Rough Idea to escalate conflicts

[Tom]

I see the discussion has completely derailed. :-)

It seems what I posted sounded like a betting system, which it isn't.


Here's an EXAMPLE - I should but that in bold and red - of what it COULD look like. All the details are subject to change, I'm just trying to illustrate the concept, so don't start digging away at the details.


John is a duke of some realm who would really like to see some more action. He does have his eye on a region bordering his duchy, but belonging to another realm. So he puts in a challenge, in this case to himself, that the region will become part of this realm within 3 months. He does it for honour, so if for whatever reason the region does become part of his duchy, he will gain some honour. If it doesn't, by the time limit, he will lose some. Since challenges have to be accompanied by a message, he makes a public posting basically saying whatever but it should at least hint at his goal.


Jack is had enough of John's ambitions, but as a lowly knight he can't really confront him directly. So he challenges him. In a message to Duke John, he details his (made up) claims towards the currently vacant lordship of one of the regions, demanding to be appointed as its lord. His secret challenge is easy to guess - become lord of that region. But John can, in accepting the challenge, put up his own stakes. His response message denies the claims and calls Jack a forger. The secret stakes - again easy to guess - are honour. If Jack somehow becomes lord of the region within some TBD time frame, his claims were obviously true and John will lose honour for doubting them. If he doesn't, then Jack will lose honour for apparently being indeed a forger, or at least employing one.



That's really a very rough sketch, alpha quality at best. Needs lots of work.

[Duvaille]

Umm.. it is probably just my thick head here getting on the way, but this example does not seem to be making the matter at hand much clearer to me. Am I getting it right when this looks like it is a feature for those times when there is not much drama going on, and you would now provide us with some buttons to push to facilitate the process of some sort of a verbal duel, or a "duel of influence"? Like in any duel, it can be a gamble, the odds usually favoring one party over the other.

For a weaker character to challenge a stronger one would seem to be pretty much shooting himself on the foot, even if he won. But perhaps people would still use it, for making the game more fun for the others. Maybe the more powerful characters would have more to lose and less to gain, and the weak ones more honor to gain and less to lose (they're on the bottom of the food chain already), to balance this out.

Perhaps include a small random chance for someone in a high position to lose it due to embarrassment caused by losing? Of course if it is an appointed position one may be reappointed, but that might not always happen. Or am I derailing again?

[vonGenf]

Am I correct in thinking that this would be a game mechanic to back up claims that people RP?

e.g.

• John claims to be the true Lord of Keplerville
• Jack claims to be the best duelist of Dwilight
• Bob claims that if John is elected as Lord of Keplerville, Keplerville will starve within the month
• Bill claims that the Zuma will never set foot on Eastern Dwilight

etc, etc, which are all claims that I have seen people make over and over in game, and if any one of these claims comes true or false, then the general opinion of the players towards them will change according to their secret stakes?

If I understood correctly, then I understand how this will allow the mechanics of the game to better reflect the general nature of the character. In particular, I think this will allow much better definition of the H/P stats (priests could use this mechanic to increase their H/P, for example). Positions could also be stakes, as they should be tied to honour; I'm not sure what else could be staked.

However, I am not certain I see how this would lead to more war.

[Tom]

As I said: It's very rough.

The basuc idea is to give some game-mechanics to what people desire and want, and be more specific in wars than just "we'll destroy you". A war might be the result of a challenge the king issued, and only he knows what it's all about (unless, of course, he tells people).

vonGenf is fairly close. Except that there wouldn't be a "never". I think you're still too close to the "metabets" concept. This is not about guessing correctly what in-game events will happen, but saying "I will make this happen" and then backing it up with action because you've put a price tag on failing.

So, to take your first example, true or not doesn't matter (that would be the RP part) - becoming Lord of Keplerville within the year would be a challenge. But that's the "challenge yourself" part, which is nice, but not the main thing.

The main thing would be to challenge the current lord of Keplerville. The interesting part there is that in this case, he would set the stakes. The idea is that both characters would pile on stuff, like a poker game in that part, until it's boom or bust.


It really is more of an idea than a real concept right now.

[Zakilevo]

Sounds like ambitions from CK2...