RGO's

[GM-Mike]

You know, it sounds like Reid and Temple are in agreement. Given the frequency of that occurrence divided by the square root of the sum of all arguments, it seems logical to conclude that the political system is fine the way it is.

[Donovan Thynedar]

Let's forget about widgets and the like for a moment.

Under the current rules, it takes a certain number of people to manage a trade route through an RGO, and those people have to possess a minimum number of support points to do so. No problems so far.

The problem comes when the limiting mechanic kicks in. That group of people, no matter how large, can NEVER manage more than three trade routes. Period. It can't be done. This forces groups to split in order to effectively use the people and support available to them. (I'm not talking about a few points or percentages here either, I'm talking about a significant amount of people/points.) This creates the group juggling effect we've seen in prior events and makes things a general pain in the arse.

I believe the intent of Phil's original post was to say, "Hey, this juggling thing is a pain in the arse, why can't a larger group bring in more than three trade routes?" To which the answer was "We don't want any one group to be self-sufficient." Phil then responded "But that creates unnecessary factionalism!"

Which is, of course, the point.

The system is doing two things at once, creating an economic co-dependency while reinforcing political factionalism, thereby encouraging and discouraging PVP at the same time. This is an engine for tension, and if that is the intent of the creators than so be it. We'll keep on juggling our people and trying to make the best of it.

I think the root of this problem is that the tension feels artificial. As players, we can mechanically understand why RGO's work the way they do. As characters, however, it makes no sense. If you have enough people to do the work and enough influence to make it happen, why can't you do it? Because you're affiliated with other people who are already doing things? That doesn't scan.

I also think this is another case of the mechanics becoming an obstacle to the roleplaying flow of the game. Is it so impossible to think that fifty or so people of varying backgrounds could actually work together? It is certainly possible that they would split up and compete, (which the system allows and encourages) but they also might realize their common plight and band together (which the system actively discourages).

I guess my question to the GM's is this: is the type of tension created by the politics of PC economics so important that immersion needs to be sacrificed to accommodate it? I don't know the answer to that question, but I would like to hear some varying opinions on it. My instinct is that even if the PC's were able to form some sort of order or society, there would always be enough conflict and interpersonal drama to keep things fresh. Thoughts?

[dier_cire]

Let's go back to the widget factory you only need to distribute 200 widgets cause thats what the market will bare, now you have 24 employees to do what 8 could do. So what do you do? Logic would say that you move 12 of the employees to a new facility somewhere else where the market can bare another 200 widgets and set up a second biz where you have 12 people at each location, so that when Employees 1+2 can't make it to work you can still get your 200 widgets all the way through distribution without delays and you can pay all your workers with your earnings.

Just to be a butthead:

if 8 = 200 then 6 = 150.
so instead of 24 = 400
I'd go with 24 = 450

In other words, I'd divide by 3 and support 3 150 widget facalities, leaving 50 widgets for someone else to make and/or driving up costs by limiting production. This would increase profit so me and my workers make even more. This would also allow for 2 employees to be off per day.

As for what I agree on for support rules, I really have no opinion. I do know that resources versus players seems a bit thin, and that low player count has been a factor. Granted, while I think our group has some fudge factor built in (when Nelkie and I discussed it, we had more than 6 per group and planned for some not to show) it's not at the rate it happened last event. So I don't think the add more people is totally valid as we did, but just got caught in a very bad event attendance. Any business would get screwed if they got into that.

On the point of one large group and incoming routes all dealing with one person... Why would the routes all be forced to deal with the leader of the group? That doesn't mirror reality. In reality, I'm just a lowly employee, but I deal with a couple of plants almost exclusively. Now when they request new business, I don't deal with the quotes, but that's not what we are talking about. A large org would still have divisions, ie we wouldn't have a dwarf talking to the fishing village just because he was leader. It doesn't make sense in game.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with one large group. It simplifies things and as pointed out results in less support than many small groups would. Beyond that, it should have little effect.

[GM-Mike]

I guess if people don't want an artificial limit, we could expand the chart indefinitely. Let's see, following the same pattern that we have then

level 9 would be 90 points with 7 members for 3 routes
level 10.............110 points......7 members for 4 routes
level 11.............130 points......8 members for 4 routes
level 12.............150 points......9 members for 4 routes
level 13.............175 points......9 members for 5 routes
level 14.............200 points......10 members for 5 routes
level 15.............225 points......10 members for 5 routes
level 16 255 points......11 members for 6 routes


So if I'm hearing people correctly, you would rather spend 175 points to get 5 routes instead of 120 to get 6? because i don't see us influencing the chart so that it's somehow easier for one large group to get routes cheaper.

[WayneO42]

Instead of going to 16th level, I would rather compress it back down to 8 levels by just geting rid of every odd level on your 16 level chart. This would make it more in line with the rest of the system. So at the top level, you would be able to have 6 routes with 11 members and an ass load of Support points.

I guess my main reasons for wanting to open up the top end of the RGO is for the same reasons Taki is bringing up. It has to do more with the "Feel" of the in game experience than it does with the mechanics of the system. I REALLY don't think we need to artificially spark factionalism but one way we could do it is make the all race or all path organizations more appealing. Maybe go back to the old rule where an RGO of all one race or Path is considered one level higher.

[GM-Mike]

My chart doesn't really stop at 16, it just keeps going. I thought the issue was an artificial limit. I mean, what happens if we have 100 players and so both main factions (Elders and Phoenix assuming there remained only two) can each sustain level 8 guilds. Are we going to have the same conversation? Why can we only have 8 trade routes when I have enough points to get 10? I mean 8 trade routes only lets me compete for for all of the mystic routes and a couple more--I still can't feed myself! (Sarcasm noted).

At this point it would be much more difficult to start a new guild. You would almost have to join one of the super powers because they would suck up all of the best routes between them. Sure there will be some routes available but starting small will be more difficult because you wouldn't have anything the other groups, who are now self-sufficient, need. We already have had threads devoted to the fact that you almost have to join a group to survive. Are we then going to have threads devoted to needing to join a specific group to survive?

I guess I'm skeptical that this is really going to benefit the game and no one has really persuaded me yet, but it's not something I would veto either if it's really what everyone wants.

[GM_Chris]

If you have enough people to do the work and enough influence to make it happen, why can't you do it? Because you're affiliated with other people who are already doing things? That doesn't scan.

I have no problem with.


What I want, which is what happens in reality, is for organizations as they increase in size, to distribute power to other people. We can do this in game or we can do this out of game and as far as I am concerned I don't really care, but I think it is more fun to do it oog.

Here is how in game will work.

Guild Bubba has 12 people and 6 trade routes. We will force your guild to show up at 6 different area's of the park at exactly the same time. Failure to show up will mean you loose your trade route. If you show up with a different group of people than you did before then you will be smacked with a production shortfall since the new people will be less efficiant than people who do it everyday.

We will ofcourse will have to take a break from the event to perform this little exercise, but on the good side we could just eliminate guilds in their current form and allow one giant organization.

Personally this does not sound like fun, and it would be more fun to have some of this done mechanically as we do now.

The system is doing two things at once, creating an economic co-dependency while reinforcing political factionalism, thereby encouraging and discouraging PVP at the same time.

exactly


The neat this is that is how the world works. We dont destroy Iran even though we want to because 1) co dependance 2) we would look bad

Nothing int he mechanics stop people from bending knee and creating a big happy government. The only thing stopping you guys is your characters own ego.

Chris

[dier_cire]

If you show up with a different group of people than you did before then you will be smacked with a production shortfall since the new people will be less efficiant than people who do it everyday.

But you are forgetting that we aren't the ones doing the work. We are managing it over a period of monthes. Now having specific people show up at a given time and saying they are ones doing the work doesn't quite fit.

[GM_Chris]

Wether your doing the work or managing the work it still has an effect on productivity

[Donovan Thynedar]

If you have enough people to do the work and enough influence to make it happen, why can't you do it? Because you're affiliated with other people who are already doing things? That doesn't scan.

I have no problem with.


What I want, which is what happens in reality, is for organizations as they increase in size, to distribute power to other people. We can do this in game or we can do this out of game and as far as I am concerned I don't really care, but I think it is more fun to do it oog.

I agree, when organizations grow they do indeed distribute power to other people. The thing is, we're only talking about a group of ten or twenty people. The reason that larger groups split authortity is because it becomes logistically difficult to manage things at an expanded level.
Ten or twenty people is not difficult to manage, and that is part of the issue. It seems like you're forcing Macro rules on a Micro situation, and that really doesn't work.

Here is how in game will work.

Guild Bubba has 12 people and 6 trade routes. We will force your guild to show up at 6 different area's of the park at exactly the same time. Failure to show up will mean you loose your trade route. If you show up with a different group of people than you did before then you will be smacked with a production shortfall since the new people will be less efficiant than people who do it everyday.

Are you seriously saying that if, for some reason, the rules concerning the trade routes were modified you'd just make it impossible for a group to collect them? What would that accomplish? Do you currently force guilds with 3 routes to do that? Since when do the individuals involved (aside from their number and support point total) have anything to do with the production?

Any group of any size will still have to possess the support points to maintain their routes, so it's not like a "supergroup" would have unlimited access to trade. I'd be fine with either Wayne's suggestion, Mike's suggestion, or a combination of the two. Both seem to answer our concerns without changing any balance issues.

We will ofcourse will have to take a break from the event to perform this little exercise, but on the good side we could just eliminate guilds in their current form and allow one giant organization.

Personally this does not sound like fun, and it would be more fun to have some of this done mechanically as we do now.

The system is doing two things at once, creating an economic co-dependency while reinforcing political factionalism, thereby encouraging and discouraging PVP at the same time.

exactly


The neat this is that is how the world works. We dont destroy Iran even though we want to because 1) co dependance 2) we would look bad

Nothing int he mechanics stop people from bending knee and creating a big happy government. The only thing stopping you guys is your characters own ego.

Chris

I will do everyone reading this thread the service of ignoring the Iran example and just move on to the FH relevant issues.

There seems to be the insinuation here that some measure of this post is designed to ease the way for a supergroup takeover of FH.

It isn't.

At least two of us found something in the rules that didn't seem to make sense and detracted from the experience for us. That was the motivation behind the post and the subsequent questions. If some suggestion I make violates the balance or structure of the game in a way I am not aware of, than please, tell me "No, sorry, that won't work" and call it a day.

Chris, something in the tone of your response gets under my skin. I hope that no one would be short-sighted enough to argue for a rules change in order to gain an in-game advantage, and some measure of that appears to be inferred. To be clear, that is not and will never be the intent of my suggestions.

Besides, Rawls would never forgive me.

[GM_Chris]

First off I want to agnolage the argument.

Some people want to disolve the artificial division we require and instead if you have the people and points you should be able to do it. Forexample, why even have 3 different orgs. We could instead have 1 org and as long as you have the people and the points then you can do all the things on the list.

Here is my problem:

It seems like you're forcing Macro rules on a Micro situation, and that really doesn't work.

I think this is the #1 perception problem. You are NOT 12 people.

To have a realistic breathing world there MUST be other people besides the adventures. I know some people hate this concept, but if there are no other people then it would be the adventures working the land to provide food. It would be the adventures hanging out in town because there would be no plots and no NPC's to play. There would be no Rodrick.

FH is a breathing system where there are people other than the adventures. These people are for the most part craving to be ruled and managed. Infact nothing seems to be produced unlesss there is someone to take charge of the situation. It is the guilds responsibility to manage all of the raw production of the world.

Houses create even greater complexity as they are able to bring in markets for trade and manufacturing facilities to make hiher level goods.

Royalty is really when we get to a government level because then you become so large you are able to levi troops.

These are all HUGE complex orgs which must be managed. I forsee alot of a guilds time in doing management. It is only during certain snapshots where the adventures get something interesting happen.

To represent this complexity we have a choice. we can do it as one giant org and do all the drudgery in game or we can create a system where we divide up the player base in an abstract system of ever greater requirements to represent the increased complexity. We have choosen the latter.

[dier_cire]

To represent this complexity we have a choice. we can do it as one giant org and do all the drudgery in game or we can create a system where we divide up the player base in an abstract system of ever greater requirements to represent the increased complexity. We have choosen the latter.

How does allowing larger RGOs (guilds) force us into the former again? It's a pretty small change for such a major impact.

[GM_Chris]

Because I want division of power. Currently we force people to divide into different groups to have the ability to bring more in.

This has the effect of empowering people since they now are in charge of a guild. I want to see more RP between the production source and the guild which owns them to further empower the guild. This has a psychological effect of division which I want to create because it is real.

Now if we do away with that effect then the only way to create it is to allow the populas an unstructured way of dividing power by simply forcing simaltanious interaction with production sources to hit home the fact that not everyone can be everywhere at one time.

Basically do we need to do it abstractly or concretly. This is the crutch of the argument.

[Ian_McAllister]

First off I would like to say as the progenitor of the thread I in no way intended for this suggestion to make it easier to become a "superpower" or anything of the like.

Second, in response to Mike, about having two "supergroups" in game and people coming in feeling they have to join one to survive..Well while yes it may not be all that great a feeling, is that not natural development of a society, as I know it.. When you have a group of people get together especially for survival purposes and trying to create order amongst chaos would it not be more sensible to band together as a large entity than faction out into smaller entities.

I was also thinking about somthing Chris said about how the world is not just populated by us, but workers and the like.. It almost feels to me that those that are within an RGO, since they are not obviously the ones toilign the fields, sheering sheep or anything.. they are merely giving "Support points" then wouldn't every member of an RGO be as important as the "head" of the RGO.

As a factory worker I find the widget example great. I will not go into whether I agree or not as the numbers we are talking about are so very different.. because in the example you assume the people in the RGO are the workers on the line, yet as I mentioned above they are not doing the actual labor.. they are giving "Support".. so I guess for me it might be helpful if what support points truly are is explained? IS it time spent helping with the trade route physically, or helping number crunch, moderating? Also it is not always necessary for a company to expand outwards when orders go up.. sometimes yes, sometimes no.. that si why I like the idea of having a higher RGO cap but increasing the support cost.. If all you did was increase the cap as in Mike's example you would still leave the ability for Groups to branch out into smaller RGO's to maximize people and support.. while other groups could maintain a solidarity and just deal with the increased Support cost..

All in all I was just curious, and an interested in what I started.. I just see the political system in Haven as being good, but having more potential.. I would like to see FH grow and with it the political system where in the future you could get enough people together to create a Kingdom to rival Roderick. Not saying my suggestion will help that, and I have liked how more RPing is being added to the political system.. I was just hoping to help streamline it to keep the Rping going..

[Trevor Owen]

Good evening, I have weighed whether or not I should post on this, and decided to give it a go. I have no idea what the 'right' way to do is, but I do know something about what was envisioned in the system we have.

1) ALL adventurers are essentially heroic (or anti-heroic) you are not NORMAL people, you are not workers, farmers, fishermen, weavers. You ARE organizers, protectors, project managers, engineers, and leaders. (You are all over-head on the production, needed overhead, but overhead none-the-less).

2) RGOs as many as needed can be part of a single umbrella organization. They are small segments designed to handle a particular task and handle it well. The initial thought was only your first route would be of any worth and that diversifying your production for your guild at all would be very innefficient. You are intended to specialize in a particular task, and be good at that task.

3) When you have too many middle managers (adventurers) on working with the same group of employees, you loose margin. You only need so many guards/healers/administrators/educators to motivate your employees (peasants, herdsmen, tribal factions, demi-human alliances, beyond that they aren't producing enough to give extra to your people, they only haveso many workers and can only make so much. That is why each route is capped.

4) When you diversify your production base you loose expertise. This is why most areas only have a couple major exports. Most companies organize around particular areas of expertise. That isn't to say it is impossible to do a little of everything, you just aren't likely to do it as well.

5) In order to grow you form new teams, who take on new tasks and work with new suppliers. Each player - not just the guild leader - is playing a part in bringing in the resources from their routes (that is what support points were intended to represent, you using your powers of persuasion/leadership/etc over the working class).

6) If it helps you to organize better, think of "houses" as really the basis for any true organization or social structure, a guild is just your department, and the house is the tribe/clan/company as a whole. You will often move people between departments to cover vacancies, often shift labor to optimize new projects and maintain existing production.

7) When you get really big, you have thousands of worker bees, and more than one social organization, then perhaps it is time for a formalized social structure, here you gain power to police other managers. (Think HR) When you reach the nobility level your peons (levied troops) give you the power to directly or indirectly influence other managers, whether by helping them (bonuses to production) or threatening them (we can burn your village to the ground and destroy your production sources if you don't support us).

Anyway... that was what was behind the whole system.