Pantheon - Discussions on the Future

[caamora]

I noticed the same thing with everyone taking land in P3. There are few places left to occupy. I see the wisdom in settling in one area and concentrating your power there. It segregates us somewhat but it makes sense the way Syl mentioned.

[Menolly]

I noticed the same thing with everyone taking land in P3. There are few places left to occupy.

There is plenty of land in southeastern Imray...
...for any who wish to share.

[stonemaybe]

Brid doesn't have any land at all, and she's doing A-OK!

[Dorian]

If we had a new world, it would be cool if it was Stone age style or some such to begin with. And we each start as some small local deity for a village. As your people grow and develop, belief in you spreads. Very much grass roots style stuff. Would allow for much more basic pagan style gods perhaps, but would be a cool way to start a new world, with your growth and power relating directly to the growth of the race you have chosen to champion. each god starting off with little stone shrines in a grass hut village, and by the end of the game being a large world power with massive temples built in their glory.

I guess thats what we do now, but with more emphasis on the development period. Slower growth, and would force you to spend more DRP on furthering your own people to strengthen them and their faith instead of just converting new followers in new cities across the world. I much prefer the idea of the followers being the puppets of the gods in their conflicts. Instead of spending DRP to destroy a city, you have to instead send in your followers to destroy it and that DRP would be to bless them in their cause.

I feel such changes would make followers more valuable instead of just a number that relates to your DRP and Wealth rates.

[stonemaybe]

If we had a new world, it would be cool if it was Stone age style or some such to begin with. And we each start as some small local deity for a village. As your people grow and develop, belief in you spreads. Very much grass roots style stuff. Would allow for much more basic pagan style gods perhaps, but would be a cool way to start a new world, with your growth and power relating directly to the growth of the race you have chosen to champion. each god starting off with little stone shrines in a grass hut village, and by the end of the game being a large world power with massive temples built in their glory.

I guess thats what we do now, but with more emphasis on the development period. Slower growth, and would force you to spend more DRP on furthering your own people to strengthen them and their faith instead of just converting new followers in new cities across the world. I much prefer the idea of the followers being the puppets of the gods in their conflicts. Instead of spending DRP to destroy a city, you have to instead send in your followers to destroy it and that DRP would be to bless them in their cause.

I feel such changes would make followers more valuable instead of just a number that relates to your DRP and Wealth rates.

I don't see why you can't do all of that on Eiran, as part of the current game! That's what I perceive as the beauty of the game - you can start off as you wish, spend your DRP in any way you wish, treat your followers as numbers or as people, depending on your philosophy. Why restrict the way everyone plays, when the potential to play as you wish to play is there already?

[Dagon]

Courtesy to Menolly, the following has been copied and pasted from comments thread to a more relevant location for further discussion:


So I've been thinking a lot about making the effort to hide the players in P4, and the more I think about it the more it makes sense. Here's why:

1. It would create a blank slate; no one would gain an advantage from their experience of how a certain player generally plays a deity.

2. Simplifies the politics of the game. Instead of the strange meta-politics that often occur between players, it would relegate the interaction to in-game and pm's between deities. Essentially it would eliminate the concern brought up in Dorian's posting, as any potential conflict would occur solely between deities and not players.

3. Reestablishes the mystery of the deities being role-played, and provides a more believable and compelling narrative overall.


Of course, every player would have to make a conscious effort not to reveal themselves to others - which could foreseeably become very difficult, especially when pride for an in-game action takes over and the urge to discuss it with other Watch friends becomes particularly strong. Very Happy

It's probably inevitable that we'll make assumptions on who is playing who, because of writing style or whatever, but there will never be certainty (or at least there shouldn't be if no one reveals themselves). And the existence of that doubt alone would make for a more interesting game experience, in my opinion.

[Xar]

I would also chime in and mention another thing... obviously, even if players do not reveal themselves, there will inevitably be some leak. Two close friends might confide into each other, or one might let something slip, or two players who live geographically close and/or who know each other in real life might accidentally discover each other's identity (or even tell it to each other plainly).

Mainly I'm concerned about some alliances which occurred in P2 and in some cases in P3 as well - alliances between deities which occurred because their players knew each other and told each other who they are playing, so they could be allied.

In principle, alliances are part of the game, of course; however, if the same players are ALWAYS allies, in every incarnation of the game - or if they immediately ally as soon as the game starts, not because of in-story reasons but because they know each other well IRL, then it becomes a bit more complicated...

[Dagon]

Yeah I agree, the leaks could really throw a wrench in the works. That's why conscious effort and a desire to maintain secrecy would be required from everyone. This could be a lot to ask, depending on the individual. And new ways of interacting and playing the game would have to be personally developed according to the individual's habits - which might be more effort than some are willing to put in.

These permanent alliances based on OOC friendships is a big part of what I hoped would be fixed by player secrecy. Player secrecy would also make the narrative more believable because alliances would form based on believable grounds.

[Menolly]

I would also chime in and mention another thing... obviously, even if players do not reveal themselves, there will inevitably be some leak. Two close friends might confide into each other, or one might let something slip, or two players who live geographically close and/or who know each other in real life might accidentally discover each other's identity (or even tell it to each other plainly).

Mainly I'm concerned about some alliances which occurred in P2 and in some cases in P3 as well - alliances between deities which occurred because their players knew each other and told each other who they are playing, so they could be allied.

In principle, alliances are part of the game, of course; however, if the same players are ALWAYS allies, in every incarnation of the game - or if they immediately ally as soon as the game starts, not because of in-story reasons but because they know each other well IRL, then it becomes a bit more complicated...

And yet, although I am pretty sure I did nothing publicly to hint that I know any of Pantheon's newest players, I was contacted privately by at least five separate players asking if I knew who any of them are. Including several who are saying they would prefer not knowing who players are in this current discussion. I only hope in my replies I respected those players request who wish to remain anonymous to the majority of the players.

So yes, I see problems keeping identities totally secret as a difficult concept for long time players of the game. It definitely carried over to Aesir, where I was also being asked if I knew who was playing who, and by more than one player there as well.

[Fist and Faith]

As it turns out, the real life and e-life friendships don't always work out. Dagon and T-m are enemies now. But the players are rl friends, and Dagon is only here because of that. Vashitva and Zephyr are, perhaps, not enemies, but they likely will be, and they're a LOOOOONG way from being on good, or even civil, terms. But caam and I have been on extremely good terms for six years online, and even met once. Avatar and I were great allies in P1 and P2, and, although we haven't actually worked together in P3, we're on good terms. But I'm absolutely sure he'd burn down my trees if it served his needs. Pam and I are good e-friends, but she's crazy as hell, so I don't do much with her in the game.

[Menolly]

Pam and I are good e-friends, but she's crazy as hell, so I don't do much with her in the game.

You always call the ideas I've run by you crazy...
...especially the phoenix reBirth after cho's injuries from her journey into the chastus portal. You were positive cho was dead with that move. Still much thanks to Simjen, and ~OoC~ Creator, for their help with that turn. It's become very much a base influence for cho in the current Age.

...oh.
You mean outside of the game, huh?
That too.

[Montresor]

I agree with pretty much everything Syl said.

Personally, I would like to see P4 in another setting. P1&2 meant nothing to me as a player because I had no knowlege of it (except for what Lore told me about his Nor Yekith adventures), and I found I could just as easily not know anything about P1&2 and do better than most deities.

The courts should stay, I believe, as they help balance natural bias in the players. That said, I really doubt I would ever play a god who would join a court.

Perhaps controversially, I think the season system should go, and be replaced with a much longer period of time (such as years, decades, even centuries). It seems very odd that each "age" of Eiran goes for about five to ten years....given the gap between the ages, would any mortal even care for the gods, or have even a vague recollection of them? Indeed, the only profound impact the gods seem to be having in their exceedingly short existences (it is ironic that most 'mortals' live longer than they do) is destroying the world. Turns covering a longer period of time would lend themselves to a more subtle and deeper display of godly power, rather than the "bang I just destroyed a continent" effect.

I have a preference for "low fantasy" myself, in which magic and the supernatural are present, though far less obvious. I have nothing against the high fantasy of Pantheon, I only mention this preference to explain my above paragraph. However, turns covering longer periods of time also helps to create the detached tone which most mythologies portray the gods as having. The life of a mortal is insignificant in comparison to the divine, and the machinations of the deities often seem mysterious to a mortal. There is little mystery when a deity eradicates a city one season, a continent the next etc etc.

Further, and perhaps most controversially, I would like to see multiple players being able to claim one domain. Pantheon's setting on an entire planet means that Death cults, Sun cults, Nature cults etc would appear in various forms around the globe (much as they have done on earth). I personally think it would greatly enhance the game if there were two gods of nature, each professing they were the 'true' god, and each having different ideas of what their domain meant.

Finally, I agree that the rush for territory is far too quick. Cities seemed dead easy to claim for me in P3 and, even though I went two or three turns with no more than Oaxcala, I very quickly gained as many as the rest with just a handful of DRPs. I would rather see cities taken by 'secular' forces or priests, rather than a divine manifestation.

I think priests and the player's official church should be a more fundamental aspect of the game. Indeed, I think it should be impossile to play without constantly using them.

[Fist and Faith]

1) I'd still like P4 to have a new setting. It's kinda ridiculous already, destroying Eiran for the third time!

2) I'd like slower growth. Slower than P1, even. Even that slow allowed Neph to shatter the world. This has to do with thinking long-term, as deities should. But I know lots of people want a game to be more exciting and flashy than that kind of thing would be. And heck, some people want to destroy the world, so I guess no reason my own feeling for things should make it impossible for them to play.

3) IC Only. It would be great to at least try it. Of course, we'd all be on the honor system. Not sure it could be done, though. No Comments thread??? Heh. And no txting would absolutely KILL me!!! Maybe somebody could try it as a spinoff? But if we did have slower growth, Xar would be able to process turns quicker, and my need for more gameplay to counter the loss of OOC txting would be taken care of.

Further, and perhaps most controversially, I would like to see multiple players being able to claim one domain. Pantheon's setting on an entire planet means that Death cults, Sun cults, Nature cults etc would appear in various forms around the globe (much as they have done on earth). I personally think it would greatly enhance the game if there were two gods of nature, each professing they were the 'true' god, and each having different ideas of what their domain meant.

Yes, very cool idea. Would two X deities oppose each other? Would they find ways to work together so they could accomplish things neither could alone? It would be very interesting to see! I think it would make sense to have two such deities start as far apart geographically as possible.

I think priests and the player's official church should be a more fundamental aspect of the game. Indeed, I think it should be impossile to play without constantly using them.

Another great idea! I'd like to hear more thought on this.

[Menolly]

I think priests and the player's official church should be a more fundamental aspect of the game. Indeed, I think it should be impossile to play without constantly using them.

Another great idea! I'd like to hear more thought on this.

I think it would be killer for processing.
Would different priests/church members be named?
Would Xar have to keep track of the actions of multiple characters per deity, and what action they were doing?
He already discourages too much non-DRP activity now; I can't imagine having say five to fifteen priests per deity carrying out actions that would need to be tracked...

Of course, I don't use a church/priest hierarchy in my game play at all, so I may be totally misinterpreting how it would be played...

[Montresor]

1) I'd still like P4 to have a new setting. It's kinda ridiculous already, destroying Eiran for the third time!

2) I'd like slower growth. Slower than P1, even. Even that slow allowed Neph to shatter the world. This has to do with thinking long-term, as deities should. But I know lots of people want a game to be more exciting and flashy than that kind of thing would be. And heck, some people want to destroy the world, so I guess no reason my own feeling for things should make it impossible for them to play.

Completely agree - I went from 0 to potential world-shatterer in a very short time. I understand that conflict is fun, and that power is needed for conflict but, why must conflict be simply the divine manifestation of power? Armies etc were not nearly as useful to me as using my DRPs directly, though I think it would be interesting to make assassins, priests, soldiers etc the primary means of conflict.

Further, and perhaps most controversially, I would like to see multiple players being able to claim one domain. Pantheon's setting on an entire planet means that Death cults, Sun cults, Nature cults etc would appear in various forms around the globe (much as they have done on earth). I personally think it would greatly enhance the game if there were two gods of nature, each professing they were the 'true' god, and each having different ideas of what their domain meant.

Yes, very cool idea. Would two X deities oppose each other? Would they find ways to work together so they could accomplish things neither could alone? It would be very interesting to see! I think it would make sense to have two such deities start as far apart geographically as possible.

Completely agree. I think it has great potential to make the game even more focussed upon interaction, whether that is oppositional or otherwise.

I think priests and the player's official church should be a more fundamental aspect of the game. Indeed, I think it should be impossile to play without constantly using them.

Another great idea! I'd like to hear more thought on this.

I think it would be killer for processing.
Would different priests/church members be named?
Would Xar have to keep track of the actions of multiple characters per deity, and what action they were doing?
He already discourages too much non-DRP activity now; I can't imagine having say five to fifteen priests per deity carrying out actions that would need to be tracked...

Of course, I don't use a church/priest hierarchy in my game play at all, so I may be totally misinterpreting how it would be played...

There is no need to make it so complex. One could simply reduce the amount of DRPs a player has (meaning they are not as often able to directly stick their hand in the pie), and instead force them to use their faithful. Further, why would priests have to be characters? Surely, the office of Hierophant/Bishop/Pope etc is more important in the long term than the actual person fulfilling that function? Speaking from experience, when you say you have X amount of Y you only make turns more of a pain to process. Simply make the measure of a church/cult etc based upon its size and scope.

Alternatively, you could make DRPs part of this, but stipulate that 2/3 of your actions must be made via your faithful. Since the game functions on the simple elegance of a deity's power being proportional to their worshippers, I think it makes perfect sense to have your earthly mouthpiece as your principal tool.

[Xar]

Some of these suggestions are things I was already considering for P4 (such as increased importance of one's church, for example). As for a new setting, given the chaos going on in Eiran at the moment, I doubt here WILL be an Eiran to play on in P4...

As for the time scale, I thought about it as well, but rather than immediately beginning with a 10-year turn, I thought the shift in time perception should be gradual. To clarify, what I thought was that the first few turns might describe seasons, or perhaps each turn could be one year. After four or five turns, when churches are more or less established and deities have grown a bit in power (and players have invested themselves in the task of setting up everything, perhaps with the characters developing some relationship with their first high priest and so on), the time scale would dilate, and this would gradually increase until a maximum is reached. This would serve to reflect two things: first, that at the beginning deities are small, weak, and thus they focus a lot of their attention on the tiniest details of their fledgling church, while as they grow in power they pay less and less attention to the details and are more focused on the big picture. Second, it would give players a chance to become emotionally invested in what they are building (which wouldn't happen if each turn was 10 years starting from the first one).

Coupling that with a slower rate of growing, on one hand it would make things easier to follow, and on the other it would ensure that by the time the characters are powerful, time flies by quickly (so that when the Age ends, at least it will have lasted a long time ).

Additionally, I have been working on how to make the priesthood a more important part of the game... ideally, there are a few possibilities to do so without making it extremely detailed (and a pain to process): for instance, one might simply say that a portion of the deity's DRP total is not raw divine power but a measure of their church's influence (i.e. if you want to use those "priestly DRPs", you cannot just make things happen but you must use them by directing the priests to do this-and-that). Another option would be that your power is weaker where you don't have priests and established churches: for instance, if you spend 1 DRP in a city where you have a church you could do X, but if you wanted to do X with your divine power in a city where they have never even seen one of your priests, you might have to use three times as much power.

The latter option would then mean that a large part of strategy would lie in proselytizing and sending priests where you want to do stuff... ideally, though, one priest wouldn't be enough, so what you might get would be a number of "missionary groups" based on the number of worshippers, and you could only convert cities using them. Coupled with a slower growth, this would essentially be the same as what i said above about having a portion of your power represented by your church: for instance, if you wanted to do a miracle in city X, and you had only one group of missionaries which is currently working to convert city Y, you would have to tell them to go to city X (forsaking conversion of Y) OR you would have to spend more power to do the miracle without the help of your missionaries.

[variol son]

The funny thing is, as I have been slowly developing a character for P4, a "church" hierarchy has developed as well, despite the fact that none of my previous deities made much use of such a thing. It's interesting to see lots of minds independently moving in a similar direction.

I'd love to have a brand new world to play in, but I've wanted that since P2 so it's nothing new. As for the Court system, whilst Anaya doesn't belong to either and should never have joined one in the first place, there is no reason why Movahl and Norn wouldn't have. Although the idea could use some tweaking, I think it can really add to the experience.

[Loredoctor]

I am looking forward to a new world. It's the idea of a reboot that is appealing to me - time for a fresh start as well as removing the old ties and attitudes. There comes a time where a world develops too much history - historical momentum, if you will - that makes it hard to feel for a new god on Eiran (at least for me).

Anyway, I am currently thinking about playing a god, but I have three deities in my mind! I am not sure which to play.

[Xar]

One thing I would probably limit is the "threshold" level for processing... while some players really put a lot of thought into processing, naming a host of mortal characters for this or that reason and then describing their actions, it is a heck of a lot of stuff and simply naming one character doesn't mean he or she is of consequence to the game, unless he or she is an important member of the clergy and/or a character specifically mentioned in the turn results. Even then, it's simply not practical to issue different orders to each individual priest you have and expect them to work.

The risk is that players might otherwise use named characters as excuses to perform a host of non-powered actions, bogging down the game; and since naming a character doesn't cost you anything, then you could have a host of them running around in a few turns.

I'm thinking that probably I would take a more "crowd-like" approach to the game - i.e. the only individuals you get to use are your Prophet/High Priest and perhaps specific named characters who showed up in the turn results; otherwise, you can't arbitrarily say "oh, my captain here is called so-and-so and he goes to get some food in city X because I tell him to": you have to invest some influence or power into "acquiring" a specific character. On the other hand, this would make specific characters more important within the scope of the game - an "elite" akin to great and renowned heroes, priests, and scholars of different churches, well-known everywhere for their power and influence.

[Fist and Faith]

The dilating turns is another great idea! Even though we use the term in-game, the "Ages" of Eiran are certainly a thing for the players, not the characters. It's laughable to call P1's 4 1/2 and P2's 6 1/2 years "Ages." It would make sense to have the first few turns take at least a couple years each (Game-time, Xar, NOT processing time!!!!!!!!! ), with potential for slow-moving, sweeping changes in the world's inhabitants, and relatively large growth for us; followed by the later turns being only a season each, with events that can be powerful, but little possibility of growth for us.