I'm noting while going through all this that I'm pretty much ready to move on from this topic. Not Policies, but this tree. We've hit it pretty hard over the last month. We're making progress, but it's somewhat incremental, so it might make more sense to move on and finalize this stuff in the next pass.
I see what you mean, but I'm seeing this as much more flexible for us because we can't just straight up use all of the "isms" from reality, because then it will just be the actual real world concepts. WoT doesn't give us these kind of named academic terms that represent equivalent forms of societal structure, so I think it pays to consider stuff like this as well. My suggestions from last time aren't intended to say that a "few people are like this", it's more about "people of this civilization tend to be like this" - which informs more about how certain systems would interact with their people. Given our classification of Fear/Acceptance as how people respond to channelers and the Philosophies as how governments do so, this seems consistent to me.
Not that I dislike your suggestions and if we can get the good "mercantilism" style names then let's go for those. But I think the "strange" versions of those that sound out of place are worse than the "representative traits of people" style. I've been trying to come up with these kinds of societal trait names on all of these posts, but have mostly found them lacking.
I do also think that very specific naming at this stage may be putting the cart before the horse. We may have to drastically change the mechanics of some of these Policies for balance reasons once we actually play them, which invalidates much of this discussion, which is largely flavorful. Without major guideposts from the canon like we have in other systems, I think a general impression of the flavor direction of something could be sufficient to even make the Policies playable.
I understand that things like "Mercantilism" are few and far between in this world (that's an interesting choice you bring up, since that's one I've been campaigning against for a few years now...), but those proper-noun "isms" isn't what I'm advocating for. Legalism was one example, but something like "Military Caste" is a much better example.
It's the part of speech that I'm stuck on, if that's the right term. Several of the one's you've proposed feel more like mottos and things like that. I remain convinced that consistency in this regard is required.
That said, you're quite right that it doesn't have to be decided in this pass. I'm happy asterisking the ones we aren't (I am not) sold on.
None of these have the ring of "Master Conspirators" to me. I do see what you mean about them being societal traits. They don't have the strength of the well defined "isms", I'd say, which is what drew me to the others. It's much of a muchness to me at this stage really though, the flavor of "conspiracy" as a concept fits the intended framing flavor of this policy well.
I would prefer most of these over Master Conspirators, though this one isn't the hugest deal. Again, part of speech: Conspiracy Mastery? Prevalent Conspiracies? Popular Conspiracies? Folk Conspiracy? I still think "Conspiracies" is relatively safe.
Nobody rediscovered the ability to do this in the books timeline, but given the mechanical sensibility of being able to purchase Shadowspawn as a mechanic, it seems like very appropriate flavor. The techniques to do so obviously exist in the canon and as readers we know Aginor invented them, using methods that weren't somehow exclusive to him. (It's implied that the Town produces Shadowspawn, right?) It seems like a very reasonable connection given what we're doing here.
I'm not sure we should dismiss the "science-y" ones so quickly, because I think the connection to Shadowspawn being "invented" life forms is quite easy for fans to make. Is there another way to connect back to Aginor's research without making it too science-y at the same time?
hmmmm, The Town. The Forgers and all that? That's very Thakandar, though. But your point is taken.
The name here is extremely tough. I'm not sold on the science thing, but I also don't have an obvious superior answer.
What about something vague like "Dark Secrets"? I know that sort of overlaps with the conspiracy thing, but it might cover what we're talking about while being vague enough to not totally create an expectation of science. Maybe "Dark Traditions"? I don't love how these relate to Pride or Conceit or Deceit, but maybe it's ok. Darn, I had a third idea here, but lost it. Maybe "Dark" isn't the right word. "Hidden Secrets" is too redundant. You had "Hidden Knowledge" or something before, but that didn't smell like a trait enough to me, and is overtly sciency - it's really close, though - possibly the best option, after all (not counting whatever happens below)
The underground market flavor could work.
The flavor from the books is really that civs left their Waygates unguarded/unsealed, right? Can we do something with that? Waygate Abandonment? Or could we touch on the flavor of using the Ways too much, even though they're dangerous and that leads the Shadowspawn to you? Ways Exploration?
Hmm, I think the Ways connection will be hard to make make any sense, without some degree of explanation. A Policy called "Ways Exploration" would 100% be expected to do something that relates to the Ways...
"Illicit Travel", "Smuggling," "Trafficking," etc.... Not sure I like any of these.
I'd be fine with changing that name, I think we almost went for Deceit (or was it Conceit?) first but switched back to Pride.
I think Conceit and Pride are similar enough concepts that Conceit will give us problems in the same way. I like Pride the most of these because it's sort of a Positive thing. Deceit is much more negative, but at least feels like a trait a society could theoretically have. Maybe go to Deceit?
Mostly moot, but WBrs would still be useful even in that case, right? (They have other good abilities.) Whereas nobody would build Dreamspikes since they can just be destroyed really easily.
yeah, either way, not something we want to gimp.
Cool, that's one candidate, though it's hard to have a Policy that does so much when the effects aren't really punchy to describe.
I feel like there's still a better option for a new Shadow ability here that we haven't quite found yet!
yeah.... Should we line these all up now and see what the "whole" looks like at this point? We've been very bogged down in the details. At this point there are some competing choices floating around, and I'm honestly not positive on which things are competing with which!
With a high enough % it would kill often enough, and we can tweak that easily. Even when it doesn't kill them, it does importantly push them out of T'a'r for a time, so could be used as a part of a very offensive T'a'r push.
ok.
Right, but we'd need to come up with a generic societal trait that connects to this, whereas "being torn from the Dream" is an actual canonical phrase that can be framed as a "practice", and reflects what the mechanic does. This seems to be where a lot of our difference on flavor preference comes from, that I've moved away from the societal trait phrasing where I think there are more catchy/canonical phrases available. Again, if there's a phrasing that's both then let's use that; I just couldn't come up with one last time.
If it can be framed as a practice, I'm on board. It's not the flavor I take issue with, but the phrasing/framing.
and also, to be clear... it's a silly notion as a practice. I don't really think, flavor-wise, tearing somebody from their dream is really something that can be consistently done or sought out. Birgitte and all that is a rather rare occurrence. The Entering the Flesh thing might be an easier thing to frame as a practice (since it could actually be one), though of course we've used that flavor on the DW
Yeah, this could end up being too much work for the reward it gives out. For your latter suggestion, it could be a Shadowspawn unit under the civ's control, instead of the Shadowspawn civ? That would make it more worthwhile, though then overlaps a bit with being able to purchase Shadowspawn.
right, that's definitely an overlap with the shadowspawn policy. If we do that one, we probably shouldn't do either of these choices, for that reason.
Yeah, I think people would expect that at first glance for the "enter in the flesh" flavor. This is also the flavor we've used for the Dreamwalker's ability.
The Forsaken frequently used T'a'r for spying/meeting, can we do more with that? Some kind of ability that reveals patches of the map (of the player's choice) with active sight for a time? Or a way to gain a glimpse at a narrowed list of positions of Seals every so often? ("There's at least one Seal in cities X, Y, and Z.")
If we do an ability like that, it has to be called Dreamspying. It's the only way that would make sense. I've lost track of where that name is living now!
As far as mechanics, maybe something like "Projections gain active sight in the real world while harvesting Glimmers" or something like that? I don't think it should be always.
I'm a bit confused, because part of this sentence seems positive about the Ogier unit (it might not take away from Stedding, and the BSister point seems to be a "goes together" point), but you've led with you're "not open to this".
yeah, totally unclear here. Wrong, that is. the "not" is wrong. Should state that I AM open to this. sorry
In terms of a "signature" Light unit, the Ogier seem to be the ones who represent that best. They're not as "representative" as Shadowspawn because Shadowspawn are everywhere, but the Ogier are generally Light aligned in the canon. (And as is reflected by our mechanics of Stedding tending toward the Light.) In terms of such a unit taking away from the Stedding, I think that's easily avoided by just not having any of the Stedding's unique units be the same. Some ability difference or effect conferred by Stedding ownership (rather than civ ownership through this Policy) would make them different enough that they would have their own roles.
Right. Agreed. Though, I think if we do this, we have to reconsider whether stedding can *ever* go shadow. It doesn't make sense to permit light units to build a bunch of ogier units, when the whole map's worth of stedding have all gone shadow.
I think the light-permanence of the stedding is something we could/should consider, as a kind of counterpoint to the shadowspawn. The problem with that, as far as I can tell, is it messes with any shadow diplo civs, and makes Friendship (the branch) incompatible with Shadow leaning. That's bad. Any way around that?
I think the Dreamwalker could fit in here, but it's not an option that I find to be exciting for the player. I think we have other options that are compelling and unlikely to appear elsewhere, whereas the Dreamwalker could also fit on another tree/branch.
sure.
Right, this still affects how many Black Sisters you have at the beginning of the LB. That mechanic of how they're created is as we've decided before in the summary. But the Tower also isn't giving out Black Sisters. Or at least I didn't think it was. Looking at the Diplo summary, this isn't 100% clear.
Does the Tower continue to give out Sisters in some capacity once the LB starts? How does that decision interact with players who are on the opposite side of the LB from the Tower? (A Light Tower presumably doesn't give Shadow players more Sisters? And vice versa?)
I was thinking, in the case of a Light Tower for example, that the Shadow players would otherwise have however many Black Sisters they get as a part of the mechanic above at the start of the LB and then be unable to get any more. (I believe we discussed and liked that change in scarcity when we were discussing how the Turning works?) A Policy like this would give them some more flexibility, but still keep scarcity because they can only possibly have so much Faith and the cost scales up like LP-Faith-purchase cost.
And Light players would be in a similar situation in the reverse, a Turned Tower is no longer giving out normal Sisters to them. Which would actually make Aes Sedai purchase-with-Faith after the LB starts a reasonable comparable finisher for Integrity? We can discuss that more as an option depending on what the above looks like.
As for the civs who are on the same side of the LB as the Tower - do they just continue to receive Sisters as normal, or does something change?
ok, lots to consider here! I should say that figuring this out is the path to making this policy/finisher work. If we choose a good system for what happens during hte LB, I think I become fine with the BSister with Faith.
First of all, I'd like to create a system in which Authority matters to a shadow civ, as does the Diplomacy branch of Politics (is it still called that? That's a bad name, IMO... considering we have a Diplomatic victory). Some of the ideas above would essentially make them all meaningless.
As far as I see it, these are the possible paths forward:
1) Side that controls the Tower gets new Aes Sedai, loser doesn't
2) Light side gets new Aes Sedai, Shadow doesn't
3) Both sides constantly get Aes Sedai
It sounds like #1 is where your proposal lives. I think this one makes sense, but leaves us with the least mechanical flexibility and nuance. We'd essentially have to present a light aes sedai faith buy option here, and I don't think we want that. The reason is that the Tower will usually *not* turn, since it's supposed to be a challenge to do it. Thus, the policy/finisher becomes something that's useful only for restocking your dead sisters, which is fine, but in most games it'll be much, much less vital, since the Light will usually control the Tower, so a civ's quota might sit at 8 or something, instead of 2 or something, and that replacement of a Sister is way less impactful. In other words, it's an unbalanced policy.
IMO, the "punishment" for losing the Tower (for either side) is big enough as is: 1)A huge dropoff in your quota, as well as the max exodus of some of your sisters, and 2)ruined diplomatic relations with he Tower. (on this note, like with stedding, we do need to choose policies carefully so that a "losing" civ that went all in on Politics isn't left with nothing). So I think I'd prefer the replenishment of dead Aes Sedai not also be affected by who controls the tower.
I think #2 could certainly work. It actually makes a good deal of flavorful sense. A turned tower is likely still "officially good," in that their policies remain in place as they were, and a large number of sisters would go on, blissfully unaware of the evilness of their institutions. The Turning of the tower was unlikely to be a full on, public coup, so much as a shadow puppet kind of thing, I'd say.
Doing this option allows us to also use this Policy as a possible counterpoint to this - Light and neutral players always get their Sisters replenished, but Shadows have to use the faith buy.
Since that does kind of gimp Shadow players who choose Authority (although they'd get a larger quota) and Diplomacy, perhaps the better way to do it would be to still allow replenishment for everybody, but make it slower for shadow civs (we don't want it to feel like double jeapardy - you lose your sisters AND you never get them back). Then, who controls the tower could be a modifier on top of that. So, something like:
This option is perhaps the least "fair," but it does allow for the possibility of the policy the most, IMO.
#3 is probably the most fair and the simplest. We leave the changed quotas and messed up diplomacy as the big consequences of losing the tower. This also likely preserves the integrity of Authority and Diplomacy the most. It also feels the least punitive. This is most likely the choice I would select. However, your policy proposal throws a wrench in this. With BSisters being on equal footing, then their faith-buy brings up all the imbalance I've been whining about in recent posts. If it's, by contrast, an asymmetrical system, as #2, then suddenly the faith buy of the black S's becomes a necessary and cool mechanic.
What do you think?
No problem re awkwardness, we should be clear on why we choose stuff! Yeah, I've mostly been responding to why I don't think the Black Sister Policy has certain problems, or more specifically that I don't think we can know whether or not it has the kinds of balance problems that will lead us to remove it. (I think there are too many variables for us to know that now.)
The reason I think it's good is I think it's really recognizable and fun for the player. It's a really scarce unit that players will instantly recognize from the books and will make the Policy really impactful. I'd look at the ability to purchase Black Ajah Sisters as being really cool and potentially unexpected, but the Faith mechanic still makes some kind of flavor sense with how the Black Ajah worked. It also lets us create a cost system that can scale up aggressively to prevent players getting loads of Black Sisters. (We wouldn't want players to be able to just produce them, for example.)
The risk is that we have to remove it because it's too strong. But the above payoff is really cool, and our alternatives of things like the Wolfbrother, the Dreamwalker, or Shadowspawn won't be abandoned if we do try this, because there are places for them to be used elsewhere.
right, my thoughts on this are above. I'm ok with doing this, assuming it is paired with the appropriate Tower mechanic! Otherwise, Black Sisters become more numerous than White, which I find uncomfortable.
Yeah, that would be cool, but it is quite late to unlock for that and difficult for the player to incite that to be an option for them.
I'm beginning to wonder if FtP is actually going the right way, and if we might be better off with the Armed Stonemasons Policy that allows them to produce some kind of Ogier unit?
I think the Ogier one is fine... if we can find away to make it make sense with the diplo game we've set up!
Yeah, I'm unsure about this. It doesn't have to be a Light player Policy, I'm mostly floating the concept of a Sealbearer purchase existing somewhere, not yet sure whether it should go on one branch, on an unbranched Policy, or even as a Tenet.
The instant nature seems like it could mess with the Seal stealing meta. But again, scaling up costs with increased purchases creates a nice CiV-like soft ceiling on how much that could change things. The defending player also doesn't know exactly how long it will take for a stealing operation to complete, so they have no way of reliably "sniping" the Seal out of the city on the last turn. (Which still resets their progress, so waiting until the last minute doesn't really help them much.)
I think I'd mostly feel better keeping Seal stuff out of this branch. Unless we go very all-in on it, and give each side a kind of equivalent mechanic that relates to it. hmmmm (again, kind of lost track of what this exactly competes with!)
I've written most of it (out of order, so too fragmented to post now), but I won't be home until late tomorrow. I'll try to finish it off then! Otherwise, I am actually home on Friday and so will definitely be able to finish it by then, if I don't tomorrow!
