getting players to organize (against each other)

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-07 17:56:34

Why do we want players to organize into groups, houses, clans or other mobs? Why do we want these groups to fight each other? How shall we accomplish it?

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-07 18:34:09
In-Reply-To: 104

		Phew, now this is quite an undertaking. First of all, the reason WHY we want players to organize into mobs and fight each other is because they will do it regardless of our efforts. People have an inherent quality of forming groups, and this is something we can absolutely rely upon. There's nothing that will make the individual feel more proud than a display of power justified by a supreme authority. Therefore it is only smart of us to provide them with a number of templates for this purpose. Of course, one could argue that communities only exist in our heads, and are formed through communication and such, but we can't rely on every player being able to role-play to such challenging extent. Besides, people form nations, churches, families, tribes, cities and whatnot all the time. They have names and definitions for their groups and organizations. We must be able to provide the players with the motivation that accomplishes this. And that's where the "how" comes in.
		
		Player community systems should be hard-coded into the gaming system. Period. A gaming system where people would be a part of something upon agreement would have a rather shallow identity, and the individual members would have very little to identify with (to be proud of). Just like in real life, each community must have a name and a purpose. Its own unique habits, values and such. The real challenge here lies in providing the players with the proper motivation that is needed in order for this to succeed. Some proposed initial ideas are:
		
		- Religions. Religions form churches. Churches have a very strong identity, because it is directly dictated by a god. Therefore, it is always righteous, and everyone who disagrees with God's teachings is a heathen, and should be cast down from his arrogance!
		
		- Trainers. There are many skills in Majik that can/must be learned from other players. Such things would include unique combat styles, magic, artwork, craftsmanship etc. These would form groups that would jealously protect their trade secrets ... and prevent anyone from abusing them.
		
		- Spheres of Power. The True Name spheres. These humongous orbs are a real treat, because they can change ownership rather quick, can easily be protected, and have a very concrete and well-defined use (learning a true name is only possible with these orbs). I can well imagine people looking after these.
		
		- Houses. These could be formed by players who have "real life" connection with each other, or for some other not-so-well-defined reason. They would have little or no specific purpose, but they would have a very high sense of identity and a very high state of companionship. They would rival among each other just because the heck of it.
		
		These are my initial 2 cents, I will write more once I hear comments.
		

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-07 18:35:51
In-Reply-To: 104

Here's a fancy English word I just remembered: factionalism. There are some particular subjects around which we should direct players' natural urge to form groups.

First, religion. This is a major one. We need to make sure that at least some religious sects will be at each others' throats at any given time. Will players do this on their own? Can anyone come up with concrete motives for religious groups to target each other?

Second, race. I guess that here we can depend on players' willingness to play their roles.

Third, schools. A bit of a bad title. This is the non-religious people's equivalent of the first item. Because skills are taught by masters to disciples, we will have several masters or teachers who have a whole bunch of loyal apprentices. We somehow have to get these masters to want to compete with each other.

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-14 15:11:21
In-Reply-To: 104

Concrete motives for religious groups to target each other, apart from the fun part of killing infidels, would be that their God would reward them. Rewards can be such things as items, higher positions in the church that will yield more spells and better types of praying, permanent blessings of various types (these could affect stats, skills, or even give the players new abilities that mortals don't usually have, such as levitation or invisibility).

Concrete motives of races rivaling each other wouldn't only be about playing roles, it would also be about convenience. As players might not know each others' languages for example, the only way they can benefit from each other would be killing each other and stealing each others' items, blueprints etc. Maybe, like in Dark Age of Camelot, we could contribute a number of relics for different races. These could be very powerful items that affect the owner race in some manner. A good enough reason to pursue all orcs would be that maybe, just maybe, that big orc over there has the magickal Supreme Orb of Orcish Rule +5 willpower. Cities of different races could also have war standards (flags) and such, and the standards in a town could improve it's features, like food production, level of npc guards etc, somehow in addition to being trophies etc.

The motives for masters to rival with each other could be, in addition to glory and fame, that people would have to pay membership fees to join these groups, and all members, especially teachers, would profit from them. Also, the benefits of a large school would be high availability of training (more people would join) and high quality of training (people would stay once they have joined).

From: beregar
Date: 2002-01-14 15:39:41
In-Reply-To: 104

I'm not sure why we would want players totally against eachother. If gods start giving rewards for their worshippers who fight I see people not doing anything else. What happens to those individuals who want to perform daily rutines in a church and progress through hierarchy without bloodshed? I want to make it as easy for them to progress as for warring clerics.

Actually, I think that in times of peace the church would favor more peace inclined clerics over the warring ones and placing the warring ones in ranks of church inquisition. This would of course mean that when religious unrest raises its ugly head, church inquisition would quickly get power in the church's administrative body

What comes to relics, I think their powers should be immense but not neccesarily obvious. For example, Nenya, one of the three elven rings in lord of the rings allowed Galadriel to hide Lorien in a "dream" where flow of time was entirely different. No-one ever saw Galadriel or Elrond ever throwing fireballs or the like, their power was more subtle, yet immense. This is what I'd like to see in Majik, high-magic which affects and alters huge areas, like flying castles; places which can be reached only in certain moon phases or by opening a gate to them, otherwise you would just reach an isle in a normal world (Avalon and its priestess, anyone?); Groves filled with ancient trees that sometimes speak and teach creatures and mystical places such as ponds that heal, curse or otherwise alter the creatures who drank from them or which are home to mystical creatures (like lady of the lake).

I think what is wrong in most fantasy settings is that they are more based in a forgotten realms type world which is filled with fireball throwing wizards but nothing big can't be done because of some balance factor. I'd rather see a Tolkien type world where magic is rare and bound into places but where those who have the power use it subtly and for great effects. I also would like to see for example orcish rituals which can cause earthquakes otherside of the world and collapse whole cities, and require a lot of preparation so players are not performing them whole time.

This is of course only my opinion and I can see others having their own but I'm wondering what happened to the idea where things in Majik could as well be solved by vicious politicing and backstabbing as they could with a invanding army?

Beregar

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-14 17:11:52
In-Reply-To: 104

Replying to message #200.

In response to paragraph 1: there's nothing preventing a God from promoting peaceful behaviour.

In response to paragraph 2: that's up to the leaders of the church to decide.

In response to paragraph 3: what are these relics? Where do they come from? How does a player recognize one? How do items turn into relics?

Paragraph 4: yeah, well... yeah

Paragraph 5: The idea is taken so strongly for granted that there's no need to debate it. Politics and warfare are tools available to players who wish to use them.

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-14 17:27:48
In-Reply-To: 104

I would see that Gods promote values and actions that are in line with their views, naturally. Worshippers of Harum would most likely be frowned upon if they didn't want to fight, whereas worshippers of Dazzt would be frowned upon if they did. The player chooses his God, the God doesn't choose the player. However, a crusade should always be justified. How can a God not appreciate a mortal who is supporting his cause in the process of ridding the world of infidels? All Gods want power, more power, limitless power, and it is not achieved through idle talk and philosophical ponderings. Ever.

As for magic, I too would prefer most magic to be very high scale and powerful, but not necessarily subtle or hidden, eventhough this is preferable to little mundane effects such as balls of fire or such.