Pantheon: The Third Age - Rules and Comments Thread

[[Syl]]

Hey, Hedra tried last game to keep it from going this route. And this is just a taste of things to come, I think.

The improvements are nice, but I personally don't care for the new tone to the game. It's like we took the most annoying aspects of P1 (Quee's war) and P2 (Nor's mutating the world campaign and then later the perversion of the song, etc.) and made them the central focus of this game. It's one thing to oppose another god's interests, play tricks, and jockey for position, but...

So far, I'm having fun, but luckily I'm in my own corner of the world and nobody's really bothering me. Nothing green can stay, though.

[I'm Murrin]

Edit: Ah, never mind. I don't want to stir up that old argument. I'll just say that I for one, am finding the game as enjoyable as always. (I do sympathise a bit with Jenn, mind, since I don't have any idea why Amplarx attacked her either.)


Edit: to restore one part of the post that I needn't have deleted:

In the interest of understanding this perspective that the game has changed for the worse: What do you think should be the central focus of the game, Syl?

[uKulwa]

I must say I'm surprised at how quickly this has happened. (Although I know I'm contributing in my own small way. )

Also suprised at the huge power-gain speed... 6 DRP in 6 turns? That's unheard of. Have you tweaked the mechanics again Xar?

Anyway, I'm still having fun of course, this being the most detailed culture I've ever built, but I agree with Syl about the sudden directness. We were much more subtle before.

[[Syl]]

It's a good question.

Me, I look at this game as a mix between Comparative Religion, Mythology, and typical roleplaying (have you ever played a purely word and number based RPG that was primarily about fighting the other players?). I think the contests exemplify what Pantheon is about - each of us lending our own voice to the overall narrative. There's also the satisfaction of seeing your ideas rise or fall depending (hopefully) on their merit, watching them interact with those of other players, and seeing them take on twists and turns of their own. Ultimately, I think trying to eliminate any other voice is self-defeating (I'm reminded of Melkor's actions in the Song of the Ainur, and perhaps that's as much a lesson to myself as anything else).

So to me, the central focus is ideating and world-building. Obstacles are important, much like interactivity between players, as they lead to a stronger construct (I believe my objections to the 'obstacles' of previous games was that there were times where all a person could do, often for multiple turns, was deal with obstacles, one coming after the other. Inter-player conflict is an acceptable replacement, but only if it doesn't exacerbate that problem), but in the end, the goal should be expressing a unique, whole, and believable theism that illuminates some aspect of the human, or humanistic, condition (possibly explaining why I have no interest in playing an 'evil god').

[uKulwa]

Damn good post.

[Loredoctor]

I must say I'm surprised at how quickly this has happened. (Although I know I'm contributing in my own small way. )

Also suprised at the huge power-gain speed... 6 DRP in 6 turns? That's unheard of. Have you tweaked the mechanics again Xar?

I wish I knew how people were gaining power so well. I know I started later, but I just cant gain DRPs.

[[Syl]]

Also, I think one of the questions we are trying to answer by playing this (or I am, anyway) is similar to the old question of 'Who would win in a fight - the Greek Gods or the Norse Gods?' Now you could either take a memetic or cultural approach (which I favor) or you could take the more literal route (compare statistics, create scenarios like 'Thor would totally kick Apollo's ass,' and so forth).

[I'm Murrin]

Very good posts Syl (and I've put the question back into my original post because of it).

Lore, you've caught up to me already despite starting later (though I was one of the slower starters), and you're ahead of half the players on the list, so I don't think you're doing that badly, comparatively.

[Arcadia]

I, too, am enjoying the game and I am glad that this turn has sparked discussion on the game thread. The game thread has been dreadfully quiet this game and I miss the interaction between the players.

[Amplarx]

Mmmm, I'm glad it's started to heat up a bit. It all went a bit quiet after the uKulwa-Cho thing cooled down, I suppose it just takes a little conflict to spark things off again!

[Anaya]

Perhaps next time my Court-mates can take responsibility for their own conflict-starting instead of placing the blame on me.

[Montresor]

So to me, the central focus is ideating and world-building. Obstacles are important, much like interactivity between players, as they lead to a stronger construct (I believe my objections to the 'obstacles' of previous games was that there were times where all a person could do, often for multiple turns, was deal with obstacles, one coming after the other. Inter-player conflict is an acceptable replacement, but only if it doesn't exacerbate that problem), but in the end, the goal should be expressing a unique, whole, and believable theism that illuminates some aspect of the human, or humanistic, condition (possibly explaining why I have no interest in playing an 'evil god').

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, though I see nothing that has hapened as having contradicted that. What we're witnessing, perhaps, are religions building their own 'worlds' by destroying their opponent's faith. There's nothing unusual about this at all. It's the way that many major religions have operated throughout history (especially since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire).

There are many deities untouched by war - mine for one - and they have almost all actively sought measures to ensure their stability. Certainly, that rates as world building for me.

[Xar]

You all know that as far as I was concerned, P2 was lacking in direct conflict - except for "everybody versus Nor", at least. It took the coming of Asta and the unholy alliance with Mithyaat, Argothoth and Mox to shake up things a bit. Nevertheless, in my opinion, most of the conflict that is being stirred at the moment is a direct consequence of the attitude of different deities who, by chance or desire, have come to coexist in the same areas.

For example, I don't think anybody could object at the statement that the conflict between uKulwa and O-gon-cho is something that was entirely stirred up by the players without my intervention. By the same token, Calais's hostility towards most other deities (which led to the creation of the spell of "unwelcome") is also an idea which is entirely spawned by the player, and not by the game. Again, Etzlicoatl's and the Void's belligerent stances are due to the nature of the characters (and I'm actually curious to see how they'll justify working with each other, since one claims to be the One God and the other claims there are no gods).
In fact, I would rather say that trouble stirred up by random events, such as crusades and the like, is usually contained or redirected quickly by the deities who suffer it; most of the trouble currently afflicting the world of Eiran is due to the decisions and actions of individual deities. And this in turn because this time deities run the whole gamut of personalities, from ruthlessly evil to saintly good to something in between.

Did Amplarx have any reason to attack Keev? Perhaps in his mind he did, and it's his own choice, certainly not mine, whether to order the attack and go along with it. By the same token, does uKulwa have any right to attack O-gon-cho? He believes he does, and so he continues. Did Calais have any reason to destroy two Sunrise cities and an unaligned one in the Raising of Halym? She believes she did, and so she performed the action.

The main difference I can see between P2 and P3, apart from the wider range of deity personalities, is that in P2 deities were much more geographically confined - while in P3 deities are claiming cities here and there, even if they're in between enemy deities, which obviously leads to conflict. Aarklar is a good example of a deity who, being geographically isolated, is able to build his land in peace. Zephyr too, to a certain extent (although, being the god of forests, he is more involved in the well-being of the whole world). The deities in the Shattered Lands, on the other hand, have been doomed to war since the beginning: if in P2 Nor Yekith had built a city just next to Adomorn's lands, wouldn't Adomorn have tried to repel him, at least?

[uKulwa]

Hahaha, I'm not complaining. (Except about the failure of my attack. ) You're right...better this than rifts etc. for sure.

[[Syl]]

Thanks, guys. Off course, a lot of it was self-aggrandizing revisionism, but hey.

And that's a good point, Montressor. I have taken quite a few defensive measures, so that does probably account for a lot of it. And you're certainly right about civilizations. I suppose I'm approaching from a more 'inside mythology' angle. The gods of the various pantheons rarely went to war with each other (the Valar fighting the giants, the Greek gods fighting the titans, the Celtic gods hunting anything that moved and doing a whole lot of repelling), though I suppose you could say they were just fighting gods of different pantheons. Sure, they bickered a lot, but you never see Athena ordering the Athenians to take out Delphi. Their struggles lead to different heirarchies and such (from what I understand, usually reflecting changes in society), but their domains and power remained untouched.

As long as everyone's having fun, that's cool. I guess what I'm worried about is someone who doesn't want to fight being made to. The difference between inviting someone to critique your work and someone offering unasked for criticism, I guess. And I'd be a bit ticked off if some god started messing with me if I'd never done anything to them (I'm looking at you, Lore). And though retaliation is fine, I think it should be proportional.

But, that's just my outlook. I hope people share it, or at least respect it, but I don't want to browbeat anyone into it (why I dropped Hedra's Law). As long as everyone's having fun, it's all good.

[Xar]

My point is that it's not that any change in the rules made the game more geared towards attacks. The rules are always the same (though it's true that I tinkered a bit with the rank by followers). In my opinion, the difference in the game and the increased conflict is because of three reasons:

1) The greater number of players: the more players, the more chances are there of competitive or aggressive players.

2) The more varied personalities of deities: while P2 had mostly good or neutral deities, P3 has many deities who are distant, uncaring, have different morals, or are downright evil.

3) Geography: P3 deity holdings are much more geographically spread over Eiran (look at an Carraig's holdings, or Devaguhya's, for example), which means that conflict for the land (like the one that is occurring in Imray, or in the Shattered Lands, or the Raising of Halym) has become more important.

[[Syl]]

4) You saying that you wanted to see more inter-deity conflict or you'd create more disasters (and people then gearing their gods towards this end)?

But I'm not blaming anyone. I just said I didn't like the tone and answered Murrin's question on what I think the focus of the game should be. I think it's pretty consistent with my style of play and previous statements.

[Menolly]

Hahaha, I'm not complaining. (Except about the failure of my attack. )

*whew*

[Xar]

4) You saying that you wanted to see more inter-deity conflict or you'd create more disasters (and people then gearing their gods towards this end)?

But I'm not blaming anyone. I just said I didn't like the tone and answered Murrin's question on what I think the focus of the game should be. I think it's pretty consistent with my style of play and previous statements.

True, I did want more inter-deity conflict... as I said, for the most part P2 was "everybody against Nor Yekith", and after Nor left, it was pretty much "let's all hug each other and endure the disasters" until Asta came along, and then the World Breaker shook things up. Don't get me wrong, deities getting along are nice, but if everyone plays a good deity, then the player(s) who want(s) to play an evil deity are at a disadvantage because they'd be alone against the whole Pantheon, and would be crushed as soon as immunity ended. Having deities running the whole gamut of personalities allows for more intrigue. At the same time, given that the area of Eiran has not increased from P2 to P3, but the number of deities almost tripled, it stands to reason that everyone would be pressed for space, and that at least some deities would play aggressively to expand their borders.

The fact that most deities have chosen to implement their plans through direct attacks rather than subtle maneuvers doesn't mean the game can't accommodate them - or that open war is always the best solution...

[Cameraman Jenn]

I'm brand new to this game and to Role Playing Games at all. I guess maybe I am just feeling a little overwhelmed. I'm so tired of having to have Keev battle her own people into line turn after turn that I got overly frustrated that now not only do I have to have her beat her own people into line yet again but she was attacked by Amplarx and she's got Nor's fanatics on her arse. I've just spent so much time trying to solve Keev's problems that I haven't really felt like I have been able to do anything productive with her turns.