|
|
Post by Nick on Aug 10, 2006 12:35:39 GMT -5
Have you ever read an Icelandic saga? The basic plot is that someone kills someone else over a cow or a 10x10 patch of farmland or something. Then the murdered one's family attacks that guy and kills him. They go back and forth like this for several chapters until basically everyone is dead. I think that your dynamic quest system would have this tendency as well. Entire families could be easily wiped out in an endless feud that would virtually guarantee mutual destruction.
Therefore, I propose that you make like the Norse and introduce a system of "weregild" (man-gold) into Genesis. Rather than killing everyone in the other family to end the dispute, the deaths on both sides are tallied when each side agrees to a peace, and the family that has lost fewer men must pay the difference to the other family in gold (in this case, items, resources, or possibly food.) The higher up in society the dead men are, the more they are worth. Thus, serfs would be worth very little, but a family would probably have to give up several of their best resources in recompense for a baron's death.
This system will allay the murderous ambitions on both sides and allow them to live in peace. If you want to keep things interesting, you could have the murderous ambition remain, but be at a very low priority and fade over time.
|
|
Irish
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by Irish on Aug 10, 2006 12:41:10 GMT -5
The theory of player-driven content would allow for the players to handle situations such as this however they see fit. Drive each other to mutual destruction? Sure, if that's what you want to do; however, I feel that with all the time a person spends on their character (especially considering permadeath) more "amiable" methods to making amends will most likely be very popular.
Many (but not all) problems that exist in traditional computer RPGs are solved naturally when primarily player-driven content is added to the mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by azgalor on Aug 10, 2006 13:07:56 GMT -5
The insight shown by both of you is excellent, but weregild would not exactly be something you can merely impose on people. Perhaps if an emperor type person were prolific enough to be able to afford enough guards to add this system in would be possible, but once again, it is player driven only. Though I do enjoy weregild, in which the winning side is punished. Very thought-provoking.
There will be constant wars, yes, but the permadeath system will, in and of itself, allay most of the problems. If you are killed before you have a chance to reproduce, and thus pass your skills on to a child, you will essentially start from scratch. Like Irish said, all problems will be solved eventually; it is so even in the real world. Both sides only have x resources.
But I can't wait to see an in-game World War... wouldn't that be some kind of spectacle?
|
|
|
|
Post by shintostar on Aug 10, 2006 14:09:36 GMT -5
The example of nordic sagas is a good one. But I think the problem of this continous killing could be thought of in terms of that ancient culture: Somewhere will be a powerful landlord, and if the killing becomes too much or if one side starts to complain, he could use his powers to ensure peace. Maybe he has a lot of fellow paladins willing to fight *everyone* until they agree to a peace. That's like it works every tale you can read.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Aug 10, 2006 14:45:54 GMT -5
I agree that the killing will eventually stop because of the permadeath. My concern is that the "ambition" system in the game will make the character feel discomfort if he does not avenge his family's murder. My idea is based on this quote from the FAQ.
"For example, if your father in the game is killed (yes, there are families, reproduction, and permanent death; see below for more details), the systems interpret the effects this would have on your character's morale, and it creates new ambitions for your character. Namely, your character now has ambition to avenge his father's death."
I basically want the game to recognize when peace has been declared and retribution paid in full. Otherwise the character would be running around with a crimp in his composure and morale until war was re-declared. It really wouldn't be a third party enforcing peace, per se. The third party (chosen by both sides) would merely be acting as a moderator between the two sides, which would both already want peace.
The weregild ensures that one party doesn't feel like it got shafted and renew the conflict as soon as it thinks it can win. Think Germany after WWI. It would be up to the players and the moderator to decide how much recompense should be paid (if any), or even if the losers should pay tribute to save their own hides, having been utterly smashed by the winners.
|
|
|
|
Post by azgalor on Aug 10, 2006 16:11:01 GMT -5
That dynamic is really up to the players, though. I mean, we can propose all of the third party systems we like, but there will still have to be a third party to impose them. I really like the idea of having a group of righteous Paladins (Or, conversely, mercenaries who will fight for the side with the most money) to settle disputes.
Be it Paladins or Mercenaries, though, once one side gets power enough, the combat would stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by therayven on Aug 10, 2006 17:51:41 GMT -5
I agree that the killing will eventually stop because of the permadeath. My concern is that the "ambition" system in the game will make the character feel discomfort if he does not avenge his family's murder.
...
I basically want the game to recognize when peace has been declared and retribution paid in full. Otherwise the character would be running around with a crimp in his composure and morale until war was re-declared. It really wouldn't be a third party enforcing peace, per se. The third party (chosen by both sides) would merely be acting as a moderator between the two sides, which would both already want peace.
The weregild ensures that one party doesn't feel like it got shafted and renew the conflict as soon as it thinks it can win. Think Germany after WWI. It would be up to the players and the moderator to decide how much recompense should be paid (if any), or even if the losers should pay tribute to save their own hides, having been utterly smashed by the winners. Very good points. How about a system in which both parties agree when a quest should be concluded? For example, Player A is killed by Player B. Player A jumps into his son (however this works, I'm still not clear) and the son has the quest "Avenge My Father." In order to resolve the conflict, Player A and Player B must agree to drop the matter, or one of them must die. You have three scenarios in this case: * Player A and Player B agree to resolve the quest. Perhaps Player B paid reparations to Player A for the murder, or Player A died in a raid on Player B and therefore "the kid's father was asking for it", so it is useless for either party to hold a grudge. * Player A wishes to resolve the quest but Player B does not. Player A simply wants to remove the ambition/morale penalty but Player B is a jerk or killed Player A's previous incarnation for a valid reason (failed assassination attempt, robbery, in war, etc.). * Player B wishes to resolve the quest but Player A does not. Player B is at risk from Player A; for example, Player A may wish to kill Player B, steal from him, or otherwise harm him in vengeance, and will not suffer any of the normal consequences (since it would be done as part of the quest). Player A is mad as hell, though, and refuses to drop the quest. :-P Now, one problem here is the ambition/morale modifier combined with the possibility that Player B is a jerk, but Player B is too powerful and/or Player A doesn't have the resources to seek revenge. Then Player B can keep the quest open simply to inconvenience Player A. Still, it's an idea I figured I would throw out there. Also, how will the quest be generated? Will any killing cause the quest to be generated, or only certain deaths (i.e. assassination)? How will the game recognize honorable combat versus underhanded deeds? Should the son want vengeance on his father's killer, even if the father died while setting fire to his enemy's house, wife, kids and livestock? Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by ddddyyyy on Sept 10, 2009 1:33:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cheap tibia gold on Nov 15, 2012 9:33:35 GMT -5
|
|
