I don't suppose you can give more detail on what Empire is planning, can you? I haven't been following it.
Empire aims to cater for 700+ people at least 3 times a year. I do not think that what they have in mind would suit your model, but seeing as you asked:
1 - Broad, shallow advancement, so that new PCs are not significantly weaker than older PCs. In Maelstrom, when you learn to call TRIPLE, you do it with every blow - which is powerful when the newbie can only call SINGLE. One idea being mooted is to move to X-calls-per-day, so that a newbie can call TRIPLE x1 a day and the veteran can call it x4 a day. A newbie who waits till the veteran has used their special moves will suddenly have the balance of power in their favour. The risk is a lot of cross-class characters if fighters find they have topped their trees and go on to study alchemy. It will also not have an opportunity cost attached.
2 - Single assets. In Maelstrom, a player can have as many assets in their DT as they like. So Group A kills 95% of Group B, the lone surviving member of Group B inherits all their assets and has disproportionate power/wealth. In Empire, PCs get a single asset (A Church, A Small Military Unit, A Mine, A Magical Site). If they want to build an Army, they need to team up with other PCs so that their Small Military Units work together.
3 - Uptime use. The assets will generate stuff that is of use at events rather than having all their "coolness" happen in downtime. So if the mine makes gold, the player has to sell that at the event rather than in downtime. Don't want to sell gold? Don't have a mine. The proposed model does favour groups over solo players as groups can pool or coordinate assets for greater advantage.
4 - Optional. Players who do not want to downtime should not feel that they are missing out to those that are. They can set their DT asset on "automatic" and just get something to play with at events or not as they choose. As people cannot acquire multiple assets (but can upgrade the one they have) there is less scaling to worry about between the haves and have nots. Assets may act as plot hooks (i.e. if the location they are in is invaded) but the emphasis is always on how they make the next event interesting, not the next downtime.
There's probably other design principles at play and I am contractually required to say that all of the above is still a work in progress and subject to change.
Empire aims to cater for 700+ people at least 3 times a year. I do not think that what they have in mind would suit your model, but seeing as you asked:
1 - Broad, shallow advancement, so that new PCs are not significantly weaker than older PCs. In Maelstrom, when you learn to call TRIPLE, you do it with every blow - which is powerful when the newbie can only call SINGLE. One idea being mooted is to move to X-calls-per-day, so that a newbie can call TRIPLE x1 a day and the veteran can call it x4 a day. A newbie who waits till the veteran has used their special moves will suddenly have the balance of power in their favour. The risk is a lot of cross-class characters if fighters find they have topped their trees and go on to study alchemy. It will also not have an opportunity cost attached.
2 - Single assets. In Maelstrom, a player can have as many assets in their DT as they like. So Group A kills 95% of Group B, the lone surviving member of Group B inherits all their assets and has disproportionate power/wealth. In Empire, PCs get a single asset (A Church, A Small Military Unit, A Mine, A Magical Site). If they want to build an Army, they need to team up with other PCs so that their Small Military Units work together.
3 - Uptime use. The assets will generate stuff that is of use at events rather than having all their "coolness" happen in downtime. So if the mine makes gold, the player has to sell that at the event rather than in downtime. Don't want to sell gold? Don't have a mine. The proposed model does favour groups over solo players as groups can pool or coordinate assets for greater advantage.
4 - Optional. Players who do not want to downtime should not feel that they are missing out to those that are. They can set their DT asset on "automatic" and just get something to play with at events or not as they choose. As people cannot acquire multiple assets (but can upgrade the one they have) there is less scaling to worry about between the haves and have nots. Assets may act as plot hooks (i.e. if the location they are in is invaded) but the emphasis is always on how they make the next event interesting, not the next downtime.
There's probably other design principles at play and I am contractually required to say that all of the above is still a work in progress and subject to change.
Reply
Leave a comment