A new set of thoughts on how to bring Midgard back

Hello everyone,

Over the last couple of days a few of us have talked about how best to restore the Midgard game. A number of us have talked on the phone amongst ourselves and have put together a number of points that I will present here nd now. The main goal is to preserve the game of the past as it mostly was, so that there is some consistency for all to be able to relate to. So that if a gamer that played in the past were to return they would  mostly recognize the game as it once was and realize much of what they once played was still there in some way or form. Now we also feel there are a number of matters that need to be redesigned or fixed so that the game can be a good game for all to enjoy and play again. So let's begin with what should happen.

Midgard Game History:
We feel that we should keep the history as it has been written in the past, thus the Imperials are invaders of Midgard. Now the only part of the history we advise to role back or change was the history of what has happened in game from the time of the Meteor strike.  Thus simply stated, the meteor struck and the continent of Midgard was virtually destroyed. All of it's cities were reduced to rubble or totally destroyed from a tidal wave or fires. Much was lost and many cities were all but totally wiped out or destroyed. Pick a number of years (20 -30 years) that it has been since that great devastation happened and state that the people of Midgard have started to stand up again and the many factions have started to try to extend their control again of the continent.

History:
The skies grew dark and a great ball of glowing red light steaked across the skies heading south over Midgard. It seem to hit the sea south of Midgard and north of Kalmar. At the point of impact, everyone was thrown off their feet. After the strike great waves came crashing inland and swept over the lands of Midgard. Many cities in the south were simply swept away. Meanwhile great earth quakes were felt across the lands everywhere and many cities were reduced to rubble and/or burned to the ground. Then those that managed to survive that had to endure a great long winter that lasted two years, leaving many to die from the elements or famine. Much was lost and most people just tried to survive. That was from the times of our parents(20-30 years ago), and now people have started to reform and rebuild from the ruins of the past. Some of the former political organizations have reformed again and have started to via for political control of the lands once again.

Factions of the Midgard game:
In our talks to a few players that once played this game, everyone wants their own beloved factions back again. We feel the desire and love of this game was the rich and diverse choices that were the factions of the game. Now in some cases some were tinkered with for what ever reason and a little bit of redesign needs to be done to fix those issues. We also feel that to make it appealing for everyone and to set the stage s everyone can and will return to the game, that all of the faction be made available from the beginning of game start. Now we do understand that the coding for the Naval side of things is not ready, but that would mean that two beloved factions will need to sit idle until that part of the game code can be completed. That would mean that the Barbarian SeaKings, and Buccaneers would need to be on hold until the Naval code is done.

We feel that the following list of factions all be brought back into the game and all located on Midgard and open for game play:

 - Imperials
 - Boda Familiy
 - Getham Family
 - Roder Family
 - Society of Arm (SOA)
 - Merk Verk
 - Cymru
 - Seekers
 - Skelts
 - Banner Religion
 - Gift Religion
 - Ring Religion
 - Order of the Hand (OOH)
 - Blood and Fire Religion
 - Serkenar Religion
 - Cult of the Dark One Religion

We feel that each of these factions in the past that did exist in various Midgard versions should be looked at and slightly tweaked to be brought back into the game from game start. We know that the GM wants to just have a small number of factions at game start but we feel this would be a great mistake and would cause this game to fail horribly. Having all of this diverse factional choices was what draws many players into the game in the first place. The GM has stated that he is hoping to get 3-5 players per faction, but we feel if he returns all of these factions that he will get a lot more than that.  Next we also feel that the GM should open it up to all players to run up to (6) clans per player.  This would allow people to play in multiple factions for more game enjoyment, which means more money for him and a better profit margin for him and the game's success. Speaking for myself with (6) clans I would most likely have: (3) Cymru, (2) Gift, and (1) Ring clan, and in the long run I would most likely want to run (3) cities as well too. Having just (3) clans really is not enough, especially for us former players that had like (15) positions in the end of Midgard USA version. Also I feel that the game turns should be every two weeks not once a month.  It would allow people a lot more better pace for the modern gamer enjoyment, than the old one month game turn. The game needs to hit the ground running and having lots of players with many choices with (6) clans each will give each person a lot of options to pursue.

Some game advice to the GM to stop abuse that we have seen in the past:

Ok with this rebut reduce all the cities in size, defenses, and city buildings. Wipe away almost all factional Offices and Temple and make most cities Independent.  Only have a small number of cities declared for ever faction scattered around the Midgard content. Next don't have anyone with huge resources to be handed out to players. Also have NO Factional regiments at game start. Just have the resources that are at hand and the factional clans. It will be years before a starting clan of 200 retainers can take on anything, let alone a city. Part of the problem in the past, factional resources and/or factional regiments were handed out to players like there was no tomorrow. It didn't matter what rank someone was, it was handed out like water to a thirsty man. I say to the GM, make players earn factional aid. Make the player's roleplay their clan's faction's goals and keep them in-check and on target. A lot of the abuse of the past was because the GM's didn't make people play the way they should play within the factions they were playing. Make them do the right thing.

I feel that many of the listed Independent type factions should be included as well too, but I understand that they will be NPC only factions for a while. I am referring to the : Bandit, Pirates, Barbarians (SeaKings), Buccaneers, Heretics and anything else I might have forgotten.

If I were to get (6) clans to start with I would most likely run (2) Cymru, (2) SOA, and (2) Gift.

Maybe we should call out to see what people here might actually play just to get a feel for what we are talking about.

I like the idea of keeping the history the same but don't know why there needs to be a meteor.  Why not just restart the game based on the history within the rules.

Some comments on the factions:

Imperials. I would like to see the Imperials more willing to work with others and allow factional offices within the Preserves, especially the Religions.

I would like to see the original three Religions (Ring, Gift, and Banner) along with the Families (Getham, Roder, and Boda).  

The merc factions of MercVerk and SOA would be good additions but I would only like to see the MercVerk if they are like they were originally intended.  I remember MV Senior Cletus Graham from the 1980s and somewhere in my long term storage stuff I have a copy of the MercVerk "The Book" and "The Code."  I don't know much about the SoA, as I never played one.

Cymru, Seekers, Skelts, and Cult of the Dark One -- do we need these?

I liked the Blood and Fire and the Serkeanar but don't see them as essential starting out.  Maybe the Blood and Fire and eventually the Serkeanar.

I think the Order of the Hand is unnecessary, just the Ring is fine.

If we were permitted 6 clans I would play mostly Ring and Gift and maybe a Roder and Getham.

The reason to allow all the factions that were LIVE in a version of Midgard, is because players played them and wanted to play them and not the original core factions. Cutting out any faction that was live, runs the risk of not having a former paying Midgard player returning. Realize these other factions were stood up by paying players because the other factions for what ever reason failed the task of being interesting to a group of players. So I say just round out all of the factions and return them live to the game and put them all in Midgard and let the game happen.

[quote=FutureSojourner]
I like the idea of keeping the history the same but don't know why there needs to be a meteor.  Why not just restart the game based on the history within the rules.

Some comments on the factions:

Imperials. I would like to see the Imperials more willing to work with others and allow factional offices within the Preserves, especially the Religions.

I would like to see the original three Religions (Ring, Gift, and Banner) along with the Families (Getham, Roder, and Boda).  

The merc factions of MercVerk and SOA would be good additions but I would only like to see the MercVerk if they are like they were originally intended.  I remember MV Senior Cletus Graham from the 1980s and somewhere in my long term storage stuff I have a copy of the MercVerk "The Book" and "The Code."  I don't know much about the SoA, as I never played one.

Cymru, Seekers, Skelts, and Cult of the Dark One -- do we need these?

I liked the Blood and Fire and the Serkeanar but don't see them as essential starting out.  Maybe the Blood and Fire and eventually the Serkeanar.

I think the Order of the Hand is unnecessary, just the Ring is fine.

If we were permitted 6 clans I would play mostly Ring and Gift and maybe a Roder and Getham.
[/quote]
Here are all the factions from Midgard USA. The Seekers came about in the next version of the Midgard UK game.

I am simply stating to just use the continent of Midgard. Place all the above listed factions on Midgard continent which is HUGE. Then simply allow the players to pick and choose what they select to run for their clans. With all these many choices you have a far greater chance to attract back the former players, and give new players many different flavors of factions to choose from and play. They all have value to the game and add a different flavor of play to the game that does fit in

OK the key is not to just get people to start playing the game but to stay playing the game once they start. No one person is the same and will have the same desires. Even Penn and me who developed and were the driving force behind the Cymru don't agree on things as you have seen in our comments on these boards. Simply put if you do not have lots of choices of things to join or be people will either not join at all or start and leave. I can state for a fact 2 of the players I brought into the game originally started as Cymru only players and became interested in playing in various other factions in the game after close to a year. It was that variety of different things they were doing in the game that kept them playing in the game. Both would have likely left if they did not find these other things of interest. Things in Midgard creep along so having variety is key to keep interest. While I do think all factions should be available, I think what you should do is close off certain areas of the world especially since you will have no naval. Closing off the Imperial Homeland, Alfheim, Skelts, Seakings and Manchuria. This gives you the ability to down the road put them in as you see fit. But at least everyone will have choices and you will not have to worry about ruining factions that players are interested in playing in.

Ask yourself do you want players that will play and continue with the game or players that get tired of something and find no interest else where and leave. Most all these factions had people of interest of Zan would have never created or made them part of the system and if he had been healthy enough to run the game consistantly with out great pauses the number of players would not have dwindle nearly as much.

Ok, I like a lot of the ideas that have been summarized and proposed here, but let me first ask about the factions which seems to be the biggest issue.  My complaint is that there won't be enough players to make use of the factions while the consensus seems to be that there will be plenty of players.  I expect that most (90%+) of the player base in the early phases of the restart will be returning players rather than new players.  If we're going to have several players in each faction, and lots of factions, that means we're going to need 50-75 players to start (if they're all in different factions) or let's call it 25-50 players if they spread out somewhat.

So show me that we can get, say, a bare minimum of 25 unique players willing to pay hard cash to start playing again, and I'll open up lots of factions.  Does anyone want to start up a poll (formal or informal) on that subject?

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137519' dateline='1580609356']
Midgard Game History:
We feel that we should keep the history as it has been written in the past, thus the Imperials are invaders of Midgard.
[/quote]

How do you propose to keep everyone from getting together and attacking the Imperials as soon as we start up, in an attempt to eliminate them from the continent?  I'd really like to avoid any "ganging up" situations on any faction.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137519' dateline='1580609356']
That was from the times of our parents(20-30 years ago), and now people have started to reform and rebuild from the ruins of the past.
[/quote]

I don't have a problem with waiting an extra generation (or even two, depending on the severity of the after-effects) to give the factions, cities, and population more time to rebuild.

Davin,

A startup clan has 200 retainers … that clan will be hard pressed to take on a NPC Bandit. Let alone attack a city, to do that you would need like 8+ clans to take on a city together and even then they will all be IC troops in skill ability. If you the GM stop the huge give-aways and do NOT allow Combat regiments to be handed off, then it will be almost two years before anyone can seriously be a threat. Sure maybe a couple of players to band together to kill a single clan, but being that Midgard is so huge I think all the factions are safe.

My guess is you are going to scatter players all over the maps, unless they request a specific location (Map area), and even then most players will find a city and stay in place for quite a long time. Most folks will become builders and work on cities. Combat will be rare if it happens at all for a while. Those that do fight, will loose their shirts unless they really know what they are doing. So get a big bag of popcorn and sit back and watch what happens.

[quote=Davin]
Ok, I like a lot of the ideas that have been summarized and proposed here, but let me first ask about the factions which seems to be the biggest issue.  My complaint is that there won't be enough players to make use of the factions while the consensus seems to be that there will be plenty of players.  I expect that most (90%+) of the player base in the early phases of the restart will be returning players rather than new players.  If we're going to have several players in each faction, and lots of factions, that means we're going to need 50-75 players to start (if they're all in different factions) or let's call it 25-50 players if they spread out somewhat.

So show me that we can get, say, a bare minimum of 25 unique players willing to pay hard cash to start playing again, and I'll open up lots of factions.  Does anyone want to start up a poll (formal or informal) on that subject?
[/quote]
 Your asking us to do the recruitment for the game for you, and there is no way to do that.

We are just pointing out that if you call this game Midgard and don't offer all the factions that players played in... they may not even bother to return. They may sit out and take the approach of wait and see what happens and just sit back and wait till their factions return. Just return all the factions and see what happens.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137519' dateline='1580609356']
Next we also feel that the GM should open it up to all players to run up to (6) clans per player.
[/quote]

I don't have any philosophical or technical problem with running many clans.  My biggest worry is keeping flagrant abuse under control.  How do you suppose we might limit that if not by limiting the number of clans?

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137519' dateline='1580609356']
Some game advice to the GM to stop abuse that we have seen in the past:
Ok with this rebut reduce all the cities in size, defenses, and city buildings. Wipe away almost all factional Offices and Temple and make most cities Independent.  Only have a small number of cities declared for ever faction scattered around the Midgard content. Next don't have anyone with huge resources to be handed out to players. Also have NO Factional regiments at game start. Just have the resources that are at hand and the factional clans. It will be years before a starting clan of 200 retainers can take on anything, let alone a city. Part of the problem in the past, factional resources and/or factional regiments were handed out to players like there was no tomorrow. It didn't matter what rank someone was, it was handed out like water to a thirsty man. I say to the GM, make players earn factional aid. Make the player's roleplay their clan's faction's goals and keep them in-check and on target. A lot of the abuse of the past was because the GM's didn't make people play the way they should play within the factions they were playing. Make them do the right thing.
[/quote]

I do want to reduce the game start to about the minimum that we can get away with and make everyone build back up from very little.

I also worry about factional resources, and perhaps the best way to deal with that is to just not provide factions with as much to begin with.  If there's less available, then there should be less misuse of what there is.  We could even set a minimum rank limit that was needed before you're eligible for factional help, if we need to.

Can you think of any way we can restrict gathering influence (in general) to only those clans that are playing according to their factional goals?  It would be great if we could come up with some way to prevent abuse that way, but I certainly don't have the GM time to review every case so it would have to be something relatively automate-able.

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137521' dateline='1580611603']
Imperials. I would like to see the Imperials more willing to work with others and allow factional offices within the Preserves, especially the Religions.
[/quote]

That would certainly help with the "ganging up" problem I mentioned, but how do you resolve that within the existing history?

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137521' dateline='1580611603']
Imperials. I would like to see the Imperials more willing to work with others and allow factional offices within the Preserves, especially the Religions.
[/quote]

I would also like to get rid of the unbalanced nature of the Imperial Preserves.  Why not just have them have cities like everyone else, with normal defenses like everyone else?  It's always rubbed me the wrong way that the Imps can have all these high-powered benefits for free and the other factions don't get them at all.

FYI - every city leader can deny entry to the city to any faction they wish (provided they can get away with it politically and militarily).

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137521' dateline='1580611603']
The merc factions of MercVerk and SOA would be good additions but I would only like to see the MercVerk if they are like they were originally intended.  I remember MV Senior Cletus Graham from the 1980s and somewhere in my long term storage stuff I have a copy of the MercVerk "The Book" and "The Code."  I don't know much about the SoA, as I never played one.
[/quote]

I don't know much about the details of the additional factions, so we'll want to rebuild those by consensus (and the base ones if we want).  Any old materials or information anyone has will be very useful in that regard, sometime before we get rolling again.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137522' dateline='1580614342']
The reason to allow all the factions that were LIVE in a version of Midgard, is because players played them and wanted to play them and not the original core factions. Cutting out any faction that was live, runs the risk of not having a former paying Midgard player returning. Realize these other factions were stood up by paying players because the other factions for what ever reason failed the task of being interesting to a group of players. So I say just round out all of the factions and return them live to the game and put them all in Midgard and let the game happen.
[/quote]

If we can get enough players, then fine.  But if we need to limit some of them then what's wrong with the ideas I mentioned before about "combining" factions together so everyone gets to play it the way they like, even if it's not called the same thing?  Isn't a faction that works in several cooperating ways more interesting that one that only plays one way?

[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137526' dateline='1580670815']
OK the key is not to just get people to start playing the game but to stay playing the game once they start.
[/quote]

Agreed, certainly.

[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137526' dateline='1580670815']
While I do think all factions should be available, I think what you should do is close off certain areas of the world especially since you will have no naval.  Closing off the Imperial Homeland, Alfheim, Skelts, Seakings and Manchuria.  This gives you the ability to down the road put them in as you see fit
[/quote]

I was planning on only opening the Midgard continent for the time being, and I think it would be a good idea to only populate one area in the beginning and let them spread out as they need more room.

[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137526' dateline='1580670815']
Ask yourself do you want players that will play and continue with the game or players that get tired of something and find no interest else where and leave.  Most all these factions had people of interest of Zan would have never created or made them part of the system and if he had been healthy enough to run the game consistantly with out great pauses the number of players would not have dwindle nearly as much.
[/quote]

I certainly don't want players getting tired of something, but I'm hoping to defer that somewhat by making everything more interesting to begin with.  If someone doesn't want to be where they are, then it's not fun enough, right?

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
A startup clan has 200 retainers … that clan will be hard pressed to take on a NPC Bandit
[/quote]

That depends on how big of a bandit clan they find.  It could well be that they only find bandits numbering 10-50 at a time and you'll have to work hard to get them to engage in combat because they're at such a disadvantage and will be trying to hide or run away.  That gives you a lot more opportunity for determining and using interesting styles of play to reach your goal (like convincing them to attack you instead).

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
Let alone attack a city, to do that you would need like 8+ clans to take on a city together and even then they will all be IC troops in skill ability.
[/quote]

I don't expect anyone to be seriously attacking a city anytime soon.  For one thing, why would they?  The city wouldn't have much of anything they want in the beginning.  And don't forget that the cities won't have much in the way of defenses early on, either.  It's probably easier just to walk in by force and do what you want.

I'm guessing that attacking cities (later on) will be more of a faction-against-faction issue and will involve quite a few clans working together.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
Sure maybe a couple of players to band together to kill a single clan, but being that Midgard is so huge I think all the factions are safe.
[/quote]

If a single clan makes themselves insufferable enough to need being killed outright, then I wouldn't think it would be difficult to get a few clans together to do the job.  Just make sure it isn't YOU causing enough problems to require that level of response.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
My guess is you are going to scatter players all over the maps, unless they request a specific location (Map area),...
[/quote]
I was planning on starting them mostly together so they won't get so lonely.  They don't need to be playing a game all by themselves, right?
[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
...and even then most players will find a city and stay in place for quite a long time.
[/quote]
You think so?  Even if it's just wandering around the nearby countryside, I'd think they'll still want to do more than sit in one place.
[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
Most folks will become builders and work on cities.
[/quote]
Perhaps, or maybe they're more interested in small combats or exploration.
[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
Combat will be rare if it happens at all for a while. Those that do fight, will loose their shirts unless they really know what they are doing.
[/quote]
I think we can give them small combats that they'll enjoy.  Even bigger combats can be one-sided with the proper preparation (ambushes, deployment, etc.).
[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137535' dateline='1580689058']
So get a big bag of popcorn and sit back and watch what happens.
[/quote]
Sounds like fun!

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137536' dateline='1580689402']
Your asking us to do the recruitment for the game for you, and there is no way to do that.
[/quote]

Not at all - I'm just asking for some evidence to support your claim that lots of players will be signing up right away.

Fair enough about the number of factions.  I'm building on the romanticism of the game, for me, when I started playing as a teenager in the 80s.  I was a MercVerk player back then and loved it, but when I was playing over 10 years later in the late 90s I was Roder and then played around with Banner and Gift and finally right before the death of the game with Blood and Fire.  Now, as I approach 50 I think the Ring would suit me better since it builds on my skills as a scholar which would give me some interesting ideas to build up the guild.

If the game has an abundance of players then sure, the more the merrier; however, if one player gets 10 friends to play in a faction they could essentially all "pay to win," and that would be problematic.  This is where the Senior #0 comes into play.  Even though factions may not have players does not mean the faction isn't doing anything -- but this puts more work on the GM/Owner in making sure they as the #0 are ensuring less populated factions are doing things to improve the faction.  And those factions that have many players the GM would do less for that faction to ensure balance.

Some thoughts on the game since going through every thread is overwhelming to me...

Healing -- all religions should have some degree of healing capacity.  Especially if there is not a hospital option in the game.  In addition to some degree of healing some religions could be better at it or worse but should have a secondary characteristic that focuses on their evolution as a Religion -- Gift are good building because they focus on "creation," the Banner are good fighters because they focus on "evangelization by the sword," whereas the Ring are superior with knowledge/divination because they focus on reflection and contemplation and evangelism of presence.  

Imperials... I had always wanted to play an Imperial but I HATED that their preserves were closed off to other factional offices.  Give Imperial cities and preserves the option of building other factional offices and just relegate those offices to a "district" in the city and have another district in the city that is ONLY Imperial -- like the forbidden city in Beijing, China.  The Imperials then would function similarly to another faction trying to survive.  The meteor or disaster could have wiped out Manchura (please!) and the Imperial homeland forcing the Imperial faction to "get along with others" better than they have done in the past.

I liked the Serkeanar and the Blood and Fire was a good religious nemesis for most of us, BUT you could have it that the two merged back into one creating a Blood and Fire that is more friendly to others which might make it so the Blood and Fire could have a larger presence in the game and not be "kill on sight," which could work in all but Banner cities.  Likewise, the Orthodox Banner and Banner could have merged back into one as well... and as the game progresses who knows maybe they would be forced to split again due to ideological differences.

I used to spend a lot of money each month on Midgard and I would certainly do it again if they game captured the greatness that it once was.  You build a good game with an energized player base and the word will spread -- we have social media now.  BUT you have to have a good product.

Regarding cities and staying stationary...

I am a "power gamer."  I prefer to stay in one place, in a city and just build.  Build, and explore the nuances of the city.  Train and focus on building up the city.  I remember my Banner clan that was the Banner #4, the clan leader was the City Leader of a Banner city that was under some conflict with another religion (I cannot remember which one).  The clan leader/city leader had herself killed as a martyr in a ploy to blame the other faction.  One of the followers stepped up as clan leader/city leader and the Banner factional influence exploded and we were working to make the city a pilgrimage site.  That sort of gameplay is fun for me.

Wandering around with 200 retainers was always boring for me.  Being in a city and building and watching the city grow was where I got my fun in the game.  This was especially true when my clan was large enough to build a factional office each turn -- because turns ran slow back then.

[quote='Davin' pid='137537' dateline='1580689507']
[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137519' dateline='1580609356']
Next we also feel that the GM should open it up to all players to run up to (6) clans per player.
[/quote]

I don't have any philosophical or technical problem with running many clans.  My biggest worry is keeping flagrant abuse under control.  How do you suppose we might limit that if not by limiting the number of clans?
[/quote]

So who has ideas about how we can keep cousin clans from abusing their positions (especially clans in different factions)?  If we can come up with a workable solution to this then we should be able to get you the kind of choices you want.

Well first off make every player spell clearly what their Main faction will be. It can change but I feel that a player should declare in system what their main faction is. Maybe make it part of the code...

PLAYER - DECLARE - MAIN - <Faction Name>

This way it is set in the code and don't allow any player to start up or declare for a enemy Faction of that Declared faction.  Thus once a person declares a Main Faction, when ever their account adds another clan or an existing clan declares for a new faction, simply block them from doing that type of thing.  Have a reference table that checks the table and see what is capable, and cross reference the Main Faction with the other clans in that account against the table.

Now as to other abuses, well for Dispensation Bugets watch that. Make a player explain why they are giving something to another player, have them explain this gift. Now as for Tasks, that is simple...a player's clan requests a Task, and then completes it, then they gain the reward. If someone pulls something, then let Big Brother #0 send the Goon Squad to take care of the player's clan that pulls the stunt. Then have the #0 call the player on the carpet if they tried something wrong. Roleplay it out.

That's reasonable for a start, though we might come up with a way to do a deferred declaration (once he decides which he likes better).  But one of my issues here is the concept of an "enemy faction".  How strictly do we define those?  What happens when factions fall out of favor with one another, or decide to be more cooperative?  It seems like things can change and it's difficult to define a hard and fast rule about "enemies" that will last throughout the game.

Thoughts?

[quote='Davin' pid='137539' dateline='1580690631']
[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137521' dateline='1580611603']
Imperials. I would like to see the Imperials more willing to work with others and allow factional offices within the Preserves, especially the Religions.
[/quote]

That would certainly help with the "ganging up" problem I mentioned, but how do you resolve that within the existing history?
[/quote]

That's easy... people change.  They adapt to different circumstances.  The Romans did it when they went from the Regal Period to the Republic, from the Republic to the Principate and the Principate to full Empire.  Civilizations adapt.

[quote='Davin' pid='137568' dateline='1580792198']
[quote='Davin' pid='137537' dateline='1580689507']
[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137519' dateline='1580609356']
Next we also feel that the GM should open it up to all players to run up to (6) clans per player.
[/quote]

I don't have any philosophical or technical problem with running many clans.  My biggest worry is keeping flagrant abuse under control.  How do you suppose we might limit that if not by limiting the number of clans?
[/quote]

So who has ideas about how we can keep cousin clans from abusing their positions (especially clans in different factions)?  If we can come up with a workable solution to this then we should be able to get you the kind of choices you want.
[/quote]

When I played last time I had some cousins in conflicting factions; but Zan knew me and trusted I wouldn't abuse that situation -- which I did not.  I had my main clans and cities but wanted to do some things on my own with some minor cousin clans just for "fun."  But perhaps you could institute an in-game incentive to players who ONLY play in one faction.  My goal is to seek a senior position in the Ring or Gift (religion is kinda my thing), if you offered a decent enough incentive (not sure what that would be -- maybe construction regiments if you have them) for players to ONLY play in one faction that could be incentive enough.

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137576' dateline='1580809220']
When I played last time I had some cousins in conflicting factions; but Zan knew me and trusted I wouldn't abuse that situation -- which I did not.  I had my main clans and cities but wanted to do some things on my own with some minor cousin clans just for "fun."  But perhaps you could institute an in-game incentive to players who ONLY play in one faction.  My goal is to seek a senior position in the Ring or Gift (religion is kinda my thing), if you offered a decent enough incentive (not sure what that would be -- maybe construction regiments if you have them) for players to ONLY play in one faction that could be incentive enough.
[/quote]

Hmmm...  I don't know that I like the "incentive" idea.  How are good and reasonable players supposed to try out different styles and get a little variety in their gaming?  I wouldn't think that restricting them to a single faction would be very popular.  For instance, look at the several people that mentioned what they would do with six clans -- they all wanted to be in 3 or so different factions simultaneously.

OK here are some ideas on how to stop abuses...

 - At game start allow only (3) clans to start with in play
 - Require everyone Declare a Primary Faction that they support and will be the main clan within the game.
 - For those players that want to pursue Seniorship, the player must declare all (3) clans in their declared Primary Faction. If they do this, they gain a 1 time bonus for each clan. The bonus should be: (100) Retainers, (5,000) Crowns, (2,000) Influence in their declared primary faction.
 - After (6) months of game play, they can add (+3) more clans, but not in any enemy factions.  Example" (3) Gift clans as declared primary faction, then adds (+1) Ring, (+1) OOH, (+1) SOA.
 - Make players roleplay with their faction to get to know their faction, and their faction get to know them too.

Well, that's a thought.  But how are you going to determine "enemy factions" when factional relationships change over time?

Also, what about players that aren't interested in Seniorship?

The Imperials will NEVER EVER be friends with the Boda or Barbarians.

As I said set up a table of relations and as those relationships change, you as the GM...Update them!

If players want to total declare all (3) clans for a single faction, give them that Bonus too.

Updating relationships has its own problems. For one thing, feelings between factions may be subtle and they may grow apart or together very slowly. How can you set a dividing line that way? For another thing, what if you have clans in friendly factions X & Y and the factions decide they don't like each other any more and now they count as "enemies". What happens now that your clans are theoretically enemies?

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137584' dateline='1580878546']
If players want to total declare all (3) clans for a single faction, give them that Bonus too.
[/quote]

You've been talking a lot about having your own clans in assorted factions.  Would you want to be dedicating 100% of your playtime to a single faction?

Also, regardless of what you use as "incentive", what if people don't want the incentive?  If they're free to pick anything they want and are able to abuse that, and want to, what's to stop (or even discourage) them?

I could now that I have a set of factions I want to really play in. The Seekers being one of them.

[quote='Davin' pid='137578' dateline='1580874129']
[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137576' dateline='1580809220']
When I played last time I had some cousins in conflicting factions; but Zan knew me and trusted I wouldn't abuse that situation -- which I did not.  I had my main clans and cities but wanted to do some things on my own with some minor cousin clans just for "fun."  But perhaps you could institute an in-game incentive to players who ONLY play in one faction.  My goal is to seek a senior position in the Ring or Gift (religion is kinda my thing), if you offered a decent enough incentive (not sure what that would be -- maybe construction regiments if you have them) for players to ONLY play in one faction that could be incentive enough.
[/quote]

Hmmm...  I don't know that I like the "incentive" idea.  How are good and reasonable players supposed to try out different styles and get a little variety in their gaming?  I wouldn't think that restricting them to a single faction would be very popular.  For instance, look at the several people that mentioned what they would do with six clans -- they all wanted to be in 3 or so different factions simultaneously.
[/quote]

Back in Zan's game, I played 9/9 and while they were not all in the same faction there were common themes I was working on that supported mostly a single mission.  IF there was a worthy incentive to play in one faction I would have seriously considered it.  Perhaps requiring Senior #1 to be in a single faction with incentives.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137580' dateline='1580874779']
OK here are some ideas on how to stop abuses...

 - At game start allow only (3) clans to start with in play
 - Require everyone Declare a Primary Faction that they support and will be the main clan within the game.
 - For those players that want to pursue Seniorship, the player must declare all (3) clans in their declared Primary Faction. If they do this, they gain a 1 time bonus for each clan. The bonus should be: (100) Retainers, (5,000) Crowns, (2,000) Influence in their declared primary faction.
 - After (6) months of game play, they can add (+3) more clans, but not in any enemy factions.  Example" (3) Gift clans as declared primary faction, then adds (+1) Ring, (+1) OOH, (+1) SOA.
 - Make players roleplay with their faction to get to know their faction, and their faction get to know them too.
[/quote]

I like this plan.

Hmmm...  just recently it didn't sound like several of you would want to play in just one faction, effectively forever, since you were listing the factions you wanted to play in simultaneously.  And what about creating new factions?  That would practically eliminate that possibility.

I don't think I want to lock (benefited) players into just doing one thing for the entire game.  That doesn't sound like as much fun as being able to try out other things from time to time for some variety.

I'm trying to think up ideas about how to limit the dissemination of a faction's "secret" information to see if that would get us anywhere.  For instance, if only rank 15 and up were privileged to participate in "secret" plans or missions somehow, then we could restrict cousins to only a single faction over that rank but let them play lower-rank clans elsewhere (particularly in "friendly" factions, however we manage to define that).

Ok I talked long with Oliver and the two of us agree...

To begin with for all the players that play through the Beta Test and help you bring this game live again, we feel you should give everyone a bonus of:

200 Retainers, 15,000 Crowns, 2,000 Influence to the player's main clan

Next make everyone declare a main faction that they will play within. Now if a player chooses to play all (3) clans in just their Main Declared faction, then they will get another bonus for each of their 3x clans of:

100 Retainer, 5,000 Crowns, 2,000 Influence.

Now if players choose to NOT start all of their (3)clans in the same faction, then they get NOTHING!!! Also only players that play (3) clans within the same declared faction, only those players can become seniors within that Main Declared faction. Now anyone that decides to play all (3) clans within the same faction, do not need to become seniors but they have the choice to do that.

After (6) months of game play, then those players have the option to add up to (1-3) more clans. These new clans can either be in their same declared Main faction or they can join other factions that are not direct enemies of each other. The objection of the GM is not valid. The Imperials will NEVER EVER be friends with the Barbarians and Boda. The One True God faiths(Banner/Gift/Ring/OOH) will NEVER EVER be friends with the B&F, Serkeanar, and Cult of the Dark One.  These relationships never change, never have never will. The others are grey in relations. Start a relationship table and just update it if something changes and let the players know. You can also only allow cousin clans in other factions only get to rank 15 as well too. Honestly a clans Rank within a faction does mean anything, as it never has in the past.

As for seniors, I have talked to a number of players and it would be far better for you and the game, to get players as seniors from the beginning.  Those players that have served as seniors before and desire to do it again, interview them and let them be the seniors in their declared main factions. It will be a lot easier to recruite old players and new players to the game. Just make them the seniors, all the players that go through the Beta-Test are mostly Die-Hard and were former Seniors from before. Just make them seniors again and lets get this ball rolling. It would be esier for you and the game, to just do it. Also we believe you should also allow that senior to also pick up a sigle declared factional declared city and just spread their (3) clans near that city for them to play. We need to get this game up and running as soon as possible.

I have no problems giving out bonuses similar to those for reasons like those you mentioned.  I just don't think that bonuses by themselves are going to combat abusers.

The way I figure enemies is that everyone will be an enemy of the NPC "factions", so there's no point in mentioning those as "can't ever be aligned with".

As for the Imps, I thought the idea was to make them more "friendly" in this version, especially to the families - are you saying that the Boda should continue to be an exception to this better-behaved structure?

I know that rank hasn't been much used in the past, but I was wondering if that could be made useful somehow.  Perhaps instead of declaring a primary faction you would get that automatically when your first clan achieved some particular rank, for instance.  If we wanted, we could also allow the faction to reward clans in some way as they rise through the ranks.  We've talked about disallowing regiments for some period of time, for instance, and that might be tied to rank (e.g. only Rank <= 10 is permitted to command regiments).  Since rank tells us something about how much they're promoting a faction's interest and how long they've been at it, it sounded like a good way to add factional benefits or remove restrictions in general.

I agree about having seniors early - I've been planning on having some of the "old hands" play as seniors (or senior pro tem) from early on.  I don't want to have to deal with those responsibilities myself and you guys have the experience we need.

However, what are you going to do about players that insist on abusing the system (bonuses notwithstanding) and use cousin clans to spy on competing factions?  Anyone that's willing to behave that way (which does not include the serious players) isn't going to be concerned about losing bonuses at all - they're just there to mess up anything they can reach.

One thing I don't much like and probably won't work terribly well is to tell factions (seniors or perhaps others) what other factions their clans have cousins in.  At least that would let them know where an information leak might occur.

Davin I play the game to have fun, play in character, and play with others that become my friends. I have always tried to play within character and try to not take advantage of the system. For me I will Declare my Primary Faction to be "Seeker" so all (3) clans will be Seeker. Then when I can I will pick up a City Leader position for a Seeker city if I can. Then when I can add +3 more clans, I will most likely add (2) Cymru clans and (1) Gift clan. This is or will be my game play I will follow, but this is me. I can't speak for those that might be of low character, they have to reflect on their own selves in the end. If it becomes discovered by in-game seniors and more importantly the GM, then that will be reacted too.

Yeah, it's just a matter of having a way to notice such poor behavior. Maybe we'll get lucky and nobody will want to bother acting up. But being a programmer I'm constantly on the lookout for loopholes.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137595' dateline='1580948625']
Davin I play the game to have fun, play in character, and play with others that become my friends. I have always tried to play within character and try to not take advantage of the system. For me I will Declare my Primary Faction to be "Seeker" so all (3) clans will be Seeker. Then when I can I will pick up a City Leader position for a Seeker city if I can. Then when I can add +3 more clans, I will most likely add (2) Cymru clans and (1) Gift clan. This is or will be my game play I will follow, but this is me. I can't speak for those that might be of low character, they have to reflect on their own selves in the end. If it becomes discovered by in-game seniors and more importantly the GM, then that will be reacted too.
[/quote]

In your example, would you expect to rise to high-ranking (not necessarily senior) positions in the Cymru or Gift, or would you just play those as minor clans running around having fun?

If we can solve the problem of abuse neatly (which I doubt) then I don't see any reason for allowing even more clans per player (provided they can keep up with them).

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137592' dateline='1580942779']
Ok I talked long with Oliver and the two of us agree...

To begin with for all the players that play through the Beta Test and help you bring this game live again, we feel you should give everyone a bonus of:

200 Retainers, 15,000 Crowns, 2,000 Influence to the player's main clan

Next make everyone declare a main faction that they will play within. Now if a player chooses to play all (3) clans in just their Main Declared faction, then they will get another bonus for each of their 3x clans of:

100 Retainer, 5,000 Crowns, 2,000 Influence.

Now if players choose to NOT start all of their (3)clans in the same faction, then they get NOTHING!!! Also only players that play (3) clans within the same declared faction, only those players can become seniors within that Main Declared faction. Now anyone that decides to play all (3) clans within the same faction, do not need to become seniors but they have the choice to do that.

After (6) months of game play, then those players have the option to add up to (1-3) more clans. These new clans can either be in their same declared Main faction or they can join other factions that are not direct enemies of each other. The objection of the GM is not valid. The Imperials will NEVER EVER be friends with the Barbarians and Boda. The One True God faiths(Banner/Gift/Ring/OOH) will NEVER EVER be friends with the B&F, Serkeanar, and Cult of the Dark One.  These relationships never change, never have never will. The others are grey in relations. Start a relationship table and just update it if something changes and let the players know. You can also only allow cousin clans in other factions only get to rank 15 as well too. Honestly a clans Rank within a faction does mean anything, as it never has in the past.

As for seniors, I have talked to a number of players and it would be far better for you and the game, to get players as seniors from the beginning.  Those players that have served as seniors before and desire to do it again, interview them and let them be the seniors in their declared main factions. It will be a lot easier to recruite old players and new players to the game. Just make them the seniors, all the players that go through the Beta-Test are mostly Die-Hard and were former Seniors from before. Just make them seniors again and lets get this ball rolling. It would be esier for you and the game, to just do it. Also we believe you should also allow that senior to also pick up a sigle declared factional declared city and just spread their (3) clans near that city for them to play. We need to get this game up and running as soon as possible.
[/quote]

I agree with everything Penn has written here, and think it is a good idea to have seniors start out and beta test the game.  It will make recruiting friends and others much easier.

Oliver

[quote='Davin' pid='137594' dateline='1580948031']
However, what are you going to do about players that insist on abusing the system (bonuses notwithstanding) and use cousin clans to spy on competing factions?  Anyone that's willing to behave that way (which does not include the serious players) isn't going to be concerned about losing bonuses at all - they're just there to mess up anything they can reach.

One thing I don't much like and probably won't work terribly well is to tell factions (seniors or perhaps others) what other factions their clans have cousins in.  At least that would let them know where an information leak might occur.
[/quote]

Part of me thinks "so what" about spies.  The fun of the game is politics, power gaming, and deal-making.  I think there should be some parameters -- such as Imperials shouldn't play Barbarians or a OTG player shouldn't also be a Blood and Fire player... unless there was a good reason (and there could be).  Letting the players figure things out is what makes the game fun. I think we *might* be spending too much time focusing on this when it may just work itself out.  Players will talk.  I remember being on the phone with people talking about various plans in-game over the years.  I still think about stuff from when I played 20 years ago.  This game was one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had -- and that was barely a turn a month.  And for a while, it was often just a few a year.  The seniors will take care of things and if they don't there is always the veto of the #0.

[quote=Davin]
[quote=DreamWeaver]
Davin I play the game to have fun, play in character, and play with others that become my friends. I have always tried to play within character and try to not take advantage of the system. For me I will Declare my Primary Faction to be "Seeker" so all (3) clans will be Seeker. Then when I can I will pick up a City Leader position for a Seeker city if I can. Then when I can add +3 more clans, I will most likely add (2) Cymru clans and (1) Gift clan. This is or will be my game play I will follow, but this is me. I can't speak for those that might be of low character, they have to reflect on their own selves in the end. If it becomes discovered by in-game seniors and more importantly the GM, then that will be reacted too.
[/quote]

In your example, would you expect to rise to high-ranking (not necessarily senior) positions in the Cymru or Gift, or would you just play those as minor clans running around having fun?

If we can solve the problem of abuse neatly (which I doubt) then I don't see any reason for allowing even more clans per player (provided they can keep up with them).
[/quote]
Hi Davin,

I would play my (2) Cymru clans as in Character as People's Defenders. I might go after trouble makers or do things for the People or Cymru goals. Build roads, or build on a city that the Cymru wanted worked on, or maybe hunt down some smelly Barbarian Horde or some nasty Bandits. As for the Gift I would work on my idea of developing the "Bath House", or work on developing the "Harbor Fort", or a "Great Light House". Maybe work on my medical knowledge, or even "Healing Gregorian Chant music".

As to things that the Cymru wanted me to do for my connections with them, I would work with the Cymru factional seniorship - Steve Kort to do what he wanted me to do. I would be totally above board and completely transparent. I would work to make a real in-game connection between the Seekers and Cymru. I would do the same with and for my Gift clan as well too I can see many In-Game connections worked out between factions.

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137599' dateline='1580956267']
Part of me thinks "so what" about spies.  The fun of the game is politics, power gaming, and deal-making.  I think there should be some parameters -- such as Imperials shouldn't play Barbarians or a OTG player shouldn't also be a Blood and Fire player... unless there was a good reason (and there could be).  Letting the players figure things out is what makes the game fun. I think we *might* be spending too much time focusing on this when it may just work itself out.  Players will talk.  I remember being on the phone with people talking about various plans in-game over the years.  I still think about stuff from when I played 20 years ago.  This game was one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had -- and that was barely a turn a month.  And for a while, it was often just a few a year.  The seniors will take care of things and if they don't there is always the veto of the #0.
[/quote]

Well, you may be right -- I may be over-thinking this.  It's just that I like to provide games that are reasonably "fair".  I think that as a player I'd go crazy if I was playing my best within the rules and had someone trash my old (and expensive) position by "cheating".  I'm just trying to minimize such occurrences.

I think the seniors could police things just fine if they noticed when problems occur.  I don't see any good way to help them figure out what's going on behind the scenes, though.  I don't suppose you've got any suggestions to help with detection/reporting, do you (short of my personally monitoring every move that every clan makes)?

[quote='Davin' pid='137601' dateline='1580962997']
[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137599' dateline='1580956267']
Part of me thinks "so what" about spies.  The fun of the game is politics, power gaming, and deal-making.  I think there should be some parameters -- such as Imperials shouldn't play Barbarians or a OTG player shouldn't also be a Blood and Fire player... unless there was a good reason (and there could be).  Letting the players figure things out is what makes the game fun. I think we *might* be spending too much time focusing on this when it may just work itself out.  Players will talk.  I remember being on the phone with people talking about various plans in-game over the years.  I still think about stuff from when I played 20 years ago.  This game was one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had -- and that was barely a turn a month.  And for a while, it was often just a few a year.  The seniors will take care of things and if they don't there is always the veto of the #0.
[/quote]

Well, you may be right -- I may be over-thinking this.  It's just that I like to provide games that are reasonably "fair".  I think that as a player I'd go crazy if I was playing my best within the rules and had someone trash my old (and expensive) position by "cheating".  I'm just trying to minimize such occurrences.

I think the seniors could police things just fine if they noticed when problems occur.  I don't see any good way to help them figure out what's going on behind the scenes, though.  I don't suppose you've got any suggestions to help with detection/reporting, do you (short of my personally monitoring every move that every clan makes)?
[/quote]

Falling victim to betrayal is part of the game.  Where abuse comes in is when you have the Blood and Fire Senior #1 with three Gift clans building Blood and Fire temples - that's an easy fix... the retainers refuse and if pressed kill the clan leader and the player "gets the hint."  This is an abuse.

But imagine if a Getham player who has several Getham clans and an Imperial clan lets it slip that the Getham are providing a large sum of materials to the Imperials, and says this to a Boda player... I don't think that is a problem.  It is game information.  

The real problem of potential abuse will likely (just my opinion) happen between seniors.  For example, let's say I'm the Gift Senior #1 (which I would be just fine with) and I'm on the phone with the Blood and Fire Senior #4 who also plays a Roder clan.  I share with him that I am just about ready to finish a level 30 Gift Temple and talk about some cool aspects fo the city.  This player then tells the B & F #1 who starts to undermine my efforts in the city resulting in a huge spike in B & F influence in the city and I have no idea what just happened.  This isn't really an abuse but I have found over the years we senior players like to talk and sometimes we talk too much.  Still not a major issue.

A real abuse would be, the Imperials are planning a major offensive against a Boda city.  Let's say I'm the Imperial player organizing the offensive because I'm in the area and have the forces.  What if I am also, secretly, a Boda player who is also city leader of the city being sieged.  I intentionally give my units poor orders and deliberately set up the siege to fail. This is certainly a conflict of interest and should be avoided.  This tells senior players to KNOW who is in your faction!

I would recommend let it organically work itself out and handle extreme abuses if they happen.  The GM always controls the #0.

Oliver

I always try to get to know all the players that play within the faction that I am a senior within. In most cases I am extremely successful at learning whom is playing within the faction. It takes time to get to know people and it is a leaning process. It is called making friends and that is the way I look at it always. I have made many close friendships that have survived the test of time. So I feel that in most cases it is the seniors themselves that discover possible abuses so lets not worry about that so much. Now it helps if the GM also can just keep his eyes on the situations and speak up if their is something going on.

For me the bigger abuse possibilities is when seniors themselves grant special favors through dispensation budgets to grant bonuses to clans when they don't really have a factional based reason.  Example of giving your own clans a bonus or others a bonus for no in game reason.  When ever I did something I always did a In Game 3x5 card to explain a grant/task to support what and why. Also abuse of assigning regiments to a clan, and not giving any reason why the regiments are being assigned.  I always provide supporting details for In Game explanations to a #0 just to explain what and why the actions are being made. Doing this always explains and is a perfect CYA. A little bit of common sense goes a long way.

On a different topic, I understand that the GM wants to start all clans in a smaller area of the continent of Midgard  instead of the total content of A-1 to A-12 over to F-1 to F12. I think this is a bad idea, just allow players that are former players to choose their starting locations. If you want, start up New players in some start points and just let the game to develop as it develops. Allow the game to develop as it goes, let it grow as it will.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137603' dateline='1581026846']
I always try to get to know all the players that play within the faction that I am a senior within. In most cases I am extremely successful at learning whom is playing within the faction. It takes time to get to know people and it is a leaning process. It is called making friends and that is the way I look at it always. I have made many close friendships that have survived the test of time. So I feel that in most cases it is the seniors themselves that discover possible abuses so lets not worry about that so much. Now it helps if the GM also can just keep his eyes on the situations and speak up if their is something going on.

For me the bigger abuse possibilities is when seniors themselves grant special favors through dispensation budgets to grant bonuses to clans when they don't really have a factional based reason.  Example of giving your own clans a bonus or others a bonus for no in game reason.  When ever I did something I always did a In Game 3x5 card to explain a grant/task to support what and why. Also abuse of assigning regiments to a clan, and not giving any reason why the regiments are being assigned.  I always provide supporting details for In Game explanations to a #0 just to explain what and why the actions are being made. Doing this always explains and is a perfect CYA. A little bit of common sense goes a long way.

On a different topic, I understand that the GM wants to start all clans in a smaller area of the continent of Midgard  instead of the total content of A-1 to A-12 over to F-1 to F12. I think this is a bad idea, just allow players that are former players to choose their starting locations. If you want, start up New players in some start points and just let the game to develop as it develops. Allow the game to develop as it goes, let it grow as it will.
[/quote]

I agree with Penn on starting locations.  For example, I would hope that my past experience and willingness to offer opinions here would grant me the opportunity to serve as a senior (I'd be happy with Gift or Ring).  I would want to be placed at the capital city or other prominent factional cities to serve as a city leader at the start.  I'm not much of an explorer and have always preferred building and city life.  I like the idea of opening up the gameplay area.  For non-experienced players have them start near cities controlled by their faction or if independent a random location -- or GM discretion.  Having everyone start in a similar area seems problematic because it would force players to travel long distances to support factional goals and that would bore me to tears.  I hated traveling long distances (which was rough when turn cycles were not processed very often) and as I mentioned I'm an "urban player" rather than a wandering explorer.

I agree with Oliver as well...the other issue with having players all start ontop of each other will cause shortages of resources that everyone will need. Such stuff like food stuffs to make rations. Then forks will all need to buy weapons types, horses and uniforms. Remember all the cities will be little better than ruins, which means the amount of anything on the market will be smaller numbers. You setting up a situation that will cause a lot of stress for many players, even experienced players will have issues too.

My advise is as Oliver said allow us experienced players to request map locations and if you must then drop the new players in starting points. Now if those new players have already bin advised by us experienced players, then let them start where they might want as well.

Also for those of us that end up being seniors ( I want the Seeker factional senior-ship) let a city that we are near be a declared city for our declared faction and allow us to become the City Leadership on startup.

Well, I was most worried about being bored with clans not having any interaction with other clans (just NPCs) because they're too far away.  Are you telling me that you prefer to feel like you're all alone in the world and interacting just with automated positions?

[quote=Davin]
Well, I was most worried about being bored with clans not having any interaction with other clans (just NPCs) because they're too far away.  Are you telling me that you prefer to feel like you're all alone in the world and interacting just with automated positions?
[/quote]
 I think you  might miss the point here...for us former players we will all choose areas where we will want to start up and as time goes on we will attract others to start up around us and expand. I am pretty sure the area that I want to start up in will be pretty populated by many clans/players that I  let know where I am at. Trust me I will not be alone, and even if I were, that would not bother me one bit. Trust me I will figure out something to keep both me as the player and you as the GM extremely occupied!!!

Theme music to set the Mood!!! (Hard to believe this awesome song was from 1986, the good old days)

[quote='Davin' pid='137606' dateline='1581046855']
Well, I was most worried about being bored with clans not having any interaction with other clans (just NPCs) because they're too far away.  Are you telling me that you prefer to feel like you're all alone in the world and interacting just with automated positions?
[/quote]

I agree with what Penn wrote in response.  Let the senior players build the "hubs" that startup players will eventually start.

Oliver

[quote=FutureSojourner]
[quote=Davin]
Well, I was most worried about being bored with clans not having any interaction with other clans (just NPCs) because they're too far away.  Are you telling me that you prefer to feel like you're all alone in the world and interacting just with automated positions?
[/quote]

I agree with what Penn wrote in response.  Let the senior players build the "hubs" that startup players will eventually start.

Oliver

[/quote]
I agree with Oliver's idea of a factional "hub" can be created. Basically start up the seniors or experienced players near their declared factional cities, this way we can begin to work on those cities and regions to make  game experience a little bit better especially for newer players. I would hop that in the beginning for those of us that wish to be seniors within our declared factions, that as a senior you will allow us to startup with becoming City Leaders of the declared city we are near and this way we can begin to process of forming up the "Hubs".

So in my example I will be declaring all (3) of my clan's Seeker and I wish to obtain the Seeker seniorship position. Next start my three clans in the same region near a declared Seeker city, and this way my main Seeker clan can be assigned as the Seeker City Leader and I can start working on setting up the "hub".

Ok, my bad.  My assumption was that you'd want to interact with other human players from the start.  I can open up the whole continent and give you "hubs" or other preferred locations to start with where you're (typically) the only players around.

Now on startup of the game....

1st - All cities will be converted to mostly Independent declared and you will make a number of them declared for each faction. Do you have any idea how many will be declare for each faction as of yet?

2nd - You stated that you were going to move the cities around a little, changing locations and maybe map details as well

3rd- You stated that you were going to downgrade all cities and make them little more than ruins, with almost wiping out all defences and city buildings along with factional offices / temples in them as well too. I also assume that you will get rid of most land upgrades and roads around them too. Also downgrading the port sizes and etc.

4th - You stated that you will do away with Imperial Perservs and  Forts, and make them all normal cities. Also your doing away with 25.0 walls/towers or 10.0 walls/towers and reduce them to '0' like the rest of Midgard cities

5th - Wipe out all factional regiments and make them set up after the game starts. Any cities should not have any regiments at all. All these type of assets should be built after the game starts.

6th - On game start assign one Declared city to each factional senior if they want to be a city leader. This is so they can start to build up that city so that that city can become a future starting hub for that faction's regiments and clans.

[quote=Davin]
Ok, my bad.  My assumption was that you'd want to interact with other human players from the start.  I can open up the whole continent and give you "hubs" or other preferred locations to start with where you're (typically) the only players around.
[/quote]

What me alone...'Never' I always have lots of friends to join me in the world of Midgard as you will learn going forward Davin! :D

Mostly that sounds right.

1) I'll have to look at the map more closely to see, but probably 1 or 2 per faction sounds reasonable for now.

2) Yep - I'd like to make some (minor) changes to give people a reason to explore, at least.

3) I don't know if I'd call them ruins, but I'd like to see at least very small populations with little infrastructure and in need of repair and growth (which I'm sure you'll be happy to help with).  Defenses should be minimal at best, and few land improvements (and those primarily for food).  I expect roads will generally be little more than rough cart paths and will need to be rebuilt into something more useful for trade.

4) I would REALLY like to get rid of the big Imp preserves/defenses, to make them like other factions, but I've been hearing complaints about that.  I think this needs more discussion.

5) Agreed

6) I don't see any problem with having starting seniors running a few cities here and there to begin with.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137612' dateline='1581102977']
What me alone...'Never' I always have lots of friends to join me in the world of Midgard as you will learn going forward Davin! :D
[/quote]

Sure - I just didn't expect the player population to grow much in the beginning, and many of those may want their own areas.  After all, we've got lots of room to play in.

[quote=Davin]
Mostly that sounds right.

Originally I said the following:

4th - You stated that you will do away with Imperial Preserves and  Forts, and make them all normal cities. Also your doing away with 25.0 walls/towers or 10.0 walls/towers and reduce them to '0' like the rest of Midgard cities

Your answer:

4) I would REALLY like to get rid of the big Imp preserves/defenses, to make them like other factions, but I've been hearing complaints about that.  I think this needs more discussion.

[/quote]

Honestly publically we have only seen comments like:

- Make all Imperial pop centers just like cities

- Do away with the Preserves and Forts

-Get rid of the 25.0 Walls/Towers that Zan gave them to protect them, when you think about 10.0 Walls/Towers being the Great Wall of China then what is a 25.0 Wall/Tower that is 2.5 times larger? A bit excessive if you ask me.  Now I would be willing to say let the Imperial Cities a little larger in size, and set they walls at 2.0  and towers at 3.0 to begin with. Maybe make their size like 15k+, that I would feel is ok. Also since they are the Big Box faction give them 5 cities to start.

- Also NO REGIMENTS at all...make them be created in game over time.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137615' dateline='1581105150']
Honestly publically we have only seen comments like:

- Make all Imperial pop centers just like cities

- Do away with the Preserves and Forts

-Get rid of the 25.0 Walls/Towers that Zan gave them to protect them, when you think about 10.0 Walls/Towers being the Great Wall of China then what is a 25.0 Wall/Tower that is 2.5 times larger? A bit excessive if you ask me.  Now I would be willing to say let the Imperial Cities a little larger in size, and set they walls at 2.0  and towers at 3.0 to begin with. Maybe make their size like 15k+, that I would feel is ok. Also since they are the Big Box faction give them 5 cities to start.
[/quote]

What about Steve's comments?

[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137484' dateline='1580522311']
Personally I do not like the idea of re-making the Imperials and here is why.   They make for the ultimate invaders to the land and create a foe that will take everything and everyone to defeat.  Especially if they are set up to send resources back to the Imperial Homeland which I would make as a closed area of the game.  This would make them a potential problem for every faction no matter what there goal is, as they would be taking resources away from the land.  So even religions that might want to avoid conflict would at least avoid assisting them because they are taking needed resources away from this area.  This makes for a very valid enemy for most other factions.  I would see both the Boda and the Roder as highly opposed to them and keeping them in check at all cost.
[/quote]
[quote='Steve Kort' pid='137486' dateline='1580525041']
While everyone suffered leave the Imperials as the big major enemy invaders of this land.   They are taking resources from this vital land and sending it back to the Homeland only further upsetting people in this land.  This keeps things as a continuing story of midgard not an alternate world of midgard.  If your going to completely redesign the world and the history then simply build a completely new world and call it something new do not say your bringing midgard back.  Minor modifications are one thing but completely redoing things leaves no value in calling it midgard.
[/quote]

Well how about sizing them down from the 25.0 walls and towers. If 10.0 is the cap them don't make them SUPER Mega structures like that. I feel they should be grossly reduced maybe 4.0 walls and 5.0 towers then. No regiments as well too.

Oliver wanted them to be cities as well and possibly open to all others.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137621' dateline='1581136915']
Well how about sizing them down from the 25.0 walls and towers. If 10.0 is the cap them don't make them SUPER Mega structures like that. I feel they should be grossly reduced maybe 4.0 walls and 5.0 towers then. No regiments as well too.

Oliver wanted them to be cities as well and possibly open to all others.
[/quote]

I disagree with Steve.  I would like to see the Imperials forced to work with others, there can still be suspicion of "do we trust the Imperials" but take them off of their pedestal.  I like the idea of Imperial Preserves, make them tough, but not 25 walls.  Remove their regiments but give them VERY strong preserves.  Open up a district of the preserve to other factional offices.  Cut them off from the Homeworld -- I would like to see it have been destroyed.  

I agree with Penn, take the walls down to 10.  If there are no regiments it will be next to impossible to take a preserve for a very long time.  Force the Imperials to trade and work with others.  The game is the best when it is a political game -- in my opinion.  The Imperials are modeled after Rome and Rome assimilated everything so it would make sense that the Imps would allow factional offices other than their own but also that they would want their offices everywhere too!  Turn the Imps into a POLITICAL faction instead of a warlike faction.

[quote=FutureSojourner]
[quote=DreamWeaver]
Well how about sizing them down from the 25.0 walls and towers. If 10.0 is the cap them don't make them SUPER Mega structures like that. I feel they should be grossly reduced maybe 4.0 walls and 5.0 towers then. No regiments as well too.

Oliver wanted them to be cities as well and possibly open to all others.
[/quote]

I disagree with Steve.  I would like to see the Imperials forced to work with others, there can still be suspicion of "do we trust the Imperials" but take them off of their pedestal.  I like the idea of Imperial Preserves, make them tough, but not 25 walls.  Remove their regiments but give them VERY strong preserves.  Open up a district of the preserve to other factional offices.  Cut them off from the Homeworld -- I would like to see it have been destroyed.  

I agree with Penn, take the walls down to 10.  If there are no regiments it will be next to impossible to take a preserve for a very long time.  Force the Imperials to trade and work with others.  The game is the best when it is a political game -- in my opinion.  The Imperials are modeled after Rome and Rome assimilated everything so it would make sense that the Imps would allow factional offices other than their own but also that they would want their offices everywhere too!  Turn the Imps into a POLITICAL faction instead of a warlike faction.
[/quote]
OK  lets look at the details about Preserves...they were 25. Walls & Towers making them impossible to siege.

Next a cities market is based off of the amount of population that is inside of the city. Most normal cities are around 10,000 protected pop, well the Preserves well 200.000+ pop which means their market would be 20x larger in size and what one could buy on it or from it. 

Next there were (3) Preserves if I remember correctly, then there were a bunch of Forts that were 10.0 Walls and 10.0 Towers.  Both the Preserves and Forts were only open to just open to Imperials only too. On top of that they also had a couple of normal Imperial cities too.

So now your stating that all the other factions you plan to give them (1-2) cities each and they will have almost nothing in defenses, and they will be  like under 7,000 pop that are open to all. Now tell me how is THAT fare?

Even ONE Preserve greatly over balances that faction giving them an extreme unfair balance.  I say cut them back, and give them the need to build up like the rest of us. With the regiments gone at the beginning of the game for everyone, my guess tof each, don't give them any more than that as well. Make the Imperial players have to build all that as well too, like the rest of us will need to do in game.hat they will be building them like crazy but they once again will have the ability to be able to do it while others will not.

Here is what I feel could be fair at game start for the Imperials:

1st - Take away all Forts and Cities

2nd - Give them the Preserves, but only give them (3-4), and make the populations more realistic.  Instead of making them 200,000+, do something like 30,000 + 10k to 30k. During the mid-16th century, when the Renaissance slowly erased the Middle Ages, London was home to more than 100,000 inhabitants. The Preserves are NOT a capitol of a country so I think giving the Imperials (4) cities with each population between 40,000 to 60,000 is more than fare.

3rd - Set the defenses at 4.0 Walls, and 5.0 Towers and NO OTHER defenses built. Make them get the resources and mancycles to  build the rest up in game like the rest of us. Make them spend the money to play the turns, to do the work in game.

4th - Since every other city will have maybe at best 1-2 city buildings in each of the building types, make the Imperials have the same and make them spend the time, resources, and paid turns to build up these super cities as well.

5th - Take away all regiments and make everyone build them from scratch, thus they will need to assign troops to defend the cities and etc. Let the Imperial players themselves do it in game work to defend these super bread baskets.

Look the Imperials will still be a Big Box faction and NO one will be able to take that away from them.  Cut them off from the Homeland, call it a plague or maybe when the Meteor hit it was actually a number of strikes and maybe the Imperial Homeland took a direct hit and is destroyed. Have the Imperials of Midgard cut off and lost all contact with Imperial home.

I don't like the idea of giving the Imperials any significant advantage over any of the other factions.  That includes preserves/forts and significant walls/towers.  I think that cutting them off from their homeland (possibly by destroying or near-destroying it) seems like a good idea to me.  I think they should have a few damaged cities just like everyone else, of similar size to other factional cities, and make them work to rebuild just like everyone else.

Rome had a huge population, back several hundred years before Midgard's time frame, but it's urban center was small (16 square miles and 11 miles of walls) and I think most of its population was spread over the countryside.  But IIRC, it's conquered territories were just the native population with a few actual Romans left to govern them.  I can't see how that looks like massive preserves even way back when they were conquering everyone they could reach.

If we have to pick up from AFTER the last games ran, then we'll need to invent an interim history to help explain this situation.  Otherwise if we go back to the asteroid strike (or have yet another one?) we have a ready-made excuse for substantial changes in their situation and behavior.

I think the original game reasons for Imperials with massive cities and massive defenses must have been to explain why everyone didn't just band together and stomp them out.  If they aren't as devastating to the continent, then I don't see any need for them to have massive defenses and advantages over all the other factions to defend against the rest of the world, either.  (That's from a game designer's point of view rather than a "historical" viewpoint.)

If we make the Imperials less of a conquer-or-kill everyone faction and make them play much like other factions just trying to take over as much territory as they can politically, then that would be a fairer setting.  They can still have a history of being conquerors but they can have mellowed due to circumstances beyond their control and a need to "get along" to a certain extent with those around them.  They can still be militarily organized and promote that organization and have good training/troops to that end.  In addition, I like the idea of them spreading their version of a "standard law" as much as possible and providing such services to people within their areas.  This organization and abilities keeps them as a major military-based player in the game, much as they were, but hopefully without as much extreme craziness to go with it.

I really like the idea of making the game fair and balanced for everyone - that's how a game ought to be, IMO.  Who can explain to me why the Imperials should have major built-in advantages over everyone else?

Hey I would rather put them on equal footing with everyone else, but many seem to want to continue the unfairness of the past. I am only trying to tone back or down that and make it much more fair to deal with

Ok, so maybe we need someone else (such as Steve or his companions) to chime in here and convince us that they SHOULD have big advantages over everyone else.  Or perhaps, if they get some advantages then they should also get counter-balancing disadvantages to keep things more even?

Ah maybe Steve or Oliver can chime in!!! There are others too that could also comment publcally too like Brian the former IMPERIAL #1 or maybe Matt too.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137637' dateline='1581223215']
Ah maybe Steve or Oliver can chime in!!! There are others too that could also comment publcally too like Brian the former IMPERIAL #1 or maybe Matt too.
[/quote]

I agree with reducing the power of the Imperials and making them more cooperative.  I think it would be fun to play this new Imperial faction as a city leader -- striving for a cosmopolitan city with a multitude of factional offices and trying to create a city where everyone would want to live.  The old Imperials were too insular and I like the proposed changes.  I like the idea of preserves, but maybe make the idea of building Imperial Preserves a new factional goal - to build unseigable cities that dominate a region.

Penn:

You and I are in agreement with regard to the Imperials.  I do like the idea of scaled-down Imperial Preserves (or as I mentioned previously) having them as a factional goal.  But if they have preserves make them smaller and no forts or cities.  Preserves would also be good starting points for new players -- regardless of their faction -- since the Imperials are "sort of" neutral (with perhaps some exceptions).  

Oliver

Ok, I have asked in the past how does a faction within the game get factional resources? Now factional resources are defined as; Retainers, Crowns, and Influence. It was explained that it is the number of factional offices and the population within a declare factional cities that gets each faction it's income of these factional resources each turn. It would seem to me that the Imperials are being given a huge benefit. If the population in a declared cities is part of what gets a faction it's resources, then starting them with a population that is  80x times greater is grossly unfair. These Preserves seem to be very out of the scope of unfair. I think we should see them done away with, as well as the forts as well too. If as you have stated every other faction is only going to start with 1-2 declared cities, and a few scattered factional offices in different cities across Midgard then why do the Imperials get more than that. I have also been told that the Imperials are an entitled Big Box faction. If that is true then give them 4 cities and just give them that. Also as it has been proposed to give them 4.0 Walls and 5.0 Towers, and nothing more. When other cities will almost across the board have no defenses, that is being nice. I still don't feel it's fair, I guess it is what has always been given to that faction in the past. 

If we redo the history from the point of the asteroid strike and just take out the Preserves and Forts, and simply state they had cities it should be more than fair to let them start with the (4) cities and with some defenses of  4.0 walls and 5.0 towers. Also as it has been pointed out make them have to build up the cities buildings. Maybe they get 2-4 f each and these cities are between 20,000 to 25,000 annexed populations.  Anything greater would be grossly unfair and excessive. 

I would once again like to see the following defined by the GM for each faction:

1) What factions will be in play for players at the game start?

2) How many cities will each faction have at the game start? 

3) How many factional offices or temples will each faction have at the game start?

Everyone talks about 'transparency' these days, so I think this should be called out and made public for all to see.

You have called out that the Imperials had a grossly unfair advantage, then let us end it and just define it.  It would seem that the collective active players here that are willing to post here have already spoken. The GM and the collective seem to want the end of the Entitled Big Box factional view. So let's end this and move on.

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137639' dateline='1581246844']
I agree with reducing the power of the Imperials and making them more cooperative.  I think it would be fun to play this new Imperial faction as a city leader -- striving for a cosmopolitan city with a multitude of factional offices and trying to create a city where everyone would want to live.  The old Imperials were too insular and I like the proposed changes.  I like the idea of preserves, but maybe make the idea of building Imperial Preserves a new factional goal - to build unseigable cities that dominate a region.
[/quote]

I think that letting the Imperials build up to Preserves is as great idea, but any other faction should also be able to do that if they wanted to in order to satisfy their own goals.  I've been thinking about having several nomenclatures of "city" determined simply by population size (rather than specific features), and something general like a Preserve could be added to that -- perhaps we could call it a Metropolis (like old Rome)?

[quote='Dark Shadows' pid='137643' dateline='1581299626']
I would once again like to see the following defined by the GM for each faction:

1) What factions will be in play for players at the game start?

2) How many cities will each faction have at the game start? 

3) How many factional offices or temples will each faction have at the game start?
[/quote]

I haven't settled on fixed numbers for these (and may not until we're about to begin), that's why I'm asking for input and discussion.  But I would like to see them spread out as evenly as is feasible.  I'm also thinking we may not start with any offices/temples except a few in their initially factional-declared cities.

I think we've already decided to have all the previous factions available (even if nobody signs up for them anytime soon).  But I would like to restrict the "evil" factions to NPCs-only, at least until we have a good reason to play in them, unless someone can come up with a good reason against that now.

[quote='Dark Shadows' pid='137643' dateline='1581299626']
You have called out that the Imperials had a grossly unfair advantage, then let us end it and just define it.  It would seem that the collective active players here that are willing to post here have already spoken. The GM and the collective seem to want the end of the Entitled Big Box factional view. So let's end this and move on.
[/quote]

It's only been a couple of days since we specifically asked others for their input.  They may only visit here once every week or two.  Let's give them some more time to express their views and arguments and see if they can convince us.

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.

[quote='TheDarkSide' pid='137654' dateline='1581357764']
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.
[/quote]

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.

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.

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.

[quote=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.
[/quote]

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)

[quote='Davin' pid='137671' dateline='1581454918']
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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote='Davin' pid='137671' dateline='1581454918']
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.
[/quote]

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

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?

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137680' dateline='1581475052']
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)
[/quote]

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?

[quote='Davin' pid='137695' dateline='1581657589']
[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137680' dateline='1581475052']
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)
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

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

[quote='Davin' pid='137694' dateline='1581656974']
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?
[/quote]

Ok, let's explore Independents from the Midgard Rulebook:

So let's look at the Bandit (I have played one very successfully within the game of the past):

So most of the time the clan lived and traveled the world appearing as an Independent clan but when I went into Bandit Mode, I had a clan Allias (which I would show up as a declared Bandit clan, the clan number would be different, and the clan name would also be changed to what I set it to.

That was the main bonus, along with the "Ambush Bonus" perk they got. This perk bonus allows Bandit declared clans to get the surprise jump first attack on a "target" clan they set up to attack. I was very good at this and would first scout out a good ambush location to start with. Then plan out what I would do in the way of a battle plan.  Then sit and wait for my target to fall into my trap.

For me after the attack, was the fun later when I would send a 3x5 note to the victim clan from the bogus alias clan number. My note usually was something like this:

" Catch me if you can...' Savoir-Faire (Sabwafare) is everywhere'. Thank you for the cheese, please bring more next time. See you in the Midgard Times funny papers. <wave>,<wave> ,<kiss>,<kiss> "

I would usually attack a clan killing some retainers, raid their baggage trains(stealing their stuff like crowns, resources and etc) and getaway. Then follow up with a taunting 3x5 card just to rub it in. Now that was fun and then return back to my old clan's real name and number appearing as an Independent clan.

There is a lot of work that goes into playing a declared bandit clan. There was also constant work with special actions looking for contacts and new marks. It helps to get a benefactor or sponsor to work with.  So mostly I was working alone but sometimes I was connected to others mostly NPCs.  Yes certain factions like the SOA would work with you as well too, plus other factions would also work out deals to work for them against others. Isn't that term a "Freebooter" or "Merc"?

So as I said I was a declared Bandit but just appeared to be an Independent clan. The same is true for a "Pirate" declared clan too. Allowing players to play these was both fun and exciting. Now the Heretic declared clan was a slightly different focus but also fun as well too.

 Note: As it is now if we had access to all factions I would most likely play (3) Seeker clans to begin with, but then I would consider playing clans in SOA, Bandits, Pirates, Buccaneers and even the Cult.  Normally I would say Cymru, but they are the People's Defenders and they would be against Bandits, Pirates at the least.

As listed in the above post of "Dark Shadows" the "Heretic" classification is what I used two different times:

Within Midgard USA under Zan E., I was in the process of creating a faction that was called "Seekers of Faith" which was a faith based on the Old Gods found on Midgard. It was a faith of the collected old gods that were Earth, Sky, Fire, Water, Society, and Knowledge (which Moorlock was Old God of Knowledge). All the players that were with me to stand up this faction (10 Players with 20 declared Heretic clans) were using that Heretic faction for one year.

Within Midgard UK under Stephen Wier, I was working on standing up "The Cult of the Dark One". We had just started working towards that goal, it was a NPC faction within the game for Midgard USA and Midgard UK but we were bringing it Live/Open in the game for players to actually declare for and play as a active Live PC faction.

It has been pointed out that the Cult has aided in standing up and being a benefactor for both the Cymru - Peoples Defender in Midgard USA, and the Seekers of Knowledge  in Midgard UK. In both cases the Cult aided each of these factions to get started and then backed away to let them both grow on their own.

I view the Heretic faction as a roleplaying one. It is used to open the door to build other new religions faiths within the game. So it should be available.

Where can I get a copy of the rules, as they are now?  I'm going off of memory from a game that I have not played in 20 years.  

However, I have started to "daydream" about Midgard again.  This is a good thing, so let's make sure this happens.  I want Midgard again!

Oliver

Oliver, I can send you a copy of Midgard USA - Zan's Rules, and a copy of Midgard UK - Stephen Weir's Rules

I would love the option to play a "declared Bandit" again. The GM couple also do that too, but it is just another playing option for us players.

I feel the GM should always have the option to spin up an NPC clan in any faction to be used as needed. Maybe there should be some flag that sets the clan in a faction but does not appear on the senior reports as a clan in the faction. Ths NPC clans would be unknow to only those that actually encounter them,

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137707' dateline='1581678102']
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.  
[/quote]

True enough, but I was trying to use "good/evil" and "good/bad" in the most generic of ways (which is why I kept putting it in quotes).  Perhaps it could be better described (much like you indicated) that "bad" was for groups that don't want to get along with anyone (possibly with the exception of groups effectively like their own).  If a faction is intent on "evil" (i.e. causing harm to everyone else), then to me that qualifies as not being a good faction for players.  And that's what I'm trying to keep separated out.

See also my previous note about organized factions sounding reasonably playable, even those that were mostly in opposition to most players' behaviors.

[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137729' dateline='1581777855']
Where can I get a copy of the rules, as they are now?  I'm going off of memory from a game that I have not played in 20 years.  
[/quote]

Visit my "sample reports" page at <[url=www.talisman-games.com/midgard/samples]www.talisman-games.com/midgard/samples[/url]> and there you can find a (poor) copy of the rules that I'm basing the new code on (to start with).  It's one of the more recent manuals I was given, though I'm sure several others were available from Zan's or the UK game with different changes in them.  We'll talk about those possibilities as options when I'm further along.

I think all the discussions we've been having here will go a long way to rewriting the manual, as well, so keep it coming guys.

[quote='Dark Shadows' pid='137710' dateline='1581695276']
So let's look at the Bandit (I have played one very successfully within the game of the past):

So most of the time the clan lived and traveled the world appearing as an Independent clan but when I went into Bandit Mode, I had a clan Allias (which I would show up as a declared Bandit clan, the clan number would be different, and the clan name would also be changed to what I set it to.

That was the main bonus, along with the "Ambush Bonus" perk they got. This perk bonus allows Bandit declared clans to get the surprise jump first attack on a "target" clan they set up to attack. I was very good at this and would first scout out a good ambush location to start with. Then plan out what I would do in the way of a battle plan.  Then sit and wait for my target to fall into my trap.
[/quote]

I hear you, and we can discuss it.  But let me bring up another possibility...

I'd been thinking long ago about the bandit's "alias" ability and wondering why it had to be so limited.  Could not pretty much any clan (especially Independents) set up an alias under which to operate anonymously whenever desired?  Of course, most factional leadership would be unhappy with this and would likely take punitive action if they were caught operating that way.  (And spies might be able to break almost anyone's cover identity, anyway, so it's not going to be particularly safe overall.)

It may be a little too loose to impersonate other factions as well, and if so then perhaps an aliased clan would always appear as Independent.  (You'd need some serious spycraft to impersonate another clan, I'd think.)  This also means that anyone wanting to remain Independent might well be widely regarded with some suspicion, not only because their allegiance is unknown but also because they may be "in disguise".  This also gives an additional reason for clans to declare with a faction - it's safer from a public-relations point of view.

So what's wrong with allowing pretty much anyone to operate with an alias?

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137718' dateline='1581706767']
Within Midgard UK under Stephen Wier, I was working on standing up "The Cult of the Dark One". We had just started working towards that goal, it was a NPC faction within the game for Midgard USA and Midgard UK but we were bringing it Live/Open in the game for players to actually declare for and play as a active Live PC faction.

It has been pointed out that the Cult has aided in standing up and being a benefactor for both the Cymru - Peoples Defender in Midgard USA, and the Seekers of Knowledge  in Midgard UK. In both cases the Cult aided each of these factions to get started and then backed away to let them both grow on their own.

I view the Heretic faction as a roleplaying one. It is used to open the door to build other new religions faiths within the game. So it should be available.
[/quote]

If I allow factions to exist without any particular declared clans restriction, then why can't new factions (religious and secular) be started with little more than GM permission?  Who needs to have all the extra time/clans that used to be required?  Of course we'd still need the usual goals and such to be well-defined and significantly different than any of the other factions, and at least a starting clan to jump in and "run" it.

So why not let new factions appear spontaneously without a "jumping off" faction like Heretics to come from?

[quote='TheDarkSide' pid='137742' dateline='1581817536']
I feel the GM should always have the option to spin up an NPC clan in any faction to be used as needed. Maybe there should be some flag that sets the clan in a faction but does not appear on the senior reports as a clan in the faction. Ths NPC clans would be unknow to only those that actually encounter them,
[/quote]
 
I see good and bad points about that idea.  It's good in that I can stick my finger into factional activity and do things that I feel like need to be done there.  But that's bad because I'd have to "play" the clan and I really don't have time for that.  Besides, what's to stop me from creating a normal clan through the game system and playing it just like anyone else if I need to do that?  (I really don't feel like I ought to be using NPC players to manipulate things that PCs can't do.  If I needed that, I'd just create the change in the program directly out of nothing.)

Also bad is that I may not be doing what the seniors want me to be doing.  If I end up spoiling long-laid plans or goals, especially if I'm not aware of them, that's not going to make me any friends.  I also don't want to instigate hostilities with anyone that the factional leadership is trying to promote good will, and vice versa.

Right now, I'm leaning in the direction of not mixing PCs and NPCs at all.  I'll certainly have enough work to do (and opportunities) with normal NPCs already.

So Davin just state that the following are Closed and not for PC to play:

Barbarian (SeaKing)
Skelt (Land based Barbarian)
Bandits
Pirates
Heretics
Blood & Fire
Serkeanar
Cult of the Dark One
SOA
Guilds
Brotherhood

Just call it Davin and draw a line in the sand and state these factions are just NPC only, and lets move on with other topics.

We talked about several of these being basically Organized and it's probably reasonable to allow them to have players in them (for those that really want to play in those sorts of factions). But IMO the Disorganized groups Bandits/Pirates/etc. should remain as NPCs. So try drawing your dividing line a little differently.