Re: Politics, game organizations

William Bruvold (
Fri, 19 Nov 93 16:00:22 PST

> * * *
> Well, that example is a crude first stab, but it illustrates some of
> the mechanics I'd like to get a feel for:
> o Participation in a team, order or guild is entirely optional.
> o Internal ladder of positions/offices which can be climbed.
> Various ways to obtain positions; by vote, appointment, etc.
> o Positions within group give certain expanded benefits.
> (Extra reports, ability to appoint other positions, extra
> commands).
> o Groups would have certain goals. Various groups might have
> conflicting goals, and thus would be natural enemies.
> ???
> (Good vs. "bad" magic guilds; two competing religions; two or three
> competing combat groups; a trade group; a thieves' group. Heads of
> each group vote in the Emperor of Olympia).
> ???

Two groups of comments. First on the ideas of different guilds (to
flesh some of this out and give us something to work with) and then
as to "goals" of this part of the game.

Magic guilds should focus, I would think, on only one of the
disciplines. In other words you can still create lots of mages in
lots of the different schools but if you want access to the guild
you need to be "pure" to it.

Religions would be more interesting if more than two and with
different cross cutting alliances. They each should provide somewhat
different attributes (so more than one dimension of "attributes"
possible insdie the religion). There also needs to be some
penalties for "renouncing" the religion/moving away from its path..

Trade group is good idea. I would think that it would be important
to give traders something that "politicos" need. Not sure how you
do this without opening up the game to serious bugs/player
exploitation but it is critical to note the following - the only
reason that trade expanded in Europe was that rulers needed trade
and couldn't do it themselves. They came to realize that if they
simply expropriated property they would be excluded from future
trade and then be at a competitive disadvantage with other
politicos. Without a clear, well thought out link between what
traders have to offer political rulers and visa versa it is highly
unlikely that you will ever get the most interesting of all PC
(IMO), the players who explores the world, trades in ltos of goods,
amasses gold, and ignores political divisions.
One suggestion:
Perhaps making the trade guild limited to those that
do not own castles and allowing trade guild members to a) collect
more resources in certain squares than "normal" factions and b) sell
more/different goods and provide a "bonus" to the ruler of that city
in extra tax revenue.

Thieves guild/assisins and obvious one and should conflict with
traders (and to some extent politicos). Would suggest slightly
disorganized structure (guild for each continent with reasons for
conflict) as a thieves guild is likley to be very powerful if
correctly played and will throw the game balance off (four of us
come to dominate the "world" guild and arrange a mass killing of all
politicos one turn)


Emporer of Olympia scares me unless a) he has things that people
need and b) he needs the support of other people. Remember, the
best situations are when you need others to cooperate with you but
are unsure as to whether they actually will.

I would add the
following three goals that any system should accomplish.

1. No serious disadvantage to newbies from the existance of the
2. All organization need to require power/influence to rest on
multiplayer cooperation. They can not be organizations that simply
enhance the postition of the would be hegemon.
3. Goals should and benefits shoudl be carefully thought out in
respect to a) encouraging particular kinds of actions to create
interesting game situtaions and b) which achieve game balance.

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links