RGO's
Moderator: Admin
Re: A perspective
See, the above is the problem. What was created and what was dreamed aren't the same at all. Reality is that we must diversify to attempt to be self sustaining. There's no bonus to having three food routes. It's better to have three different routes as you have a greater ability to get the bits you need with the bits you don't. With greater diversity comes a higher chance you'll have what someone else needs.Trevor Owen wrote: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.
Honsetly, why not make a guild one route? Number of people increases support which in turn increases production (ie make support directly tied to number of tags you get). Have the support to tag ratio be non-linear (similar to the leveling system) to create the same arificial cap on people we have on levels. You now have your specialization groups. Unfortunately, this is nigh impossible as it'd require re-tooling the routes and such.
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
- General Maximus
- Town Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am
I reviewed the formula for what trade routes can bring in. There are some discripence I would like to bring up.
1. The number of resources brought in, is to support the minium people guild requirement. About 3-6 people. But the acutual number should be x1.5 higher because a guild needs to be larger than the minium person requirement to handel X% of people who don't make it to the event. From past history x1.5 is the maxium requirement to make sure a RGo has a large enough pool of people to make sure they meet the minium people requirement. So a trade route sould support 4-9 people. Becuase when all the peole of a RGo make it to the events, there is not enough resources to support them all. But if you make a guild based on the minium people requirement, than you run into a peoblem of not meeting the minium people requirements. I would like the formula be updated to reflect a more accurate people requirement vrs the number of reosurces coming in.
2. The other issue in the formula is there is no consideration for basic upkeep. Basic upkeep for will range between 1-7 upkeep per person with an average of 4 basic upkeep (1 secondary resource). So what is the value of a secondary resource for upkeep? This needs to be added to the formula because we all need basic weapons and armor to fight for FH.
And for the one RGO multiple RGO's. It can be done either way. Right now there are super RGO's in the current rule system. It is all about what type of people who are in the RGO, RRO, RPO postions. You can look at them a postions of power or just as jobs. You can have mechaincs dictate how a group is built, or build the group and fit in the mechaincs into the group. It's all about perspective and how you want to RP everything out. By allowing a supper large RGO, it just simplifies stuff (less confusion, less paper work, etc), and helps people understand better.
It can be done both ways, so the only thing that would change is less beucrates would be required, and 1 less person would be required at the higher levels.
1. The number of resources brought in, is to support the minium people guild requirement. About 3-6 people. But the acutual number should be x1.5 higher because a guild needs to be larger than the minium person requirement to handel X% of people who don't make it to the event. From past history x1.5 is the maxium requirement to make sure a RGo has a large enough pool of people to make sure they meet the minium people requirement. So a trade route sould support 4-9 people. Becuase when all the peole of a RGo make it to the events, there is not enough resources to support them all. But if you make a guild based on the minium people requirement, than you run into a peoblem of not meeting the minium people requirements. I would like the formula be updated to reflect a more accurate people requirement vrs the number of reosurces coming in.
2. The other issue in the formula is there is no consideration for basic upkeep. Basic upkeep for will range between 1-7 upkeep per person with an average of 4 basic upkeep (1 secondary resource). So what is the value of a secondary resource for upkeep? This needs to be added to the formula because we all need basic weapons and armor to fight for FH.
And for the one RGO multiple RGO's. It can be done either way. Right now there are super RGO's in the current rule system. It is all about what type of people who are in the RGO, RRO, RPO postions. You can look at them a postions of power or just as jobs. You can have mechaincs dictate how a group is built, or build the group and fit in the mechaincs into the group. It's all about perspective and how you want to RP everything out. By allowing a supper large RGO, it just simplifies stuff (less confusion, less paper work, etc), and helps people understand better.
It can be done both ways, so the only thing that would change is less beucrates would be required, and 1 less person would be required at the higher levels.
Page 60: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?
Support Points are a representation of the character’s socioeconomic power based on experience (the power of face and name recognition), race (the power of discrimination), wealth (the power of money), and to a certain extent, Lifestyle (the power of manners and etiquette, or in the case of the Savage, the lack thereof).
This is a decent definition but it leaves out skill and effort. Support points, simply put, represents a characters efforts "Off stage" to adavnce the organization or tend to its holdings. This may be doing bookwork to keep track of and maximize a production source's efficiency. It may be researching new methods of farming or planting schedules. It may mean escorting wagon loads of goods from one location to another. It may mean scouting out faster ways to move ore from one valley to another. etc etc. Some groups of people are better than others at co-ordinating this type of effort thus the difference in Support points between Humans and non-humans, Savages and Non-Savages.
Role-playing wise, when a group organizer says to someone in the overall organization to support a certain RGO what they are saying in game is "We need your efforts here this month". So, in game, you shouldnt walk up to Bob the Warrior and say "Hey Bob, to make our trade routes come in, I need you to give your support points to JoJo the leader of the Guild of Stinking toads." you should say to him "Bob, the mine that the Guild of Stinking Toads is overseeing has lost a few guards and the creatures in the area are pretty dangerous. Will you spend the next few weeks in that area protecting the minners?".
Aaron, first off, you do not, to my knowledge, have the full formula for calculating trade route yield based on population. I can tell you that the formula is tight but we may look at loosening it abit. With that plus treasure plus the fact that about 20% of the population has skills that bring in resources or modify what resources they need, you will see the "Wiggle" room increase. On top of that, another great way to increase that wiggle room is to build workshops. The new workshop costs are MUCH MUCH more friendly than the current ones.I reviewed the formula for what trade routes can bring in. There are some discripence I would like to bring up.
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
-
- GM
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:44 pm
- Contact:
maybe I wasn't clear...
The model was never designed based on how many people you have.
Your production source (peasants etc) can only support so much overhead. No matter how many people you have, or how much influence, you will never get more than a certain ammount out of your production source, because there are only so many peasants and so much of the resource available.
You are at the top level of a subsistence economy. There are very slim margins unless you improve the routes with 'buildings' because that is intentional. We want it to be hard for you to survive. We want you to struggle to make ends meet.
You are in a post-apocalyptic world, and surviving month to month requires a great deal of logistics and planning, (or stealing from others who do the planning) because that is intentional. There is no intention (as far as I know) of making it easier to amass wealth, it is a pain in the butt, I know, but it is intentionally that way to increase the struggle. Adding more people to your interaction with a particular group of suppliers cannot help them make more - because your adventurers are not actually doing the making, they are just managing.
Your production source (peasants etc) can only support so much overhead. No matter how many people you have, or how much influence, you will never get more than a certain ammount out of your production source, because there are only so many peasants and so much of the resource available.
You are at the top level of a subsistence economy. There are very slim margins unless you improve the routes with 'buildings' because that is intentional. We want it to be hard for you to survive. We want you to struggle to make ends meet.
You are in a post-apocalyptic world, and surviving month to month requires a great deal of logistics and planning, (or stealing from others who do the planning) because that is intentional. There is no intention (as far as I know) of making it easier to amass wealth, it is a pain in the butt, I know, but it is intentionally that way to increase the struggle. Adding more people to your interaction with a particular group of suppliers cannot help them make more - because your adventurers are not actually doing the making, they are just managing.
Master of witless lore and red herrings
I think the crux of the argument though is not so much why can't I get more out of the production sources but rather why can't I manage more production sources.
I will say that right now the economic model that we run does pump more than enough resources into game for everyone to survive. I think the frustration is that this fact is difficult to see since there isn't one pile of resources that everyone divies up. While people are okay with that, they would like to see a larger chunk of it with their own eyes. At least, that is what I am hearing people say.
I will say that right now the economic model that we run does pump more than enough resources into game for everyone to survive. I think the frustration is that this fact is difficult to see since there isn't one pile of resources that everyone divies up. While people are okay with that, they would like to see a larger chunk of it with their own eyes. At least, that is what I am hearing people say.
- General Maximus
- Town Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am
Thanks for the feedback. I was only going on what information I know and applied it to my own calculations. That sounds great. By the way, I think you guys do a great job with such a complex resource system.
You are right, wealth is hard to achieve in this game, which makes resources very valulable because of what they can do.
You are right, wealth is hard to achieve in this game, which makes resources very valulable because of what they can do.
- General Maximus
- Town Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am
How are the resources handeled when more and more people are coming to the game? Will the resources increase? It sounds like there is a set amount of resources to come into game modified by all charts, etc... Does the amount of resources increse with more people, or will new trade routes be found?
I know there are many routes that the town cannot support becuase there is not enough orginized people to handle them all. I can see some fustration on the limitations being driven from that.
I see the basic arugment as why can't we just have 1 RGO instead of haveing 2-3 RGO's that form 1 in game group? I see the point from both sides, and I know a large cohesive orginization can be formed in either system. So it doesn't matter which way it goes. The 1 RGO would make paper work and communications easier, but if the NPC staff wants striff, than the current system works very well.
Here's a prime example of striff the current system can do. Ug was given control of the guild of thunder. He ws trusted and worked well with the over all oginzation. Next thing Ug left the over all ogrinization and there was chaos. The current system allows for that. The proposed system would limit that. It allows people in power position to do as they wish and hurt the over all orginization. This striff makes it very hard to build RRO, and RPO and sustain the for any period of time. It makes for some interest RPing, but is it worth the hassel and fustration?
I know there are many routes that the town cannot support becuase there is not enough orginized people to handle them all. I can see some fustration on the limitations being driven from that.
I see the basic arugment as why can't we just have 1 RGO instead of haveing 2-3 RGO's that form 1 in game group? I see the point from both sides, and I know a large cohesive orginization can be formed in either system. So it doesn't matter which way it goes. The 1 RGO would make paper work and communications easier, but if the NPC staff wants striff, than the current system works very well.
Here's a prime example of striff the current system can do. Ug was given control of the guild of thunder. He ws trusted and worked well with the over all oginzation. Next thing Ug left the over all ogrinization and there was chaos. The current system allows for that. The proposed system would limit that. It allows people in power position to do as they wish and hurt the over all orginization. This striff makes it very hard to build RRO, and RPO and sustain the for any period of time. It makes for some interest RPing, but is it worth the hassel and fustration?
- General Maximus
- Town Member
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am
Thats what I mean by interesting RPing. Many thing could have been done, just like you are suggesting. But with this inherit striff built into the system, it makes it very hard, if not impossible to build RRO and RPO and keep them going. Been there, tried it, and it was alot of work in game and out of game. To me, not worth the hassel and fustration it brings. The striff the system creates decreased the enjoyment of the game for many people.
The single RGO system would not solve this problem, but would help some. To me, it's about enjoying the game, and I agree striff is good, but to much striff is bad. It's a hard to find a balance and the NPC has done a great job at it.
The single RGO system would not solve this problem, but would help some. To me, it's about enjoying the game, and I agree striff is good, but to much striff is bad. It's a hard to find a balance and the NPC has done a great job at it.
-
- GM
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:44 pm
- Contact:
ah now I see
okay, so we have more of a social dynamic here than an economic one I think. When someone goes off and does their own thing, it is hard to recover from, since you have a limited ammount of time in game to straighten out the change in structure out of game.
That makes sense to me, and I can see your argument.
However - I think part of it may be due to the population of the game at this point. We are receiving attendance that is borderline being able to support two strong RRO level orgs - everyone tends to drift towards one of these.
However - I think as the population creeps up a little bit (50-60 regular attendees) you will see a period of less RGO tension, as each RRO has enough people to accomplish its goals...
Probably around 60ish things will tighten up again as a faction tries to see about creating a third RRO. I think as well, when you increase the overall population organizations stabilize a bit as people find a niche that fits them better, rather than disrupting the current structure by creating a new niche.
Well, either way, I think this has been an excellent discusion, and I think wayne's post about the 'what' of support points really helps to drive the in-game feel we are going for.
That makes sense to me, and I can see your argument.
However - I think part of it may be due to the population of the game at this point. We are receiving attendance that is borderline being able to support two strong RRO level orgs - everyone tends to drift towards one of these.
However - I think as the population creeps up a little bit (50-60 regular attendees) you will see a period of less RGO tension, as each RRO has enough people to accomplish its goals...
Probably around 60ish things will tighten up again as a faction tries to see about creating a third RRO. I think as well, when you increase the overall population organizations stabilize a bit as people find a niche that fits them better, rather than disrupting the current structure by creating a new niche.
Well, either way, I think this has been an excellent discusion, and I think wayne's post about the 'what' of support points really helps to drive the in-game feel we are going for.
Master of witless lore and red herrings
As the game grows, current trade routes will be modified slightly and new ones will be added. We currently have economic models that cover up to 150 players. These changes are done at certain population intervals so when you are at the lower end of an economic model and the extreme upper end, you may feel abit of a pinch.How are the resources handeled when more and more people are coming to the game? Will the resources increase? It sounds like there is a set amount of resources to come into game modified by all charts, etc... Does the amount of resources increse with more people, or will new trade routes be found?
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
I guess I must not be seeing what the people that want to be able to bring in unlimited routes with 1 RGO are saying. It sounds like your saying that you don't want to split your people up OOG even though you do it IG(some of you). It sounds like you're saying that you don't like the mechanics because they are more complicated than "I have enough support points to get x amount of stuff". You want it to be much much simpler and not have to worry about managing it. I can understand that, really I can! I was in your position when the ORG rules changed the first time (not this last time the very first time). I thought "this is crap, I know a few people could handle more than that, especially if they are just managing the process". But when you look at it as an economic system and not a support point system then it makes perfect sense the way it is set up.
In my example the widgets are the peasants, a finite # or market. The "workers" are the RGO's they get the stuff done to make sure the peasants or widgets are getting things done the way they should be. The "management" is the RRO, they organize and coordinate everything that the RGO's are doing. Taki was the the RRO or management of the Phoenix, his captains were his RGO's, now Phil is the Phoenix RRO. Taki, you can't tell me being head of the Phoenix was ever easy cause I know better . And if you take my example one step further the widgets, the 2 "lines" and the management all make up an RPO or company.
I find it interesting that now that the OOG system is purely mechanical even with names that are purely mechanical that the social is still the focus. If it's truly just a socio-economic system as it apparently is intended to be then what does it matter if you have to depatmentalize your people OOG?
Yes the paperwork and figuring things out is a pain in the arse, I know this better than anyone except maybe Aaron who actually likes the stuff. But it represents an economy which is NOT in any way a simple thing. I think you guys are finally understanding why I did so much groaning when the system changed again this last time, I had finally learned to work the system effectively then it changed.
As far as the "feel" of the game, the make up of the resource system shouldn't affect it at all. It's strictly an OOG thing and the only reason it would affect the immersion is because people are using "mechanic speak" instead of finding an IG way to express it which is the same with all the rules, most PC's tend to default to "mechanic speak" instead of finding another way to express it. I do it, everyone does it, changing the way the rules work to allow for unlimited routes for 1 guild won't fix any of that. Better RP and more imaginative wording will. Of course it breaks immersion if someone walks up to you and say's, "Hey can you support Bill this month, he needs the support points so we don't lose our trade route"
Yes Aaron there is certainly a point where you can't bring in enough resources as 1 guild to support all the people in it. But having a few buffer people is not that point. Having twice as many people as you need is closer to that point. As Chris said there is a point where you just have too much middle management and they need to be redistributed.
I understand the questioning of why not, the answers are supposed to spell that "why not" out instead of just saying "No, sorry, that won't work." Cause that would piss people off much more than trying to explain the why to them.
Guys, give me 1 example of a company that does not have any smaller companies within it that are in more than 3 seperate distinct industries.
All that said I could get behind a model where the support points and the # of people needed grew exponentially after 8th level. One where eventually you end up screwing yourself over because you've spread yourself too thin.
(wow alot got posted while I was working)
One more response, Aaron your guilds were min maxed, I waited til I knew the house could be supported even if 25% of the people either left or changed allegiance before starting it so it was much easier for me. *shrugs*
In my example the widgets are the peasants, a finite # or market. The "workers" are the RGO's they get the stuff done to make sure the peasants or widgets are getting things done the way they should be. The "management" is the RRO, they organize and coordinate everything that the RGO's are doing. Taki was the the RRO or management of the Phoenix, his captains were his RGO's, now Phil is the Phoenix RRO. Taki, you can't tell me being head of the Phoenix was ever easy cause I know better . And if you take my example one step further the widgets, the 2 "lines" and the management all make up an RPO or company.
I find it interesting that now that the OOG system is purely mechanical even with names that are purely mechanical that the social is still the focus. If it's truly just a socio-economic system as it apparently is intended to be then what does it matter if you have to depatmentalize your people OOG?
Are we playing the same game? Sensible or not we've been IN THIS EXACT SITUATION FOR OVER 4 YEARS NOW. And when we finally were close to having a somewhat stable heirarchy a couple of people died and the game FACTIONALIZED EVEN MORE! People are not Vulcans and alot of the time personal experience, preference, emotion, prejudices or any of a host of different things that may affect decisions come into play.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
Oh really, the tension in the town feels fake to you guys? I really must be playing a different game than you guys are. Even within the Phoenix there are tensions that are not artificial so that sounds way off to me.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.
Wrong, the system DOES NOT actively discourage banding together, the system supports banding together IG to get things done efficiently. Our CHARACTERS haven't been able to do so for over 4 years now. The system gives more and more rewards for banding together in a heirarchial or business model however you want to see it. It discourages one group controlling everything without departmentalizing. And you can't tell me that there is no risk in departmentalizing. Ask Aaron how pissed and worried he was when Ug told him that he was planning on taking the Mystic trade route and joining the Rising Sun?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).
Yes the paperwork and figuring things out is a pain in the arse, I know this better than anyone except maybe Aaron who actually likes the stuff. But it represents an economy which is NOT in any way a simple thing. I think you guys are finally understanding why I did so much groaning when the system changed again this last time, I had finally learned to work the system effectively then it changed.
As far as the "feel" of the game, the make up of the resource system shouldn't affect it at all. It's strictly an OOG thing and the only reason it would affect the immersion is because people are using "mechanic speak" instead of finding an IG way to express it which is the same with all the rules, most PC's tend to default to "mechanic speak" instead of finding another way to express it. I do it, everyone does it, changing the way the rules work to allow for unlimited routes for 1 guild won't fix any of that. Better RP and more imaginative wording will. Of course it breaks immersion if someone walks up to you and say's, "Hey can you support Bill this month, he needs the support points so we don't lose our trade route"
Yes Aaron there is certainly a point where you can't bring in enough resources as 1 guild to support all the people in it. But having a few buffer people is not that point. Having twice as many people as you need is closer to that point. As Chris said there is a point where you just have too much middle management and they need to be redistributed.
Whether it's the intention or not it's something that the GM's have to look at if they don't want the economic system to work that way. It's not personal, atleast I would assume so, but the GM's have to look at how the changes you suggest could affect the system.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.
That's what they are saying, it doesn't fit the socio-economic model to have 1 person (RGO's only have 1 person mechanically to call all the shots) in control of a ton of routes, you guys want the division of power to be IG RP but it HAS to be mechanical or the system doesn't work. Go back to my example of Ug planning to leave the Phoenix and Join Rising Sun. That is a prime example of having to divy the power among "managers" and someone deciding that they are taking their "management" and connections with the source somewhere else, if that was all just RP then the system breaks down right there and you only end up losing whatever support points Ug and whoever leaves takes with them which as Aaron can tell you, becomes less and less of an issue as characters progress. Atrum, when he died, had nearly enough points to support a RPO all by himself.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.
I understand the questioning of why not, the answers are supposed to spell that "why not" out instead of just saying "No, sorry, that won't work." Cause that would piss people off much more than trying to explain the why to them.
Guys, give me 1 example of a company that does not have any smaller companies within it that are in more than 3 seperate distinct industries.
All that said I could get behind a model where the support points and the # of people needed grew exponentially after 8th level. One where eventually you end up screwing yourself over because you've spread yourself too thin.
(wow alot got posted while I was working)
One more response, Aaron your guilds were min maxed, I waited til I knew the house could be supported even if 25% of the people either left or changed allegiance before starting it so it was much easier for me. *shrugs*
Last edited by Peace420 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Death=Adder
One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
~Pink Floyd~
One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
~Pink Floyd~