PDA

View Full Version : PEACH FactionRPG



Naturax
2009-11-17, 10:15 PM
This forum came highly recommended to me as THE place to discuss homebrew systems. Here's mine:

http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/FactionRPG

I'd love to hear any feedback you might have about it, probably more on the "documentation" side of things. It's gone through enough iterations that I'm pretty happy with it, but there is one little snag I could use suggestions to fix:

How do I handle players transferring assets to each other? I don't see any reason to prevent players from having the ability to simply give assets to each other, but I'm worried about the nitty gritty. If they can do it during the Negotiation Phase, then there is incentive to wait until the last minute (I think) so that other players have less time to handle the change before the deadline. However, I don't want the asset to miss a turn's worth of actions just because it is being traded. Any suggestions about how to handle this would be very welcome.

And if you're interested in trying it out, I'm currently recruiting for a FactionRPG game set in Eberron (http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=82158).

elliott20
2009-11-17, 10:47 PM
Is the wiki down or something? I can't load the page.

Naturax
2009-11-17, 10:58 PM
Is the wiki down or something? I can't load the page.

The link works for me. Must be back up now?

elliott20
2009-11-17, 11:10 PM
Warning: require_once(./includes/stb_reg_signup_quickregister.php) [function.require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in [path]/includes/plugins/global_start.php on line 19

Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required './includes/stb_reg_signup_quickregister.php' (include_path='/home/trium/public_html/wiki:/home/trium/public_html/wiki/includes:/home/trium/public_html/wiki/languages:.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/trium/public_html/includes/plugins/global_start.php on line 19
Maybe I need to register or something.

yep, I registered and now it's all working.

Naturax
2009-11-17, 11:43 PM
Maybe I need to register or something.

yep, I registered and now it's all working.

Huh. Good to know! Thanks!

elliott20
2009-11-17, 11:49 PM
so if I'm reading this correctly, faction assets can change hands any time during the negotiation phase? I mean, it seems to me that makes sense. but I do think that it would make sense of the asset in question to experience some level of "adjustment" period that results from the shift.

Maybe I just don't understand the problem you're having here.

Naturax
2009-11-18, 10:16 AM
so if I'm reading this correctly, faction assets can change hands any time during the negotiation phase? I mean, it seems to me that makes sense. but I do think that it would make sense of the asset in question to experience some level of "adjustment" period that results from the shift.

Maybe I just don't understand the problem you're having here.

Allow me to clarify.

Say a couple of factions are in negotiations, and one demands that the other transfer an asset to them in exchange for a handful of profiles. If there is a week to go on the Negotiation phase before orders are due, then the player making the transfer will want to wait until the last day. This could potentially mess up some negotiations that other factions were making (say, if a couple of other factions had agreed to attack the asset in question while it still belonged to the original player). The only reason there is an advantage to the delay is because of the artificial, meta-game constraint of orders being due on a particular date because this is a turn-based game.

If possible, I would like to take that potential advantage out of the equation, but I'm not sure how.

elliott20
2009-11-18, 10:11 PM
But then, wouldn't the conditions of the trade be stipulated upon the exchange of profiles first? and are the orders immutable once they have been set?

Also, I thought trades can actually occur DURING the negotiation phase, so the transfer of ownership will happen before the orders are issued. In which case, the conditions of my trade would be immediate asset transfer for the information.

unless I'm misunderstanding the rules here.

Naturax
2009-11-18, 11:33 PM
But then, wouldn't the conditions of the trade be stipulated upon the exchange of profiles first? and are the orders immutable once they have been set?

Yes, the conditions of the trade could be stipulated and enforced via the GM who trades the assets/profiles simultaneously.

Also, orders can't be changed after the deadline, but they can be changed any time before the deadline, just like in Diplomacy.


Also, I thought trades can actually occur DURING the negotiation phase, so the transfer of ownership will happen before the orders are issued. In which case, the conditions of my trade would be immediate asset transfer for the information.

unless I'm misunderstanding the rules here.

Currently, trades can occur during the negotiation phase and the transfer of ownership would take effect immediately. But that's the problem. The basic idea is that, during the negotiation phase, the "board" stays static. You can wheel and deal knowing that the landscape of the game isn't going to change. But being able to move assets around changes that, so you have to (potentially) rethink your plans as soon as someone does a change, which throws a wrench in all of the deals you've already worked on.

Ideally I'd like to say that the transfer of assets happens during the Actions Phase, but then you have to wait a turn to get your new asset (which doesn't necessarily make sense). Maybe if the old owner can assign orders to the asset and transfer it at the same time? I don't want to introduce a third phase specifically for trading assets if I can help it.

elliott20
2009-11-18, 11:52 PM
I can understand wanting to keep the board static during the trading phase, since this is supposed to represent the delicate dealings that are happening in the background. This also yields a game that is by nature less susceptible to flux conditioning.

what are the precise order of operations between the orders? that is, when commands all happen at the same time, what are the precise order of resolution?

I actually think that allowing the trade to happen DURING the action phase is just fine. And I also think it's okay for people to assign orders to an asset they receive even before they receive it. After all, what happens if said asset somehow did not end up in the receiver's control? the command would simply not happen and that's that.

though, to be quite frank, I don't see a problem with it even IF you don't let them take action with the new asset right away. It just means that assets are assumed to have to go through a transition period. And it usually does happen in almost all organizations that have to assimilate new assets into it's fold. Just take a look at every single merger and acquisition deal that happens in the business world.

Of course, this decision will deter frequent trading as doing so means you will have an asset that remains useless for one turn for both sides. That is, trading in the short term will always hurt both traders' efficiency.

Naturax
2009-11-19, 12:06 PM
what are the precise order of operations between the orders? that is, when commands all happen at the same time, what are the precise order of resolution?

I really ought to add this to the rules, but the way it works it that all actions happen "simultaneously", which looks like this:

1. Figure out the defense for every asset by checking its value at the start of the turn + the strength of all defensive actions targeting it.
2. Figure out the success/failure and result of every action using only the values calculated in step 1.
3. Apply the results of all of the actions in step 2 at exactly the same time.


I actually think that allowing the trade to happen DURING the action phase is just fine. And I also think it's okay for people to assign orders to an asset they receive even before they receive it. After all, what happens if said asset somehow did not end up in the receiver's control? the command would simply not happen and that's that.

though, to be quite frank, I don't see a problem with it even IF you don't let them take action with the new asset right away. It just means that assets are assumed to have to go through a transition period. And it usually does happen in almost all organizations that have to assimilate new assets into it's fold. Just take a look at every single merger and acquisition deal that happens in the business world.

Of course, this decision will deter frequent trading as doing so means you will have an asset that remains useless for one turn for both sides. That is, trading in the short term will always hurt both traders' efficiency.

This was, in fact, how earlier versions of the game worked. There was a Transfer action which you had to assign to an asset to make it belong to another player. The trouble with this approach, though it certainly solves the issue of changing the board during the Negotiation Phase, is that its a) annoying to have to wait a turn to get an asset, b) annoying to waste a turn's worth of actions on assets in transit and c) annoying to slow down negotiations by a turn since you have to wait to see if the other side follows through or not.

If it is at all possible to find a different solution, that is what I would prefer.

elliott20
2009-11-19, 08:32 PM
but by your own admission, trading during negotiation phase fundamentally breaks the action economy, so that option is out.

well, what do you think would the problem be if you just allowed them to issue orders to assets they have yet to receive? The moment they get it, the orders go through.

so everything goes simultaneously huh? So mutual destruction IS a possibility... interesting. I might adopt a version of this for the d20 hack I'm working on, if you're cool with it.

when I get time later on next week, I'll probably join your board to see the game in action.

Naturax
2009-11-19, 10:56 PM
but by your own admission, trading during negotiation phase fundamentally breaks the action economy, so that option is out.

well, what do you think would the problem be if you just allowed them to issue orders to assets they have yet to receive? The moment they get it, the orders go through.

So who gives the orders? If it's the former owner, you could make the new owner look responsible for your attack. If its the new owner, then you need to give them some time before their finalize their orders when they get the new asset, which basically introduces an extra phase. I'm not entirely against this idea, since there may be no other option.

I appreciate you going through this discussion with me, though. It helps to see if anyone has any new perspectives on the situation.


so everything goes simultaneously huh? So mutual destruction IS a possibility... interesting. I might adopt a version of this for the d20 hack I'm working on, if you're cool with it.

For sure. Take what you like and toss the rest. I'd be interested in seeing what you do with it, if you don't mind sending me a link.


when I get time later on next week, I'll probably join your board to see the game in action.

Once you join myth-weavers you can apply to my game in progress as a reader and it will allow you to see all of the private discussions, which can be a lot of fun. At least, that's why I run the games.

elliott20
2009-11-19, 11:23 PM
hmmm....

my gut tells me that fundamentally, it would work better if there was kind of way to denote the assets state to the system. That is, in short, you will, at some level, need to figure out some form of order of operation.

Let's see if I can summarize this correctly.

assumptions for this example: we have player A, the previous owner of asset 1, and player B, the receiver of asset 1.

an asset can only take one action per phase, right? Assuming that the transfer does not count as the asset action, that means that player A can, if he wants, issue a command that goes to the tone of "asset 1 take this action first, then transfer", effectively using up the asset's action for this round and depriving the player B from doing so.

this means that when the action news reel comes out, the player B and the other players will see that the asset has taken an action, which might or might not be damaging to player B.

the crux here, however, is two fold.

1. how the information is displayed
2. is this really a problem?

luckily, you have a system in place that makes an asset either public or hidden. So, the way I see it, with proper order of operation, you can resolve this problem. That is, if a player has in effect, order the asset to perform an action prior to being transferred, the information display will show up as such. That is, it would go to the tune of "asset 1 has performed this action" followed by "asset was transferred to player B" in the info display... if the asset is a public asset.

BUT, if the asset is a secretive, then we're back to the same problem again. But this leads us to question 2. Is it really a problem?

This, if you ask me, is a total valid tactic for an organization to use. (albeit a total jerky backstabbing move, it is a valid one) But doing so can only be partially successful IF you're doing it with a hidden one because otherwise, on the event script it will show that the asset was not transferred until AFTER it had performed player A's orders, thereby denoting that Player B was not responsible for the action. (or at least, player B was not the one to issue the order)

however, this does not resolve the problem with two players simultaneously giving an asset a command. But I think your system has already resolved this issue somewhat. I'm assuming that issuing commands are done blind and you basically are issuing orders not having perfect information.

this means, both player A and B can issue a command to an asset during the transfer round, but only ONE player's command will actually work, depending upon the asset's status and the order of operation.

So, in the example above, if player A issued a command to asset 1 prior to transfer, and player B issued a command for asset 1 to activate AFTER transfer, player A's command will go off first, since his command precedes the transfer, with player B being notified that his new asset has already taken an action this round and thus can no longer act.

this immediately will notify player B that player A has in fact told the asset to do one last thing before releasing it. (And perhaps, player B needs to take precautions against these things)

Naturax
2009-11-28, 10:50 AM
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, eliott20! I want to once again thank you for all of the time and effort you've volunteered to helping me with my game.

After a lot of consideration, I think that your suggestion is the best I can do given the goals I have outlined for the transfer of assets. Here's what I'm going to go with:

"As part of the order you assign to an asset, you may include transfer of ownership to another faction. The transfer will only occur at the end of the Action Phase, after the asset has completed its actions for the turn. As with all other actions, this transfer will only be visible to factions that can see the asset."

elliott20
2009-11-29, 07:47 AM
sounds good to me. With a built in rule like that, it will ground the gameplay a bit more I think. (which, in a game as free as this, might actually be a good thing)