|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Oct 6, 2016 23:28:06 GMT
Hi all
The situation in Nemeth is getting increasingly interesting, which is a good thing for player involvement, but also complex, which is bad thing for GM workload.
So I'd like to propose an idea that had been used successfully in some previous games that I have participated in that could represent all the interest that is going on and the actions that are being taken.
The idea is called the "Gambit"
Basically when you run into a large scale diplomatic/espionage type event the GM picks a couple of outcomes with opposed ends, so in Nemeth it could be: Trial results - Nemeth is found innocent OR Nemeth is found guilty. What happened - The truth of events is revealed OR the truth of events is suppressed.
Every person who takes an appropriate action in Nemeth chooses for the margin of success of their action to be assigned to one of the potential results. So for example the SWT could take an Espionage action in Nemeth and assign the success to "The truth of events is revealed", any success they get adds to the score for the "The truth of events is revealed" outcome.
Any player can also spend influence to add to a category at a 2:1 ratio.
Once all the actions have been revealed a D20 is rolled for each category and added to it's score.
Highest total in each category wins, so if "Nemeth is found innocent" had a score of 88 and "Nemeth is found guilty" had a score of 60, then Nemeth is found innocent.
As a bonus for player involvement the highest score (from a single action) added in each category gets a small bonus to their side, so (example again) Nemeth is found innocent, but the highest score contributed in this category was 18 fro Nemeth is found guilty slightly modifies the end result. Maybe Nemeth is found guilty of one of the lesser charges, or it's revealed that one of the judges who voted innocent was bribed. Not enough to change the result but a small positive or negative effect.
Any questions ask away.
Tristan
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 6, 2016 23:37:33 GMT
As a very related concern, any upcoming negotiations with the Slavers is likely to equally involve at least 4 parties (the original parties who got involved in T1), with a possible addition of numerous parties that got involved afterwards (whether in T3 or afterwards).
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Oct 6, 2016 23:57:36 GMT
Interesting idea. It does drive home to me again how much can depend on dice rolls. On the other hand if many realms try to influence the impact of the dice roll gets lessened. What I like is the bonus thing mentioned in the end, perhaps a realm's action could be aimed at specifically making a possible fallout hit another party? In any case, I'm on the fence about this so will just look at other people's ideas on this. As a very related concern, any upcoming negotiations with the Slavers is likely to equally involve at least 4 parties (the original parties who got involved in T1), with a possible addition of numerous parties that got involved afterwards (whether in T3 or afterwards). Considering TOG is in an official state of war with the Slavers, I'd like to be added should these occur. Let the italics express my realms desire to make them suffer serious repurcussion.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 7, 2016 0:02:16 GMT
One possible concern though:
Realms are not equal, and some otherwise powerful or influential realms might not have many allies in a matter. So what happens if a single very powerful realm is facing five other much smaller realms each trying to influence the same outcome?
The obvious example are the dwarves to the north. Assuming it's dwarves vs [insert other group here] then it's two realms vs many.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Oct 7, 2016 0:15:10 GMT
If the powerful/influential realm isn't taking the actions and spending the influence (RP) then they should lose the gambit.
Realistically though a bigger realm will be able to spend more RP/GB influence on an action or have better action modifiers leading to a larger MOS which leads to a larger score.
|
|
|
Post by NSE (Falea of Tir Mor) on Oct 7, 2016 0:23:31 GMT
I'm with ToG...NSE definitely wants in on those talks (and remember the best fhomorian-spawn is a dead fhomorian-spawn!!).
|
|
|
Post by NSE (Falea of Tir Mor) on Oct 7, 2016 0:26:06 GMT
I like the general concept, although I am concerned it could easily get out of control. Also, while anyone could potentially jump in, realistically only certain realms/regents should/would have any real sway.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 7, 2016 0:29:00 GMT
I like the general concept, although I am concerned it could easily get out of control. Also, while anyone could potentially jump in, realistically only certain realms/regents should/would have any real sway. That would resolve my concern.
Basically limit influence on certain outcomes to certain parties at GM's discretion?
So in Caerleon's example, it wouldn't make sense for Lothia to have much real influence over it, whereas Bayard could. And (assuming they were player-controlled) Nagnati? Not a chance.
|
|
|
Post by NSE (Falea of Tir Mor) on Oct 7, 2016 0:32:07 GMT
That said, I do like simplifying things with a quick dice roll too - although then you have to set another date for being done woth bidding any resources towards success/failure.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Oct 7, 2016 1:13:07 GMT
I like the general concept, although I am concerned it could easily get out of control. Also, while anyone could potentially jump in, realistically only certain realms/regents should/would have any real sway. That would resolve my concern.
Basically limit influence on certain outcomes to certain parties at GM's discretion?
So in Caerleon's example, it wouldn't make sense for Lothia to have much real influence over it, whereas Bayard could. And (assuming they were player-controlled) Nagnati? Not a chance.
Maybe limit the influence spend option to realms that meet the presence test (have holding or taking create holding action)? This limits the number of players who can impact without actions.
I don't think limiting who can spend actions is worthwhile though, if Lothia wants to take Espionage actions to impact the situation let them, I'm pretty sure they get hit with Hardiness penalties which limit their impact.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Oct 7, 2016 1:18:51 GMT
I like the limiting it to certain parties, depending on the subject at hand. However instead of excluding completely, one could make it just that much more difficult for unrelated realms in grade of their interest/involvement. @nature: Understanding the need for easy resolution, I am generally against most simplification of such matters with a single diceroll as it can take away player involvement. And the reason I am very much liking this game is just that. I've had a Birthright game lose the whole campaign feel that makes it Birthright because in the end everything came down to a quick roll of a die. Win or lose, or whatever outcome, loses all meaning for me at that moment and thus my joy in a game dies. Not that the original idea here would go that far, especially as I understand there would be several categories and thus rolls, but it is just so you guys know my way of thinking. Edit: Ah, I see Tristan already replied. Edit2: Although the idea of it does lessen the load on Linde quite a lot and it might be good for those who can't be online that much. With that consideration, I would certainly not be opposed such an addition if its worked out
|
|
|
Post by X-Tir Moreth(Alexander) on Oct 7, 2016 7:22:52 GMT
Mechanically I would make a few suggestions, such as not only relying on MoS, but also letting the DDC of the actions matter. The score added could be (DDC-10)x2+MoS, that way you also reward taking difficult actions in support of it, otherwise the "optimal" strategy is to just spam 5 decrees with 5 influence spent on each. With a high enough court rating, that could generate a lot of score for very little investment. That fact that actions have to be appropriate shuts this down in the most obvious cases, but under this system low-ddc actions would still be much better.
But yeah, simplifying and minimizing GM workload is often a good idea. The GM can also "seed" the different objectives according to situation - if for example he thinks it should be easier or harder for Nemeth to not be blamed for the murder, regardless of whether they actually did it, he could give them a bonus or malus.
So lots of possible permutations. Taking too many factors into accout could mean that the simplification doesn't actually simplify that much. If nothing else, this could be a good calculation to run in the background and take advice from as gm, to see how many resources each "side" in a conflict has succesfully expended.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Oct 7, 2016 7:33:36 GMT
Without committing to use the solution: I like the idea, with the actions committed to thus far, I can see a lot of different categories. The question of competence (Who have the right to judge kings and queens. Is it up to a council of peers or it is the duty of the faiths) - Influence: this is wide enough that I think any domain could have their say in it. The question of guilt (Are Ursula & Dunbar guilty or innocent) - Influence: Limited to those who have competence as decided above, or holdings in Nemeth The question of succession (Should there be a period of Regency or not) Influence: Limited to those with holdings in Nemeth Succession is only really relevant if Ursula should be found guilty. Other categories could be created, they are basically different directed Espionage/counterespionage/adventure/warfare/diplomacy actions and I have to contemplate if it is a good idea to reveal all or some of them. What are the involved players thoughts? X-Nemeth NSE (Falea of Tir Mor) X-Tir Moreth(Alexander) Godfred Thraw BayardsKing(GT) Mercia(andreas) SouthWestern Traders
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Oct 7, 2016 7:56:58 GMT
I am most definitely going with no. I want to see how things play out as it is. And if people wish to take 10 Espionage actions in Nemeth in an attempt to murder whatever and blame whoever for whatever, or invade with military in their greedy quest for power, I say bring it. And let us use the already existing mechanics for that.
If there are one or more actions that are directly opposed, then there is always MoS.
When the GM brings you lemons, you go as sour as them, but still make lemonade. For the story must go on!
|
|
|
Post by X-Tir Moreth(Alexander) on Oct 7, 2016 8:23:36 GMT
Good point, a lot of people (myself included) has been working with the assumption of the current mechanics, shifting mechanics mid-conflict would entail a lot of new planning. This is very much a thing to keep in mind for future conflicts though, though this should be announced at the beginning of the turn. However, at the beginning of the turn... it might be hard to predict which conflict will blow up and cause a player, say me, to message EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
Seriously though, I feel bad for spamming people. For every paragraph I get, I throw 3 their way, I am kinda worried that people feel they have to agree with me just to get me to shut the [Redacted] up. Please tell me if that is the case, I am capable of shutting up - if my head explodes for that reason, that's my problem.
|
|