I thought you didn't like this feature of T'Nyc... There's one or two
T'nyc veterans on this list. What do they think?
> It introduces a
> level of intrigue not presently in Olympia. During one great battle
> with Amadeus the Accursed, we had spotters all over the place and
> traced about half his army back to being a minion of General Bal
> Morgil. We then targeted the good general, and in a stunning display
> of intrigue, we swiped a good portion of the evil warlord's forces.
It forces this intriuge on players. Many Olympians are less violent
types who are looking for a game which will let them build a house and
live happily ever-after. Losing a third of their faction to a skilled
PERSUADE would make them upset. It might even make warlord types upset.
See how angry people are when they just lose a unit! :-)
> The question that has to be answered: if we make faction trees
> optional, who will use them? Why?
You still get the obfuscation benefits of hiding a character's identity.
It lets attitudes default nicely up the tree. It may do good things for
an heir system.
If we make it harder to persuade characters when their lord is around,
it also makes tight empires stronger, and far-flung empires weaker.
One more point: There has been a lot of resistance to faction trees.
They should be introduced with an eye towards minimizing disruption to
the current mechanics. Once everyone is familiar with faction trees,
if the persuade-a-tree idea is a good one, it will naturually be brought
up by the players.
-- Rich Skrenta <email@example.com> N2QAV