Thanks for the food for thought, Emph. :)
I'm not sure I'm keen on setting the game up for guilds to diametrically oppose one another so that one could be considered 'winning' and another 'losing' though I agree with your argument that nobles being unable to affect their own stats and requiring the help of others would cause negotiation - but where I get a little murky is around what sorts of things the nobles can offer and vice versa. Power ICly (backing, money, etc) springs to mind, but I'm not sure how well leveraged it would be.
I'm thinking I might like the system itself to reward people, but that's probably going back and closer to the Infuence Point sphere investment thing rather than the domain game. It may just be that the domain game isn't as valuable as the IP Spheres would be for people overall. *ponder* I'll percolate on this more, however, because I like the idea of domains having stats, at least, to differentiate them.
Domain Games for ALL
I don't think it is as you've proposed Kinky. It may be under what Emph proposes though. I was agreeing with this point of yours specifically:
I'm not sure I'm keen on setting the game up for guilds to diametrically oppose one another so that one could be considered 'winning' and another 'losing'
And yet, this is what politics is - a redistribution of a limited amount of resources (or in this case, stats) according to how well you play your cards and driven by conflicting goals. The details of the mechanics can be hidden behind adjectives, but behind the scenes I believe the playing field needs to be coded and fair rather than subjective.
.
Empheba
.
Empheba
Although resources are zero-sum, politics are not.
The driving force behind politics is Power. Power is everything from the sword at one's hip to the sway of one's words, the silver in one's purse to the cultural impact one has on one's enemies--For example, Lithmore has power against Daravi because it is, perhaps unwittingly, shaping their culture by being so invasive and belligerent on a political scale.
Power is clearly not zero-sum, because my increasing military might does not have to detract from yours. The Cold War proved this, in a way, by the rapid acquisition of Power between the USSR and the US. For a more modern example, look at the European Union. By joining together into said Union, those countries acquired Power--the ability to (in theory) force the hands of other countries, by their collective bargaining / maneuvering position. Although economic resources are, in fact, zero-sum between all countries in the world, there are other ways in which to become powerful which do not specifically detract from those you struggle against.
The driving force behind politics is Power. Power is everything from the sword at one's hip to the sway of one's words, the silver in one's purse to the cultural impact one has on one's enemies--For example, Lithmore has power against Daravi because it is, perhaps unwittingly, shaping their culture by being so invasive and belligerent on a political scale.
Power is clearly not zero-sum, because my increasing military might does not have to detract from yours. The Cold War proved this, in a way, by the rapid acquisition of Power between the USSR and the US. For a more modern example, look at the European Union. By joining together into said Union, those countries acquired Power--the ability to (in theory) force the hands of other countries, by their collective bargaining / maneuvering position. Although economic resources are, in fact, zero-sum between all countries in the world, there are other ways in which to become powerful which do not specifically detract from those you struggle against.
Power is a resource like any other, regardless of if you measure it as a combination of money, military might or whatever. You can either compare your Power by letting each add up and then compare the absolute numbers, or you could detract them from each other as you go (what I guess is referred to as zero-sum here). Both leads to the same result though - a measure of who has the most Power. A straight out zero-sum game is just easier to track in a game sense.
The Cold war was actually the ultimate zero-sum game in this respect - the game of zero-sum differences. Each side worked to eat away at the advantage the other might have had. Only when they nulled each other out could a stable balance be retained.
... this is drifting off topic however. I'm perfectly fine with people not agreeing with my design ideas by all means. :)
.
Empheba
The Cold war was actually the ultimate zero-sum game in this respect - the game of zero-sum differences. Each side worked to eat away at the advantage the other might have had. Only when they nulled each other out could a stable balance be retained.
... this is drifting off topic however. I'm perfectly fine with people not agreeing with my design ideas by all means. :)
.
Empheba
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests