GMH Hunters - What's Up With That?

[Narf]

To suggest we want to silence your ideas is a bit much.  You've got evidence from another thread of player ideas (implemented recently) that we do want to take in feedback and utilize it.  However, while you might enjoy continuing to discuss the merits of something we aren't going to do, it is a derail at that point.  That's why we jump in to say "hey, btw, we don't do this/won't do this/this is unrealistic/this is why we don't do that" so that you have more info and can focus on something more productive.



To that end, I like the idea of the business tycoon level of conflict and conflict over resources.  I think that is one area of conflict that can be managed by both sides of the equation (staff and players).  The larger picture stuff we can do as staff, definitely, though this would need to come out of some sizable plot investment to affect the sizes we are talking about here.  I'll explain a few of those things as you may not be aware of them.  We can adjust taxes in a city-state against several material types, weapons, spice, armor, artwork, and food.  We can do our part to make sure that resource-type conflicts can and do occur, creating plots around them.   What can be done to make that a bit more localized, however?  We can adjust shopkeepers individually.  We can blacklist people or groups.  We can adjust rent levels as well.  There are more tools in the toolbox that we can use, too.

It seems very difficult to create meaningful resource conflicts that wouldn't draw the attention of the city-states considering the dynamics surrounding the world and its politics. I mentioned it above, but what could be valuable enough to make Salarr and Kadius for example, go into disputes, that wouldn't just get taken over by the two cities anyways?

Nonetheless, I think creating resource conflicts that don't draw the attention of the city-states should be a goal. Having a lot of big guns involved in a conflict I expect will actually make it a lot less fun for the Player Base. Remember, players by and large don't play big guns. They play the little guys. Little guys are only important in little conflicts.

My ideal would be that these resource conflicts would take place on a micro-scale, with the PC's involved representing a good chunk of all the characters involved. A PC Agent should be the one leading the charge, probably with his piddly little squad pitted against another PC Agent and their piddly little squad. As soon as you make the conflict a big deal as far as the greater world is concerned it will take the focus off the PCs (undesirable) and create huge staff choke points for plots which will necessarily slow things down.

[Semper]

My solution to the lack of conflict? Politics!   But you need staff support for the bigger things, simply because so many factors can come into play.

As long as the two factions represent an ideal, you will have an endless stream of conflict. For example, make a military vs civic faction. One desires military conquest, the other desires economic conquest, conservative faction vs a progressive faction, preservers vs destroyers, purists vs meta-humans, etc. If you have groups aligned to ideals (which is very realistic, I just don't see why we don't see this more IG on a bigger scale), there is a source of endless conflict. Add in limited resources, and groups are forced to collide!

You know why Allanak and Tuluk can't be at war right now? Because there's absolutely no idealistic reason for them. Allanak and Tuluk basically have the same ideal, which is to consolidate and manage the power around their own regions. There is no threat to each other's sovereignty, and no greater threat playing tug of war between the two city-states. But throw in a super-power that disturbs the balance, aligned toward one ideal (perhaps destruction of all meta-humans), then everyone is forced to throw in toward one side or the other, because to lose is to lose your very ideal and purpose.

Take GMHs for example. Two large factions pop up in Allanak, one that favors conquest, the other that opposes. GMH's are all for conquest if they profit from it, but the path of conquest will lead a region to be taken over and it's natural resources diverted to the effort. Salarr might benefit greatly, because they don't need any of those resources for their weapons/armors (or those resources would be given to Salarr perhaps), but Kadius will lose an important resource that isn't helpful for expansion. Boom! The two major GMH's split and pick sides. Instant conflict. The only thing staff have to do is to give a direction and provide a subsequent consequence if one side succeeds or fails, and let everything else roll into place. Let the players determine the details, and how things play out.

GMH hunters from Salarr and Kadius are no longer just hunters then. They're the scouts and information gatherers for what's happening in the competing region, they're the agents in the field which can collect the valuable natural resources before the other side secures them all, they're the visible presence of the house competing for the favor from the tribes/powers of the region, etc. This opens up so much more for hunters to do, other than "go hunt X animals so we can make Y product for templar Z's fancy party." Screw that, Zalanthas needs REAL conflict, that is tangible and meaningful for players when they pick a side. Your little independent merchant chooses to join faction H? In exchange for safety and wealth, your faction ended up slaughtering tons of children and innocents! We need more of making moral choices -you- make as a player/character, with very real consequences, and having these kinds of decisions will make playing the game so much more alive.

[Desertman]

To suggest we want to silence your ideas is a bit much.  You've got evidence from another thread of player ideas (implemented recently) that we do want to take in feedback and utilize it.  However, while you might enjoy continuing to discuss the merits of something we aren't going to do, it is a derail at that point.  That's why we jump in to say "hey, btw, we don't do this/won't do this/this is unrealistic/this is why we don't do that" so that you have more info and can focus on something more productive.



To that end, I like the idea of the business tycoon level of conflict and conflict over resources.  I think that is one area of conflict that can be managed by both sides of the equation (staff and players).  The larger picture stuff we can do as staff, definitely, though this would need to come out of some sizable plot investment to affect the sizes we are talking about here.  I'll explain a few of those things as you may not be aware of them.  We can adjust taxes in a city-state against several material types, weapons, spice, armor, artwork, and food.  We can do our part to make sure that resource-type conflicts can and do occur, creating plots around them.   What can be done to make that a bit more localized, however?  We can adjust shopkeepers individually.  We can blacklist people or groups.  We can adjust rent levels as well.  There are more tools in the toolbox that we can use, too.

It seems very difficult to create meaningful resource conflicts that wouldn't draw the attention of the city-states considering the dynamics surrounding the world and its politics. I mentioned it above, but what could be valuable enough to make Salarr and Kadius for example, go into disputes, that wouldn't just get taken over by the two cities anyways?

Nonetheless, I think creating resource conflicts that don't draw the attention of the city-states should be a goal. Having a lot of big guns involved in a conflict I expect will actually make it a lot less fun for the Player Base. Remember, players by and large don't play big guns. They play the little guys. Little guys are only important in little conflicts.

My ideal would be that these resource conflicts would take place on a micro-scale, with the PC's involved representing a good chunk of all the characters involved. A PC Agent should be the one leading the charge, probably with his piddly little squad pitted against another PC Agent and their piddly little squad. As soon as you make the conflict a big deal as far as the greater world is concerned it will take the focus off the PCs (undesirable) and create huge staff choke points for plots which will necessarily slow things down.

I agree.

[Semper]

Just to support my view:

You know why something like the Copper War doesn't happen again? Because it was over a limited resource, and resources expire. But if there was a greater purpose underlying the Copper War, like Allanak favoring the proliferation of life-sustaining magick in the world, vs Tuluk who wants nothing to do with magick, then the victor of the Copper War would not only be an economical victory, but a moral victory of an ideal. That would hit home to so many more people, and might even cause inflict within individual city-states, and the conflict would spread just about everywhere, if staff had only provided that underlying reason or ideal for why the conflict was being waged in the first place.

If Allanak has that opposing view, then of course everyone who favors that view would find conflict with those who oppose. There would be a reason for why Tuluki's hate Allanakis once again (and perhaps even get some Allanaki sympathizers within Tuluk!) and city-state conflict would have flared up and continued on, long after the Copper Wars finished.

But conflict between the city-states simply sizzled out. Why? Because there was no IDEAL behind the conflict, just plain resources.

[Semper]

What would staff have to do in order to generate these overall points of conflict? Just decide which Noble Houses, GMHs, or other large groups of people on Zalanthas would pick which side of the coin. House X, Y and Z will join this side because of this reason, House A, B, C will join that side, because of that reason. Then let the players roll with how to respond appropriately. This will cause division not only among Houses, but within Houses, within House divisions, within units. Just about everywhere, if the value is important enough, will conflict spread.

[added: A real life example to hit home on this point? You know why the conflict in the middle east, with radical islam is a problem? Because they represent an ideal, and until the world can defeat the ideal, terrorism and crimes against humanity will always be a problem. That is the kind of ideal that splits countries and families, and I think if Zalanthas has that kind of conflict, this game will become so much more than what it is now. (I'm not saying make players choose something quite as radical as what impacts people in the world right now, but something relevant to a fantasy world. Humans vs meta-humans is one example I can think of.]

[Desertman]

I thought the whole conflict between Allanak and Tuluk was in fact ideal based. They are two factions with very radical and different ideals.

The reason we do not see the merchant Houses taking sides? They are worldwide monopolies that have to do business in both cities.

If any GMH takes a side based on ideals they risk complete annihilation of their markets in the opposing city states.

I am a supporter of GHM's having their monopolies broken in terms of "Known-Wide" and making them instead "City-Wide".

You know what would be awesome and completely doable if Salarr was the premier weapon/armor supplying House of Tuluk and Jakowak was the premier weapon/armor supplying House of Allanak?

Lots and lots of conflict between them and their hunters about who controls which resources where/how often/when.

I do suppose that your idea of having them pick sides based on ideals would be the perfect opportunity to springboard the Houses in those directions so we could start doing things like that.

Local markets and monopolies vs other local markets and monopolies on the merchant-tycoon level is just so much more interesting to me personally than global monopolies by a single entity.

[Jeax]

Since we are monstrously off-topic for this thread, I created: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49171.0.html

[Down Under]

We'd also need a much larger player base to support not 3 GMH but 6.

[Desertman]

We'd also need a much larger player base to support not 3 GMH but 6.

We already have those Houses broken up into "Northern branch" and "Southern branch".

The only difference? Changing the names from "Southern branch" and "Northern branch" to "New House Name".

[Down Under]

We'd also need a much larger player base to support not 3 GMH but 6.

We already have those Houses broken up into "Northern branch" and "Southern branch".

The only difference? Changing the names from "Southern branch" and "Northern branch" to "New House Name".

Not really. They're both part of the same House, it isn't as if they aren't interdependent on each other.

Those 'Branches' travel frequently in-between Tuluk and Allanak to cover all of the bases. With 6 GMH, how many players would you need for each House to function?

At least one 'seller' type PC.
At least one 'crafter' type PC, though this can sometimes be the seller.
1-2 Hunters.

For 6 Houses, you're talking about 18-24 PCs to make them properly function.

[Desertman]

We'd also need a much larger player base to support not 3 GMH but 6.

We already have those Houses broken up into "Northern branch" and "Southern branch".

The only difference? Changing the names from "Southern branch" and "Northern branch" to "New House Name".

Not really. They're both part of the same House, it isn't as if they aren't interdependent on each other.

I'm aware. I mean they should be/would be.

Edited to add: You edited on me!!!! Hehe.


I don't think the problem is that we don't have the player base to support full northern and southern branches, and as such, full northern and southern "Houses".

The problem is not enough people want to be part of those Houses because there is nothing meaningful in any way for the Hunters to do, the crafters to do, etc...etc...for reasons stated previously that I won't state again because, "Dead Horse Beating".

Give them something meaningful to do, and you will see the players flock to them. I know if you create something great that people love, you can get A LOT of people to be part of it. If you don't create it however, you will never get the players.

[KankWhisperer]

Once my GMH had a restriction on item X. So I get the idea to ask staff if I can use my minions to get more supplies for item X so that at least our PCs could sell more.

I never really got an explanation as to of it just wasn't feasible or if it was some secret my life sworn PC couldn't know. In the end the restrictions on item X were dropped.  So it was a paperwork victory but I really would have rather had something for us to do.

I guess I worry about too much of these things staff can change to make things easier for them but remove legitimate plots and reasons for GMH employees to exist.

[Semper]

Give them something meaningful to do, and you will see the players flock to them. I know if you create something great that people love, you can get A LOT of people to be part of it. If you don't create it however, you will never get the players.

You know, I think Arm saw a consistent boost to the playerbase when they announced Arm 2.0. That was something new, fresh, and meaningful for players, which might have revived the playerbase, but I'm speaking purely anecdotal. I'm curious to know stats on that. But if Arm can provide a fresh and meaningful interaction for players, both old and new, perhaps more players would come?

But I think perhaps for a bit of time, maybe some consolidation of major clans until players can fill all those roles that are needed for opening up another clan? Seriously, if we had the playerbase, I'm sure all the desert elf clans and human tribes might be open, but we just don't have the number to sustain them all. In a similar fashion, maybe open up some houses while closing others, or even just certain roles (just merchants, no agents/hunters, etc).

[KankWhisperer]

At this point I suspect Staff is waiting for my PC to die before we get new docs.

[Jihelu]

At this point I suspect Staff is waiting for my PC to die before we get new docs.

If it makes you feel better, staff is waiting for everyone to die.

[Desertman]

At this point I suspect Staff is waiting for my PC to die before we get new docs.

If it makes you feel better, staff is waiting for everyone to die.

They can keep waiting, because I'm too legit to quit!!!

(Nyr don't kill meh plz.)

[Patuk]

Funny. I'm waiting on staff to live 

[Clearsighted]

The way GMH hunters SHOULD work is a crew of 3-4 experienced hunters who are already relatively long lived, know what they're doing, and can go where they want, when they want as needed. The merchant tells them what's needed, and they bring it in.

The way it usually worked, is one of the GMHs is hopping at any given time, which attracts a Byn-like atmosphere, where it's hard to tell who is active or can even be trusted to know what they're doing. Or it turns into like an elaborate training course. I think your average GMH is too quick to hire just anyone. If someone can't be trusted with their own mount or means of travel, and go to from one city to the next by themselves, they probably shouldn't be hired.

In my experience, hunters often had very little to do because little was required in terms of raw materials being brought in (absent once in a blue moon) and no quotas to fill or asked for. So it eventually turns into some paramilitary outfit that has to occupy themselves with other things to keep from being bored.

I'd rather more of a Robert Muldoon/Great White Hunter type atmosphere, with official work for a GMH being a mark of elite distinction, and not T'zai Byn with more water and free lockers.

[Tuannon]

Most of the problems with GMH hunters come from outsiders shaping the crew as they would like it to be seen.

That includes people in the same house.

[Riev]

I wouldn't mind, on a general level, going back to the idea that you aren't joining a Merchant House unless the Byn vouches for your training, or you have someone the Merchant House/Crew might respect, saying you can pull your weight.

[Patuk]

And suddenly not a single soul managed to join a GMH thereafter,

[Malken]

I wouldn't mind, on a general level, going back to the idea that you aren't joining a Merchant House unless the Byn vouches for your training, or you have someone the Merchant House/Crew might respect, saying you can pull your weight.

Yeah, the problem with that is that you go in assuming that people are dying to join GMHs, which isn't the case at all, GMHs are dying for people to join them.

[flurry]

Most of the problems with GMH hunters come from outsiders shaping the crew as they would like it to be seen.

That includes people in the same house.

Outsiders shaping the crew? 

[flurry]

In my experience, hunters often had very little to do because little was required in terms of raw materials being brought in (absent once in a blue moon) and no quotas to fill or asked for. So it eventually turns into some paramilitary outfit that has to occupy themselves with other things to keep from being bored.

While I think there's a lot of truth to this, I've also seen a lot of cases of hunters who basically wanted to do their own thing regardless of what was needed. (Whether it's worth keeping that kind of hunter around is another discussion.)

[Tuannon]

Most of the problems with GMH hunters come from outsiders shaping the crew as they would like it to be seen.

That includes people in the same house.

Outsiders shaping the crew? 

Amos is fucking Corporal Malik, Amos wants the crew to do this that or the other.

Agent Dingus fancies himself as a hunter when he feels like it, he orders
his' hunt unit to hunt here without using bows.

Aide Tressella is a typical aide and tries to bullshit Sergeant Derp into doing this or that thing that his superiors say cannot be even talked about.

I'm not saying that it's not cool to have friction and conflicts, but a lot of good crews are wrecked by doing too much damage control and not enough actual hunting. I've seen it happen to three crews that I have been involved at a pointy end capacity in in three different organizations.

In terms of size, ideally you'd want a crew that's smaller than the average Byn or militia unit but not too many people that you can't keep them occupied with either training for newbies or jobs for experienced outside types. People who are not staff will generally have something to say if you don't hire fast enough or will have something to say if you hire anyone, it's a fine balance in my experience and depends.