Pantheons - an experiment in metagaming.

Gregstrom · #1 October 25th, 2009, 08:47 AM

Hokay, peeps, this one might be a bit seat-of-the-pants as it's a new concept. I think it'll work better for bigger games, so I'm hoping for enough interest to make this a borderline megagame, but that may be a pipe dream. Post if you're at all interested, I guess.

Number of players: many. Seriously, the more the better.
Map: Depends on the number of players, but I think a large one. works better for the concept.
Mods: CBM 1.6, Holy War, Endo's Site Mod. Others by request, perhaps. I'm inclined to allow mod nations.
Settings: Mostly default. HoF 15, renaming on.
Era: Probably MA, but if interest is huge I'll make it all ages.

Victory: Victory by Pantheon.

Okay - the last point is the USP for this game. Instead of 'Only the One True God may win', a pantheon of Pretenders can be acclaimed victors. A monotheism could win, but I reckon pantheons are likely to do better.

There won't be any preset pantheons, either. That would make it a team game. You'll have to work them out as you go along instead, in a kind of diplomatic manner. There can be ranks within a pantheon, too; a King/Queen of the gods, deities of war, love, fire or whatever, and demigods below them.

I'm kind of expecting points to be raised for discussion before the game begins, as I doubt I've thought of everything. I'll try to update the top post with relevant bits as we go.

ghoul31 · #2 October 25th, 2009, 09:30 AM

There should be a limit on the amount of winners. Maybe 2 or 3. Or else you will just have a 10 man team form, wipe everyone out in a few turns, and end the game.

llamabeast · #3 October 25th, 2009, 09:36 AM

Yep, everyone could just form a single team and win immediately!

One idea that someone had before was that a certain number of players (e.g. 2 for a smallish game) could be "superpower" nations. Analogous to, say, the US and Russia during the Cold War. They may or may not be more powerful in any meaningful sense. However, all the other players can choose to ally themselves to a superpower, and then wins if that superpower wins. So the superpowers have to browbeat their neighbours into joining their cause, and then direct them to victory.

Gandalf Parker · #4 October 25th, 2009, 02:07 PM

Im not completely sure how that would be different than many games that already get played. In many of the larger longer-running games the winner has been an alliance group. Altho that has irritated some people who try to say that the game isnt supposed to be played that way, its never bothered me. I tend to treat my alliances more honorably than some. Coming to the point of "now we must fight each other" and declaring the game done instead sits well with me.

But, I have always been in favor of making things clear at the start of a game. Some people would join, and others not, if that was mentioned at the start. Declaring that it is acceptable for a Pantheon Win as part of the games conception might help to smooth things later.

Gandalf Parker

PsiSoldier · #5 October 25th, 2009, 01:07 PM

An idea Ive had for a game that would kind of fit in with this line of thought was to have a game where teams were formed based on their Magic affinity. Like a Death pantheon, Fire pantheon, Water pantheon etc..

Something like that would pretty much have to be all ages though. And you would still have nations that defied easy classification which I suppose in that case they could choose one of their stronger forms to join.

jmb · #6 October 26th, 2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsiSoldier

An idea Ive had for a game that would kind of fit in with this line of thought was to have a game where teams were formed based on their Magic affinity. Like a Death pantheon, Fire pantheon, Water pantheon etc..

Something like that would pretty much have to be all ages though. And you would still have nations that defied easy classification which I suppose in that case they could choose one of their stronger forms to join.

The problem with that is that it's not really different from a team game since you don't have much choice for who you can ally with. OTOH, you could do the reverse: at most one god of Fire, one god of Water and so on per Pantheon...

Frozen Lama · #7 October 25th, 2009, 01:45 PM

I'd be up for this kind of game, and i like Psi's idea. definatly need a certain size limit. but psi's idea makes it a team game which it sounds like you don't want. maybe they could all start near each other, like in the water plane of existance, and they'd have to fight it out until there was only three left, and then they would come down to the other realms and try and conquer the world. this would make kind of a cool transition from free for all to team

Gandalf Parker · #8 October 25th, 2009, 02:10 PM

New thought..
we still need a place to collect game options. Maybe create a checklist for people who are about to start a game. The wiki?

Gregstrom · #9 October 25th, 2009, 02:33 PM

Actually, I had no objections to everybody forming a pantheon and winning immediately. It's a happy ending for everyone involved, after all

It'd be nice to see decently sized pantheons (10+ pretenders), but I guess that'd need a lot of players before it became viable - well over 20 or something like that.

I don't think there's anything to stop a player being a part of two or more pantheons, providing they're devious enough.

A hard cap of some sort might be okay - 25% of total player numbers? Or maybe 50%, even.

I'd like to encourage things towards a certain fluidity in organisation, with people changing sides when they get a better offer or rebelling against their own side to gain advancement.

Burnsaber · #10 October 25th, 2009, 05:09 PM

How about if you set the composition of "Pantheon" in stone at the start of the game? Like that a pantheon can at max, have a King/Queen/Lord of Love/War/Wisdom/Death. The King and Queen of the "last standing" pantheons are "winners" while the "Lords" share a second place. Or you can just have King be "1st" and Queen "2nd" and so forth. (this way, people can be bribed to switch sides, "Heck, who wants to be lord of death, you can be the king in our pantheon!")

And I don't know if it would work, but you could also impose a rule that you can only be a lord of "X" if you fill some thematic requirements. B6F6 Moloch as the "Lord of Love" is a "no-can-do". Of course the reguirement for being King/Queen is just being powerful enough (and the right gender, of course). This would prevent the "the six most powerful nations form a pantheon and win" problem, since it's unlikely that they could form a legal pantheon from their gods. This would force alliances to form between not-so-optimal players and nations (and make pretender design a bit... complicated, to say in the least).

You'd need a out-of-game "judge" to decide whenever a certain god can be a thematic fit for a "lord" position, thought. (I volunteer, since it's very unlikely that I'd join a game of such epic scale)