Pantheon: The Third Age - Rules and Comments Thread

[Brid]

Brid would like to point out that Brid considers 'Allfather' to be inappropriate, and that from now on, Brid will refer to The Overgod, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Tyrant, or The Lurker in the Mists, depending on situation and Brid's state of mind.

[O-gon-cho]

Brid would like to point out that Brid considers 'Allfather' to be inappropriate, and that from now on, Brid will refer to The Overgod, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Tyrant, or The Lurker in the Mists, depending on situation and Brid's state of mind.

*stifling the giggles*

...sorry AllFather...

[balon!]

Therefore, I request access to the forum of all Courts, so that I may know what is going on. If I am not given this access, then I do not want to listen to players complaining that their actions didn't go as they had planned with the other deities. I hope I made myself clear.

Well, I can't speak on behalf of the rest of the players on the forum. But as I understand it, you're not forbiding us denying you access, you just want to make sure we accept the consequences of doing so, correct?

I only say this because I do not wish to speak on behalf of people who's opinions I don't know. We'll probably decide as a court, unless you change it to an enforced rule. *shrug*

I am of both minds here. While I agree that the GM should not be kept in the dark, if there are going to be NPC deities here, I would prefer that the person playing them have no knowledge whatsoever of plans they are not included in. Please don't take this as an insult against your ability to keep OOC information, OOC. But The subconscious is a hard thing to controll.

Anyway, I'll bring it up in the forum and see what the court decides.

[balon!]

Okay, so it looks like we're split mostly in the middle, the main question being whether or not there is going to be NPC deities this time around. With so many PCs, I can't see a need for them, but if you have a set answer now it would speed up figuring out the vote for Sunset court.


ALSO I have a question. At the end of the Divine Right summary rule thingy it says:

Any deity can draw power from the Divine Right, at the cost of depleting the pool of a similar amount ofDRPs until year's end.

Can you explain this a different way? Cause it confuses me.

[uKulwa]

I think we all know my feelings about NPC deities, for what they're worth. I'm against them.

As for that last, it looks like the Divine Right is only replenished every year (4 turns) and if you use from it, those DRP won't be replaced until the year is up.

[Montresor]

I'm not in any of the courts, and nor will my deity ever be, but I think the GM sould always be well informed of all player machinations.

My comments here should be considered generic, and not merely references to Pantheon, Xar, or any player here. This is for several reasons: Firstly, it's courteous to the person who's going to the most effort to make the game run smoothly; Secondly, it avoids possible misunderstandings which may arise because the GM doesn't know player A and player B's forces are actually meant to be aligned; Thirdly, it allows the GM to craft player ideas into the game, and to prepare necessary game mechanics which may come up, well in advance of their need; Fourthly, and most importantly, it's more fun for the GM to know what's going on.

I think it's immaterial whether the GM is running NPC factions or other deities. The GM isn't playing to win, they're just trying to run the game in the smoothest and most entertaining way possible. As such, they need to know what is going on. It may also arise that the GM is controlling a faction which is actually supposed to know everything that's going on. Or, perhaps a player succeeds in gaining intelligence on another's plans. To inform them what they know, the GM may need to be privy to the secret plans of other players.

The bottom line, I think, is it's disrespectful to keep the person running the game out of the loop. That's my 5 cents.

[balon!]

As for that last, it looks like the Divine Right is only replenished every year (4 turns) and if you use from it, those DRP won't be replaced until the year is up.

Ahh... yes. Okay that makes sense. It was the wording that threw me off.

[Fist and Faith]

Well, when have I not disagreed with you, Xar? No, I do not believe you should be given access. All deities communicate "behing the scenes" to some degree. Usually, it's through pm's. These kinds of sites just make it easier, since we don't have to post to everyone in whatever group it is. But I wouldn't agree to cc you when I pm someone, and wouldn't agree to let you see all my posts in the Sunset forum. Your games are truly a blast, and I enjoy them immensely. But I certainly don't agree with all of your ideas about how things should work. But it's your game, and by playing, I accept that you can do things your way. However, it doesn't mean I have to help you.

And I certainly won't complain to you if my actions didn't go as planned with the other deities. If we don't word our moves correctly, it's nobody's fault but our own.

[uKulwa]

I'm not in any of the courts, and nor will my deity ever be, but I think the GM sould always be well informed of all player machinations.

Maybe I'm just arguing for the sake of it, since I'm not in any court either nor really plan to be, so feel free to ignore this:

Yeeesssss.....but....

The GM (I always have to correct that...I automatically type 'DM' every time. ) knows everything that happens anyway. Because the actions get passed to him. OK, he might not have advance warning, but that doesn't matter, in theory or in practice, especially when he has as long as he likes to work out the results.

To take the now obviously infamous example, ( ) what could the GM have done to lessen the fallout of, or "smooth" our treacherous attack on Nor? Except betray it (which he did anyway, albeit at the last minute, by use of an NPC) or deliberately cause it to fail.

I have the utmost respect for Xar...but I'm not going to tell the controller of an NPC that I'm thinking of attacking the NPC, if I were. (And this is why I don't have in-game dealings with NPC's as far as possible.) It's bad enough that he finds out my moves when I make them. *shrug* Call me paranoid.

(It's war damnit...Of course I'm not allowing information to fall into the hands of a potential enemy or traitor.)

[uKulwa]

Good post Fist.

[balon!]

All deities communicate "behing the scenes" to some degree. Usually, it's through pm's.

Thats a good point. Almost all of my plans went on through PM's. VERY rarely did I make any ideas I had public. My public posts were ussually to explain what I did, or to yell at someone for some "evil" they had done. (Maeror, *nudgenudge* )

[an Carraig]

And I certainly won't complain to you if my actions didn't go as planned with the other deities. If we don't word our moves correctly, it's nobody's fault but our own.

precisely.

I have the utmost respect for Xar...but I'm not going to tell the controller of an NPC that I'm thinking of attacking the NPC, if I were. (And this is why I don't have in-game dealings with NPC's as far as possible.) It's bad enough that he finds out my moves when I make them.

yep.


good posts, gentlemen.

[balon!]

:EDIT: (win can be defined as "successfull play, individual to each player")

My comments here should be considered generic, and not merely references to Pantheon, Xar, or any player here. This is for several reasons: Firstly, it's courteous to the person who's going to the most effort to make the game run smoothly;

I'm in between. I think it's courteous to include him in the plots, but I also don't think it's []iuncourteous[/i] NOT to include him.

Secondly, it avoids possible misunderstandings which may arise because the GM doesn't know player A and player B's forces are actually meant to be aligned;

Now THAT is a viable problem, but not one caused by this particular example. (again to beat a dead horse) the betrayal of Nor took place without Xar's knowledge, and was perfectly within game mechanics. It was underhanded and pissed off the player, but it wasn't illegal. As to secret alliance and such, things like that should always be included in turn as long as it's affecting the way the world is being run.

Thirdly, it allows the GM to craft player ideas into the game, and to prepare necessary game mechanics which may come up, well in advance of their need;

Same as above. Ideas and the such should be worked out with Xar ahead of time (if possible) and should always be included in turn.

Fourthly, and most importantly, it's more fun for the GM to know what's going on.

Now THAT I agree with. I just don't feel that having our forum being private will crush his enjoyment.

I think it's immaterial whether the GM is running NPC factions or other deities. The GM isn't playing to win, they're just trying to run the game in the smoothest and most entertaining way possible.

Thats my issue with NPC's though. If the GM isn't playing to win, the NPC might be. Or at least, to help/hinder some of the players who ARE trying to win. In either case, it takes the GM from a disconnected and neutral viewpoint, which is where the GM belongs.

:EDIT:

At least, specifically in Pantheon. In games like DnD, NPC's help move the players along in plot. Which is why I had no problem with Nephirthos. It was a bad guy, not a fellow deity.

[uKulwa]

What, there are ways to win? I don't think so...

Anybody actually trying to win? (Overall I mean, not in specific events.) (Actually, you may not want to say so... )

[balon!]

What, there are ways to win? I don't think so...

Anybody actually trying to win? (Overall I mean, not in specific events.) (Actually, you may not want to say so... )

I think "win" in a game like Pantheon can more easily be translated to "successfull"? As in an overall gameplan? Like Nor wanting to convert the world (if that was his plan) would be "winning" I suppose. Or Adomorn taking Eiran in an iron fist, with him at the lead. That would be a "win." Or Bhakti living in peace and love.

[uKulwa]

Ah, gotcha. Yeah...successfull play sounds more accurate than "win."

[balon!]

Ah, gotcha. Yeah...successfull play sounds more accurate than "win."

I've edited in a disclaimer, for confusions sake.

[The Void]

A win for the void would be for the world to completely be destroyed.

In saying that, i dont intend for that to happen, just stating what i see a win to be for me.

Now ya'll will think im evil, i just know it.

[Montresor]

Anybody actually trying to win? (Overall I mean, not in specific events.) (Actually, you may not want to say so... )

Of course! I always play to win

In response to some of the comments above, I can say tht prior warning or knowledge of player machinations helps the GM and player enormously. I recently ran a WW2 island combat game called Last Men In Hell in which one of the US players was, well . . . garbage. He hadn't played anything like it before, and he struggled with the system. His orders were sometimes absurdly vague and borderline nonsensical.

As I knew - from all three US players keeping me constantly abreast of their plans - what he really wanted to do, I was able to cut him some slack and interpret his orders correctly.

Advance warning of their plans also enabled me to think of long-term military intelligence issues. Japanese and US High Commands (ie, me in both cases) could react accordingly to what might have been leaked or anticipated intelligence. Had I merely become aware of one of the side's grand schemes at the last minute reacting to it in then would have been grossly inadequate to ensure play balance. It may also have been silly ie "The US have landed on the Northern beach in overwhelming force . . . oh, and . . . yeah . . . you've suddenly got three battalions of your own paratroopers reinforcing you".

Having run games like this, I can say with confidence that they're not easy to run, and it can be a real pain to have to come up with a new rule or some balancing factor in the space between processing orders and the next turn. Players keeping their GM reasonably well-informed of their intentions is sometimes cruial to the GM runnning a smooth game.

I don't CC Lore on every PM I do in Empires, but I do send him copies f the most important messages. He knows all my grand schemes, and all the deals and alliances I have going. When I wrote the Tripartite Accord in that game, he got a copy of every draft, for instance.

[uKulwa]

Reasonably well informed, I certainly agree with. That's not the same as having full access to every Player-Player strategy debate though.