are and how often they appear.  As PCs I lose all of that GM control as well.  For one thing, there might only be a few such clans on the whole continent, and who would you fight against if they're nowhere near you?

As PC clans, the "bad guys" will be able to set up ambushes guaranteed to wipe out whoever they're gunning for, which wouldn't make that player very happy (especially if he'd been building up the clan for a long time).  OTOH, if the "bad guys" were enough of a nuisance, "good" players (or even competing "bad" players) would band together with enough force to guarantee that they'll have a successful wipeout, making it no fun for THAT player.

I'll have to give my feelings more thought to see if I can explain more of them.  But for now, think about Midgard game design from a D&D DM's campaign designer's point of view -- how much fun would anybody have if no "monsters" were NPCs and people were personally playing both sides of all encounters?  Part of the fun is knowing there are given enemies out there that it's your job to kill and that don't have a personal investment to resent losing.

[DreamWeaver]

Hmmm...  I'm not sure how to explain my reticence.  For one thing, I need plenty of (and varied) "bad guys" for everyone to be able to fight against.  If they're all PC factions then I have no control over them at all and can't provide you general resistance.  This might be fine for "builders" but not so much for players interested in combat.

In addition, if the "bad guys" are NPCs then I can control how tough your opponents are and how widespread they are and how often they appear.  As PCs I lose all of that GM control as well.  For one thing, there might only be a few such clans on the whole continent, and who would you fight against if they're nowhere near you?

As PC clans, the "bad guys" will be able to set up ambushes guaranteed to wipe out whoever they're gunning for, which wouldn't make that player very happy (especially if he'd been building up the clan for a long time).  OTOH, if the "bad guys" were enough of a nuisance, "good" players (or even competing "bad" players) would band together with enough force to guarantee that they'll have a successful wipeout, making it no fun for THAT player.

I'll have to give my feelings more thought to see if I can explain more of them.  But for now, think about Midgard game design from a D&D DM's campaign designer's point of view -- how much fun would anybody have if no "monsters" were NPCs and people were personally playing both sides of all encounters?  Part of the fun is knowing there are given enemies out there that it's your job to kill and that don't have a personal investment to resent losing.

Ok here are all your NPC Bad Guys:

The list of "disorganized" factions: (are closed and setup as NPC only play, not for players)
- Bandits--------------------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Pirates---------------------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Heretics-------------------------------------- (Closed)
- Blood & Fire Religion ---------------------- (closed - Evil)
- Serkeanar Religion------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- The Cult of the Dark One Religion------- (Closed - Evil)
- Barbarians (SeaKings)--------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- SOA ------------------------------------------ (Closed - Evil)
- Skelts (Celts/Pics)-------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Guilds---------------------------------------- (Closed)
- Brotherhood (Mob)------------------------ (Closed - Evil)

[TheDarkSide]

Hmmm...  I'm not sure how to explain my reticence.  For one thing, I need plenty of (and varied) "bad guys" for everyone to be able to fight against.  If they're all PC factions then I have no control over them at all and can't provide you general resistance.  This might be fine for "builders" but not so much for players interested in combat.

In addition, if the "bad guys" are NPCs then I can control how tough your opponents are and how widespread they are and how often they appear.  As PCs I lose all of that GM control as well.  For one thing, there might only be a few such clans on the whole continent, and who would you fight against if they're nowhere near you?

As PC clans, the "bad guys" will be able to set up ambushes guaranteed to wipe out whoever they're gunning for, which wouldn't make that player very happy (especially if he'd been building up the clan for a long time).  OTOH, if the "bad guys" were enough of a nuisance, "good" players (or even competing "bad" players) would band together with enough force to guarantee that they'll have a successful wipeout, making it no fun for THAT player.

I'll have to give my feelings more thought to see if I can explain more of them.  But for now, think about Midgard game design from a D&D DM's campaign designer's point of view -- how much fun would anybody have if no "monsters" were NPCs and people were personally playing both sides of all encounters?  Part of the fun is knowing there are given enemies out there that it's your job to kill and that don't have a personal investment to resent losing.

OK, I read what your trying to do here but the one side of this you're not considering is all the GMing time and work you will need to put into this. In reading all of the threads and comments, plus talking to others you're trying to cut back on the amount of GM time you will need to put into this. Making all the bad guys be NPCs means that you will need to put a lot of time into making bad guys for everyone to deal with. If you allow players to play Bad Guys as well, then your effort gets cut back.

I feel that you should allow players to play the Bad Guys too, especially those that want to play in the Evil factions as well too.  The Cult as it has been defined or proposed makes for a great choice to play within the game. Basically a declared clan to everyone except another Cult clan would show up as an Independent clan on a scouting report.  Then having them seem to fade into citizenship in a city if they are less in size of 20% of a cities population makes them totally hidden inside the city. Then have their Cult Shrine be a hidden one within the city as well, showing up only as a rumor is perfect.  As to their ability to Ambush, this just means they get the first round of attack in combat with an excessive amount of damage, which would add to a morale boost for the attacking Cult clan and a negative minus for the attacked clan. 

Those that want combat will get what they are paying for. All the "Evil" factions will be desirable to some players because that is what they want to play.  You should allow players to play what they wish to pursue. Even if a faction is live, it doesn't mean you can't also have NPC clans in that same faction as well too. I think there will be room to have both NPCs and PC clans within any faction giving free rein to do anything as you desire.

[FutureSojourner]

Hmmm...  I'm not sure how to explain my reticence.  For one thing, I need plenty of (and varied) "bad guys" for everyone to be able to fight against.  If they're all PC factions then I have no control over them at all and can't provide you general resistance.  This might be fine for "builders" but not so much for players interested in combat.

In addition, if the "bad guys" are NPCs then I can control how tough your opponents are and how widespread they are and how often they appear.  As PCs I lose all of that GM control as well.  For one thing, there might only be a few such clans on the whole continent, and who would you fight against if they're nowhere near you?

As PC clans, the "bad guys" will be able to set up ambushes guaranteed to wipe out whoever they're gunning for, which wouldn't make that player very happy (especially if he'd been building up the clan for a long time).  OTOH, if the "bad guys" were enough of a nuisance, "good" players (or even competing "bad" players) would band together with enough force to guarantee that they'll have a successful wipeout, making it no fun for THAT player.

I'll have to give my feelings more thought to see if I can explain more of them.  But for now, think about Midgard game design from a D&D DM's campaign designer's point of view -- how much fun would anybody have if no "monsters" were NPCs and people were personally playing both sides of all encounters?  Part of the fun is knowing there are given enemies out there that it's your job to kill and that don't have a personal investment to resent losing.

Some thoughts...

Regarding "I need plenty of (and varied) "bad guys" for everyone to be able to fight against....

No, not really.  I don't want to play D&D.  I want to play Midgard.  A game I still think about.  The beauty of Midgard, for me, was the political power-gaming.  The networking with other factions.  If I'm a city leader and I keep getting harassed by NPCs I'm not going to have a lot of fun because I'm not playing Midgard so I can go out on "quests" against "bad guys."  I have fun building, networking with other factional leaders, working on alliances.  I also enjoyed doing unusual things through special actions and getting to know the nuances of a city.  I tended to be an urban player and liked building up cities.

Another reason why I don't want to play D&D is that it is a polarizing game with clearly defined good and evil (and several shades of it in between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil).  I don't think reality is so polarized and I have enjoyed playing nuanced clans/characters in games.  For example, in the MMO Star Wars the Old Republic, my main character since 2011 is a Light Side Sith Lord.  I also have a "dark side" Jedi.  I think it would be fun to play a Cult of the Dark One clan that publically is the philanthropist of a city.  Helping others and well known and loved, while secretly building up the Cults interests.  His motivations could be different from others in the faction, but it could be fun to play.  Not every clan/position needs to be a caricature of what their faction stands for -- i.e., all Cult clans dress gothic and brooding.

Ultimately, I think it is important to recognize that people will play Midgard for different reasons and try to make sure you have elements of the game for everyone to latch onto.  I'm not saying there should never be "bad guys" for "good guys" to fight.  But for me, not my preferred cup of tea. 

Oliver

[Davin]

Hmmm... Well, let me think on that some more. An all-NPC faction wouldn't be terribly hard for me to GM because they don't need to be "smart". Most of what they do is just designed to provoke conflicts and that can be easily automated. But I'll grant you that some players might want to play in that arena. It's just that it makes my job a lot harder (both up-front and in-game), rather than easier.

And if I have NPC clans/groups (in either kind of faction), how do I get them to play in concert with the players without hand-running every one of them (which, of course, I don't have time for). Aren't NPC clans also responsible for their activities to their seniors and the factional goals?

Harassment by NPCs, BTW, will probably require political arrangements/negotiations to get others to help find or deal with them. If you're a city and the bandits are disrupting your construction work and you can't continue with them present, have you really got the resources to stop them yourself?

[Davin]

Ok here are all your NPC Bad Guys:

The list of "disorganized" factions: (are closed and setup as NPC only play, not for players)
- Bandits--------------------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Pirates---------------------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Heretics-------------------------------------- (Closed)
- Blood & Fire Religion ---------------------- (closed - Evil)
- Serkeanar Religion------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- The Cult of the Dark One Religion------- (Closed - Evil)
- Barbarians (SeaKings)--------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- SOA ------------------------------------------ (Closed - Evil)
- Skelts (Celts/Pics)-------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Guilds---------------------------------------- (Closed)
- Brotherhood (Mob)------------------------ (Closed - Evil)

I don't see any particular reason why some of those "bad guys" can't be organized.  For instance, aren't B&F, Cult, and SOA, at least, organized into a formal structure?  Maybe some of the others are too and thus probably wouldn't be called disorganized even if evil.

If we did something like made organized evil factions for PCs, that could allow players to do many of the "bad guy" things you're asking for.  But I could still manage the disorganized groups (such as Bandits) as NPCs.  Does that sound like a possibility to consider?

If we did something like that, I'll need to add a flag to my factions so the "bad" ones are always marked as "hidden" (listed as Independent, Temples/Offices "underground", etc.).  If so, do you think that everyone in such factions would be willing to play as hidden associations?

[FutureSojourner]

Ok here are all your NPC Bad Guys:

The list of "disorganized" factions: (are closed and setup as NPC only play, not for players)
- Bandits--------------------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Pirates---------------------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Heretics-------------------------------------- (Closed)
- Blood & Fire Religion ---------------------- (closed - Evil)
- Serkeanar Religion------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- The Cult of the Dark One Religion------- (Closed - Evil)
- Barbarians (SeaKings)--------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- SOA ------------------------------------------ (Closed - Evil)
- Skelts (Celts/Pics)-------------------------- (Closed - Evil)
- Guilds---------------------------------------- (Closed)
- Brotherhood (Mob)------------------------ (Closed - Evil)

I don't see any particular reason why some of those "bad guys" can't be organized.  For instance, aren't B&F, Cult, and SOA, at least, organized into a formal structure?  Maybe some of the others are too and thus probably wouldn't be called disorganized even if evil.

If we did something like made organized evil factions for PCs, that could allow players to do many of the "bad guy" things you're asking for.  But I could still manage the disorganized groups (such as Bandits) as NPCs.  Does that sound like a possibility to consider?

If we did something like that, I'll need to add a flag to my factions so the "bad" ones are always marked as "hidden" (listed as Independent, Temples/Offices "underground", etc.).  If so, do you think that everyone in such factions would be willing to play as hidden associations?

As a scholar of religion (in the real world), I don't like the idea of lumping Heretics, Blood and Fire, Serkeanar, and maybe even the Cult of the Dark One into the "evil" category.  You can "spin" the 'theology' of any of these religions in such a way that they could paint the OTG as evil and place themselves in a righteous position.  Where I think "unplayability" comes into play is when a faction refuses to work with others -- that is what should make them NPC material.  If the goals of a faction is to be THE ONLY religion and destroy every other Religion and force every other faction to bend to their will that (in my opinion) makes them unplayable as a player faction -- the faction would be isolated and unable to play the "political game." But using a Good vs Evil dichotomy in the game with some factions being "Good" and others being "Evil" is too black and white ignores all the beautiful shades of grey.  

Also, many of the factions listed were very organized in other incarnations of Midgard.

Oliver