Factions and how to prevent abuse

Each faction must have at least one fixed enemy Big Box factions may have 2 or 3.

Everyone has a main clan that pending its faction will eliminate the ability for that player to have cousin clans that are in the Main clans enemy faction list.  Further your first cousin clan would also eliminate additional factions, this would continue with each clan.  This way no player would have a clan in a faction that is an enemy of any other clan they run.

Thus say you decided to run an Imperial clan and decided to choose your main focus faction as Imperial. That would mean you couldn't have a Barbarian or Boda cousin clans. Those are both enemies of the Imperials and should eliminate both the Barbarian and Boda faction as a option for any cousin clan to be within.

I would hope there is some in-game consequences for such situations.

[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137277' dateline='1578370081']
Everyone has a main clan that pending its faction will eliminate the ability for that player to have cousin clans that are in the Main clans enemy faction list.  Further your first cousin clan would also eliminate additional factions, this would continue with each clan.  This way no player would have a clan in a faction that is an enemy of any other clan they run.
[/quote]

I like that idea, for starters.  Perhaps we can begin by saying that no clan can rise above rank 18 if they have any cousins in any enemy faction.  Also, cousins in different factions of any sort may only have one faction with clans above rank 15, thus becoming their primary faction.  It may also be necessary to limit multiple very-high-ranking clans in their primary faction, too, but let's think on that.

What do you think about that concept?

[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137277' dateline='1578370081']
Each faction must have at least one fixed enemy Big Box factions may have 2 or 3.
[/quote]

I agree.  And I don't want to include currently-NPC factions in our list of enemies/allies.  I'd like to see at least one playing "enemy" and one "ally" for each faction.  These do not have to be reciprocal either, and it would be nice if there were some inbuilt tensions there, such as being friends with someone who's also friends with someone you don't particularly like (or might even have on your "enemy" list).  I'd like to be able to draw an enemy/ally chart between all the factions and see lines to and from everywhere.

"Enemies" don't have to be all-out warfare on encounter (in all cases), but they should at least refuse to associate with one another under normal circumstances and have significant disagreements in their outlooks (which could lead to harassing, name-calling, fist fights, etc.) when in close personal proximity in cities.

"Allies" don't mean unconditional friends, but other factions with whom they tend to cooperate or work well with, in general.  You might like to give them better deals on trades/tasks, for instance, or engage in communal movement or activities.  Perhaps "preferred associate" would be more meaningful?

What could we do to update our designs along these lines?

FACTION Name:          ENEMIES:              ALLIES:

Imperal                        Boda, Roder            Getham
Boda                            Imperial                  Roder, Ring
Getham                                                      Gift
Roder                           Imperial                  Boda, Banner
Banner                                                       Roder
Gift                                                            Getham
Ring                                                           Boda

Not a bad start, though I wouldn't mind seeing more of the spaces filled in, perhaps with less antagonistic (but still not friendly) relationships. Inter-faction competition might provide some ideas here, too.

Well if you had other factions in play like: Barbarian, Bandits, Pirates and Heretics (or B & F, Cult) to fill in the blanks

True, but I don't want the factions to be there simply to provide enemies.  And there needs to be enough players to support adding more factions.  Surely there's a way to work in competition/disagreements between the factions of some sort.  The religions could have faith-based disagreements and the families could argue with one another without turning into the Hatfields and McCoys.  Surely we've got some imaginative players that can come up with something.

If every faction doesn't have both pros and cons, and a good mix of friends and enemies, then game balance will suffer as clans flock to the more powerful or most likeable factions.

Well I view these factions that are all Boogiemen like the: Barbarians, Bandits, Pirates to mention a few would make simple NPC bad guys.

I'd assume that they're all the enemies of all players, so they don't make for very good factional divisions.

If you set the Barbarians, Bandits, and Pirates up as the Boogiemen of the game and just make them nasty and hard hitting bad guys. If you also allow players later on to create other factions like the former Buccaneers (Merchants/Naval Mercs/Pirates).

Was there a THEN to go with that IF?

Sorry what I meant to say is use those three as NPC Bad guys in the game. Later on if players wish to start up some new factions that are similar or like them but different let them go through the process to set up a new faction.

I can see a group of players wanting to set up Naval Mercs and Naval Merchants to sail the seas. They would be enemies of the Barbarians and Pirates. Maybe they might have a alliance with the Getham as a kind of allie. They would be Naval based faction with some color;

SWASHBUCKLERS Skills could be:

CMD - Comand
NST - Naval Strategy
NTA - Naval Tactics
NAV - Navigation
SEA - Seamenship
MER - Merchant

They could be both the Naval Mercs and Naval Merchants and give players that desire naval Roleplay to do so.

Oh, I intend to use such NPCs in the game.  But I expect to define them as opposed to all player factions.  But what I need for balance is for all PC factions to have some sort of opposing PC factions (in addition to the NPCs fighting with everyone).  We need stressors between the players so there's something to work against and generate some sort of conflict at various levels.  If we have factions that are "friends with everyone" then there's no stressors to work against in the game system and players will prefer to play in factions without challenges.  Everyone needs challenges to contend with.

Add in Moorlock faiths like the Blood & Fire, or The Cult of the Dark One, or Heretics or others that would add other possibilities.

Sure, but do we have enough players to populate a full pantheon of faiths and specialties?

[quote='Davin' pid='137282' dateline='1578412507']
[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137277' dateline='1578370081']
Everyone has a main clan that pending its faction will eliminate the ability for that player to have cousin clans that are in the Main clans enemy faction list.  Further your first cousin clan would also eliminate additional factions, this would continue with each clan.  This way no player would have a clan in a faction that is an enemy of any other clan they run.
[/quote]

I like that idea, for starters.  Perhaps we can begin by saying that no clan can rise above rank 18 if they have any cousins in any enemy faction.  Also, cousins in different factions of any sort may only have one faction with clans above rank 15, thus becoming their primary faction.  It may also be necessary to limit multiple very-high-ranking clans in their primary faction, too, but let's think on that.

What do you think about that concept?
[/quote]
My thought is that you should not be allowed to play any any enemy factions as they would be opposing your other positions in the game.  If I were a big shot in the Imperial faction me having a Boda should not be possible or i could simply use my intel on what the Imp's are doing and run my Boda clan where no real activity was happening.  Even if you were trying to be fair about it would you really attack one of your clans against the other, especially knowing that one side definitely a major advantage.   By making those faction not allowed you remove any question of unfair advantages and people exploiting the system.

[quote='Davin' pid='137283' dateline='1578413467']
[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137277' dateline='1578370081']
Each faction must have at least one fixed enemy Big Box factions may have 2 or 3.
[/quote]

I agree.  And I don't want to include currently-NPC factions in our list of enemies/allies.  I'd like to see at least one playing "enemy" and one "ally" for each faction.  These do not have to be reciprocal either, and it would be nice if there were some inbuilt tensions there, such as being friends with someone who's also friends with someone you don't particularly like (or might even have on your "enemy" list).  I'd like to be able to draw an enemy/ally chart between all the factions and see lines to and from everywhere.

"Enemies" don't have to be all-out warfare on encounter (in all cases), but they should at least refuse to associate with one another under normal circumstances and have significant disagreements in their outlooks (which could lead to harassing, name-calling, fist fights, etc.) when in close personal proximity in cities.

"Allies" don't mean unconditional friends, but other factions with whom they tend to cooperate or work well with, in general.  You might like to give them better deals on trades/tasks, for instance, or engage in communal movement or activities.  Perhaps "preferred associate" would be more meaningful?

What could we do to update our designs along these lines?
[/quote]
First we would need a set group of factions that we are going to have in the game.  Before we try to create any sort of a tree of enemies and allies. 

I see the Ring and Gift as enemies of the Banner as they are religous zealots and even though they worship the same god They see them as a threat to their beliefs and way of life and would really just want to keep them far away.  They likely see each other as allies to protect themselves from the Banner.

In the extreme case, no player would be allowed to run more than one clan at all.  But that seems to be going a bit too far.  It's my assumption that a very-low-ranking clan isn't big/important enough to affect the game play significantly, even for opposing factions.  And I think that playing only in factions that are mutually accepting of one another limits the players choices an awful lot, especially if they're all going to end up with some inter-faction conflicts with someone.

So, if you were in one of 7 factions, each of which had 2 friends and 2 opponents and 2 neutrals, not all in neat pairs, how many clans do you think you could reasonably run in different factions without getting any two of them to be opposed in some fashion?

[quote='Davin' pid='137306' dateline='1578522835']
Oh, I intend to use such NPCs in the game.  But I expect to define them as opposed to all player factions.  But what I need for balance is for all PC factions to have some sort of opposing PC factions (in addition to the NPCs fighting with everyone).  We need stressors between the players so there's something to work against and generate some sort of conflict at various levels.  If we have factions that are "friends with everyone" then there's no stressors to work against in the game system and players will prefer to play in factions without challenges.  Everyone needs challenges to contend with.
[/quote]

I see some NPC's as more of a threat to certain factions than others while most would not want bandits near there cities.  The Boda would careless about Bandits around Imperial Cities and the same the other way.   A Heretic clan would be a concern of religious factions while others would really not care.  These NPC clans could even have bounties placed on them by factions that greatly disliked them.   Like the Getham would have bounties on Bandits no matter where they were as it would affect there business.  Banner would likely reward people for removing a heretic clan no matter where it was located.

[quote='Davin' pid='137316' dateline='1578543592']
In the extreme case, no player would be allowed to run more than one clan at all.  But that seems to be going a bit too far.  It's my assumption that a very-low-ranking clan isn't big/important enough to affect the game play significantly, even for opposing factions.  And I think that playing only in factions that are mutually accepting of one another limits the players choices an awful lot, especially if they're all going to end up with some inter-faction conflicts with someone.

So, if you were in one of 7 factions, each of which had 2 friends and 2 opponents and 2 neutrals, not all in neat pairs, how many clans do you think you could reasonably run in different factions without getting any two of them to be opposed in some fashion?
[/quote]

My guess is you would be hard pressed to play in more than 3 different factions if you were to only have 7 total factions.  I see most players playing the majority of there clans in 1 or 2 factions.  In the Midgard USA version I played 10 clans most of the time 8 in one faction and 1 in 2 other factions.  I think the most factions I ever played in at one time was 4 and in that version of the game I beleive there was 15+ playable factions.

I believe to begin with you should stick to the (3) clan rule and request of each player for them to define what their primary faction is going to be. Most likely most players will then play (2) clans n their primary and (1) in another faction to broaden their player enjoyment. Now some might play all (3) in the same faction, or maybe even choosing (1) clan in three different factions. Still you should always have the player declare what their primary faction is going to be.

Again any player playing in an enemy faction of another clan of theirs just makes for the potential issues of having knowledge they should not have about others. There is all sorts of potential abuses that could be done or happen. From my Imperial clan has knowledge about things in the Imperial city, now my Boda clan knows that info. My Boda clan notices a small Boda clan leaving a city and now my Imperial clan goes over and attacks it. There is all sorts of potential abuses that could take place to exploit the game to make the players clan tougher in the long run. A lot of these things could happen and some of these things might happen and have nothing to do with the player using information they should not have. It just seems to me that you make it where everyone does not have to concern themselves with these issues.

After all if you set up chat rooms for factions and I am in both the Imperial and Boda how is either chat room secure from the enemy.

Basically you couldn't have a Banner clan and then have a cousin Blood & Fire clan they are total enemies .

You could say have a (1) Gift with a cousin (1) Ring with another (1) Getham clan.

Well, if you want to totally prohibit inimical factions, we can certainly do that.  I'd thought that you'd want to have some extra flexibility there and be able to play, at least at low levels, pretty much anywhere you wanted to.  In that way you can try out another faction to see how it works for you.

If you wanted to switch from one "side" to another "side", you'd have to completely drop all your positions just to try out the new spot to see if you like it.  That doesn't sound very player-friendly to me.

By way of abusing of knowledge, there are usually ways to abuse that knowledge even with hard limitations. For instance, what if some friend's clan (or even a stranger) spotted that Boda clan and told you about it? The results are the same with or without those limitations. I can probably come up with counter-examples for most situations whereby it can be abused without a whole lot more effort.

I think the important thing here is to limit the most flagrant and obvious possibilities as best we can. We then make it fun for everyone to play without relying on "cheating" and chances are they won't bother most of the time.

Well I am looking at the abuse side of things where players, start up a enemy clan and use it as a mole. We have seen this a lot in other versions of the game. The real question is for you the GM, what checks will you put in place to catch this type of abuse? When you have hundreds of positions, your not going to be able to review this kind of stuff, like player X has three clans and their in A,B,C factions and etc. I am just pointing this out now to consider how this abuse can be stopped, making your job easier to catch this stuff if it happens.

FYI -- as far as chat rooms go, treat them as semi-public and don't put anything significantly secret out there.  You'll have a direct clan-to-clan messaging system available, and you can always use the chat room concept to open discrete discussions if needed.  Of course, you may still have the problem of who to trust.  ;)

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137334' dateline='1578678673']
Well I am looking at the abuse side of things where players, start up a enemy clan and use it as a mole.
[/quote]

Ok, what do you expect the mole to find out (at low levels) that there aren't at least hints of relatively publicly?  Nobody is likely to entrust secret information to a low-level clan, with the possible exception of simple tasks to perform (which most people won't care about).  I mean, everyone will know what a faction's general goals are and will expect low-level clans of that faction to be doing that sort of work all the time.  What's news about that?

Remember Davin not everyone will know what clans belong to whom. You the GM will know, and the player that owns the clan knows what factions all his clans are in. However the senior to that faction that has a low level clan will not know for sure what other clans that player is actually playing and etc.

As to finding out information, lets say Faction A wants to siege Faction B's city. Faction A needs clans to scout out what is in the area of that target city. Next Faction A needs some clans to host some regiments to be used in the siege of the target city. Now it takes time to gather clans and resources to set up a siege. So lets say this player has a a clan In faction A and a cousin clan in Faction B. If that player is asked to join that siege effort, they could "out of game' tip off Faction B's Seniorship of the planned Siege.

But who would want to trust a low-level clan to know about the siege in advance?  Wouldn't they just ask for scouting of the area "for no particular reason" or because of some undefined reports that have nothing to do with the city?

Once a clan gets to be of higher level in their faction, wouldn't they prefer to benefit that faction and not make use of any privileged information in their other factions?

Pardon me if I'm asking stupid questions, but I'm trying to work off logic here rather than historical evidence.

Well just because someone has a magical level in this game, doesn't mean anything really. That has been my experience in playing the game and watching human nature happen in this game. I always look at the character of the player, not what magical level they might have. I rely on talking to the player behind turns and get to know that person. That is how I build trust, not how much Influence they have and what rank in the faction they are. I become friends with my players, and that is something that is of great value. Trust is something given and earned within the game. Sometimes it takes a while to pull the mask away to see the real person wearing the mask. I just feel one must be careful.

I agree that trust is important.  And thus I wouldn't particularly trust anyone unknown with important factional information.  The reason I brought level into it is because I was assuming that a higher level meant that the game was enforcing that they at least didn't have any "significant" clans in an enemy faction.

Still, nothing is infallible.  It's always possible that someone has no particular faction they work to promote and rise in rank and all his cousins are doing is infiltrating factions that he wants to see fail and stealing information from them (perhaps for revenge?).  That kind of behavior is pretty difficult to stop.

For me to begin with I want to just have fun and reconnect with some old friends or make new ones. I really enjoyed playing Midgard and want to do it again.

I'd like to provide that opportunity, but we seem to be having difficulty ramping up the early interest and participation hereabouts.

I think you might need to send "Hello former players" emails out to the contact lists you have to see whom you can get to rejoin the process. As I said I found another former player and he should start posting this weekend(he shows up as the most recient player to join the board). He is 'FutureSojourner', a good friend, former Midgard USA senior player, and a very good player.

We don't need a lot of players, we need motivated players that are driven to get involved. I think new people to the game would be good to, because they would have a different perspective as well.

We might not need a LOT of players (especially at this stage), but we do need a number of different perspectives on the new thoughts and designs.  I'd hate to base whole new game concepts on the visions of only a very few players.  We're bound to change things in ways that others don't like, and I'd rather have their participation and opinions too.

I'll give some thought on how to send out a reasonable "please participate" note.

Well those that want to get involved and care enough to add their efforts and opinions should be listened to. You have the final choice as to what gets settled on. Those that didn't choose to spend the effort to help shape the game's future shouldn't have to much to complain about. They had just as much of a chance to help out but didn't.