tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post374961638399347542..comments2023-11-02T07:22:15.941-04:00Comments on The Lead Cotillion: Diaspora Hack: Revolt on AntaresKen Coblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06104321870877852235noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-45923896372063490072022-04-13T19:59:35.896-04:002022-04-13T19:59:35.896-04:00This is a greeat post thanksThis is a greeat post thanksShirleyhttps://www.shirleymarsh.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-70474568839492838612010-03-06T02:08:15.734-05:002010-03-06T02:08:15.734-05:00Followup - a kind soul on the Diaspora mailing lis...Followup - a kind soul on the Diaspora mailing list suggested, among some other good ideas, Morale as a community stat. I don't want to get this too crowded, but that's just such a great idea that I'm really wanting to include it as a House stat. Morale as a stat just screams with ideas for both RP and wargaming application... so do I go back to 4 stats? Maybe we dump mercantile/economic strength - after all, there's nothing relevant to it in the original game, and while there's some neat stuff to be done with the idea, it's also the kind of thing the table could encapsulate pretty effectively with Aspects....Ken Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06104321870877852235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-56979169570077020222010-03-03T23:19:35.851-05:002010-03-03T23:19:35.851-05:00PS: I am in fact going to bust how to treat Terra ...PS: I am in fact going to bust how to treat Terra out into a second post, which I am writing even as we speak.Ken Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06104321870877852235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-86508878026298143352010-03-03T22:42:48.986-05:002010-03-03T22:42:48.986-05:00Anon and Chris: thanks for the feedback, I think y...Anon and Chris: thanks for the feedback, I think you're both right that inequity - or at least the possibility of inequity - will make for more interesting games rather than trying to closely-couple any of the stats, a la my 2dF idea (also Anon, if you don't mind me asking, how'd you make your way here? just curious).<br /><br />Also, using the cluster connection mechanism to draw the initial web of alliances is gold. Thinking about that has given me an idea that hopefully bridges the gap between the 'balancing' idea and trying to keep it computationally simple:<br /><br />Roll up all seven Houses, on 3 or 4 different stats - Military, Mercantile, Population* and Political/Diplomatic power (great idea Anon!). Instead of a loyalty stat, you take the House with the highest total score, and you place that house at the far end of the 'cluster map' from Terra (which is obviously your other anchor point; they're your first openly rebellious house (which fits the original game as well). Then you put the next-highest total beside Terra, and the next beside Rebel 1, etc, until you've lined them up. Then use the normal Cluster linking mechanics to draw connections between them all.<br /><br />Our 'slipspace guarantee' will be that if the House with the highest total is less than [some number I haven't figured out yet? 6?], you'll add one to every stat. Ties broken by highest Military stat, further ties broken by discussion at the table?<br /><br />*=I've starred "Population" as a stat for a few reasons; one, the original game makes no assumptions either way, so you could assume a rough parity between the houses. On the other hand, it might be cool to have it as a stat, since the interactions of Population with other stats could suggest some very interesting Aspects for each house. On the third hand, you could do that anyway voluntarily at the Aspect creation phase, without having to have an explicit 'Population' stat. At the moment, if anything is going to get axed, it's probably Population.<br /><br />The next issue: How do we deal with Terra? In the game, they're by themselves probably equal to any two Houses. On the other hand, there's something neat about letting the table determine and explain the nature of their particular version of Antares 9's Imperial Terran presence. They've got to have a strong military - but it might be interesting for one table to get a Terran Consulate who's a consummate diplomat a la Richelieu or Castlereagh (High Politics) versus another one whose entire tenure has been marked by his utter disdain for the old colonial Houses (negative Politics).<br /><br />Further thoughts? Or should I bust that out into a second post?Ken Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06104321870877852235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-25615611192486945912010-03-03T16:09:42.588-05:002010-03-03T16:09:42.588-05:001) Inequity among the houses would probably make f...1) Inequity among the houses would probably make for <strong>more</strong> interesting stories, so it may not be a big deal at all. For it to be a believeble extended conflict, though, there does seem to be some need for balance.<br /><br />2) I don't know that having 2 whole sets of stats is such a great idea. I like maybe pushing it to the four you have listed, though, and then maybe enforcing some sort of "guarantee" like for slipstream tech. <br /><br />You could maybe total up all the houses' "conflict" stats (Military, Mercantile, and Population) and then somehow bring them all up to an equivalent level. Maybe add the difference between totals to the highest stat of the weaker houses. That way, you'd be pushing the houses to being more differentiated (with strengths and weaknesses) rather than towards having balanced stats.<br /><br />Does that make any sense? <br /><br />3) Back to Loyalty. I like it being random, but as you said in the OP, there's a lot of possibility for even more manipulation with some sort of "guarantee" there as well. <br /><br />Maybe it'd be better to approach Loyalty more analagous to how you link the systems in normal cluster generation. Where you build a "map" of alliances and conflict between the houses, rather than just rolling independent stats. <br /><br />Oooh... I think I just got a bit of a shiver from that little flash of inspiration there. But what do you think?Chrishttp://www.gamerchris.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-1085246804842694732010-03-03T15:50:04.540-05:002010-03-03T15:50:04.540-05:00It would seem to me that it is the power imbalance...It would seem to me that it is the power imbalances that would make things interesting. Furthermore I don't think 2dF is necessary if you have enough characteristic categories that reflect different aspects of a houses power e.g., Human resources, Political resources, Economic resources, Tactical resources etc...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-60604517106351736742010-03-03T15:24:27.411-05:002010-03-03T15:24:27.411-05:00It makes perfect sense, and it's a very approp...It makes perfect sense, and it's a very appropriate question to ask. Now that you've formulated it for me, let me turn it back around on you: as a player, would you prefer factions like this be roughly balanced, or is the possibility of rolling up real underdogs/overdogs interesting to you? <br /><br />Assume arguendo that you really wanted to play a scion of House Edistyn because you had some neat ideas about a precognitive character; however, we roll up House Stats and House Edistyn gets bad results on both Military and Mercantile strength. Would this increase or decrease your desire to play a character from that house?<br /><br />Second idea: if some imbalance is acceptable/desired, maybe it would be better if we limited the possible 'height' of that difference? What if we had some House characteristics that were rolled up on 4dF like usual, and then some that we wanted to hold tighter to the baseline that were rolled on 2dF? The natural progression of the game could still push these above or below +2/-2, but for the starting state we'd have less overall difference between houses. Plus we'd still get the interesting possible edge cases of having some houses with +2/+2 and some with -2/-2, so there's still room for dominant and weaker houses. Maybe we'd have 3 'traditional' 4dF stats (Loyalty, ??? and ???) and 3 'tighter' 2dF stats (frex, Military, Mercantile, Population)?Ken Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06104321870877852235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7615738934994164368.post-48246777856557957432010-03-02T17:07:05.335-05:002010-03-02T17:07:05.335-05:00I'm not going to answer your question. Instea...I'm not going to answer your question. Instead, let me ask another one...<br /><br />How much "balance" would you want between houses? Obviously, the orignial wargame was balanced between the sides (as you mentioned a couple of times). So in setting up the "cluster", do you need to add in something additional that would "guarantee" that the houses were of equivalent power level? <br /><br />Clearly, "loyalty" doesn't affect that at all, so it's a good choice. But assuming that balance is an important thing to maintain, then <strong>none</strong> of the stats can really reflect anything that would give an advantage to one or the other (like all of the Diaspora stats would), unless there is an additional mechanic in place to counterbalance it.<br /><br />Does that make sense?Chrishttp://www.gamerchris.comnoreply@blogger.com