The Midgard Digest V1 #17

From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison)

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0000

The Midgard Digest        Saturday, 16 March 1996      Volume 01 : Number 017

Welcome to the Midgard Digest, the place to discuss all the myriad
aspects of life in the World of Midgard with its other denizens.

In this issue:

+   Re: MID: clans/factions per player
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re: Re[2]: MID: Player Quantity
+   MID: Quantity of Clans
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   MID: Midgard report
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re[2]: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re[2]: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re[4]: MID: Player Quantity
+   MID: Upcoming Changes Affecting this List
+   MID: Fwd: Number of factions
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   Re: MID: Player Quantity
+   [none]
+   Re: MID: clans/factions per player
+   [none]

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the midgard-list
or midgard-digest mailing lists.

For additional information on Midgard, check out the Official Midgard
Home Page at http://www.comland.com/~pbm/midgard/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: PacHockey@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 04:39:00 -0500
Subject: Re: MID: clans/factions per player

Actually, I couldn't disagree with JJ Parish any more.  If I role play
opposing clans (and I currently do) I'd like to think that I'm mature enough
to keep 'em separate.  Restricting players to "non-enemies" is pointless (see
Paul P's post--he's got a good point) as politics, even in Midgard, is ever
changing.  For the sake of argument say I have a MV clan and a Boda.  Not a
problem right now.  Now say some nutso mercenary with the support of an
aggressive Senior torches a couple of Boda cities sparking a war between the
factions--which faction do I have to get rid of?  How am I going to be
compensated for having my positions degraded?  If peace comes along do I
automatically rejoin my old faction?  As the MV say--"Today's enemy is
tomorrow's friend."
  It is utterly unrealistic to try to restrict the number of factions.
 Without stating which factions, I will open myself up to abuse and possibly
being taken advantage of and say that I currently have 4 Clans and 1 City in
4 different factions.  It makes me a bit schizophrenic, but it is fun--I get
to be my own worst enemy.  Now the clincher, my Seniors know who I am--if any
of them have a complaint about how I run my clan speak up now and I will
revise my opinion.  In fact, at least one Senior can personally attest to the
fact that I absolutely will NOT share information from another faction.

Steve T.
- ----------------

JJ Parish wrote;
I'd say no more than 4 different factions per player, with the following
stipulation - no playing clans who are enemies of each other, ie you cant
have a clan in the Getham and the Barbarians at the same time.  It seems to
me that no matter how you try to role play you clans, sooner or later one
clan will come into information that would benifit another and it would just
to tempting to ignore it.  I don't know if there is anyway to prevent this
as you can always get around any restriction by just starting up a new
postition
in a friends name.  Maybe all we can do is trust the players not to abuse the
game system too much.  Something to think about.
                                           Jeff Parrish
                                           (Getham #1)

------------------------------

From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:15:56 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

On Thu, 14 Mar 1996 USAMIDGARD@aol.com wrote:

> Ok, one vote for four factions as a player limit.  How 'bout the other
> concern... 9 clans in one faction?  Any thoughts out there in the world of
> players?  Bad question.. well, off to buy another case of paper.....

Hmm, I don't see it as a major concern, if a player wants all of their
clans in the same faction more power to them - I personally plan on
having 5 or 6 Getham clans.

------------------------------------------------------------
       * Kerry Harrison | kerry@io.com | http://www.io.com/~kerry *
       ------------------------------------------------------------
   Vist my Midgard PBM home page at http://www.comland.com/~pbm/midgard

------------------------------

From: USAMIDGARD@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:20:16 -0500
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

Kerry,

In a message dated 96-03-14 17:21:18 EST, you write:

>Hmm, I don't see it as a major concern, if a player wants all of their
>clans in the same faction more power to them - I personally plan on
>having 5 or 6 Getham clans.

I dinna say that it is a problem, but a Senior Player running 9 Clan
Positions COULD assign all the regulars to his own clans.  This would
irritate others in the faction, but assuming it a militant faction, could
give some serious control advantages to that one player.  Let's see what the
others have to say.

Zan

------------------------------

From: USAMIDGARD@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:20:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Re[2]: MID: Player Quantity

Mike,

In a message dated 96-03-14 17:18:39 EST, you write:

>Might want to state up front NOW the number of factions players can have
>clans
>in, though.  It'll be hard to force current players to transfer their clans
>to
>other factions in the future... <g>

Thought I'd already handled this... 3 for the moment until such time as I get
a good reason to split the personality into a smaller portions.

------------------------------

From: jmorris@ccm.livestock.org.nz
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 12:14:43 nz
Subject: MID: Quantity of Clans

I briefly have had a clan as an Imperial and a couple which
     remained independent for a while but they always seem to declare
     Banner.  I suppose if I could afford 9 clans I'd have them all Banner,
     but the Kiwi dollar is only worth 67 US cents and the Bank charges $10
     every time I buy a US $ draft.
        I have toyed with the idea of starting a Barbarian clan, just from
     reading the wonderfully chaotic communications of Mike Williams, but I
     would have to be sure I could keep the roles separate before I ever
     did that.
                                                Jerre

------------------------------

From: DShir13@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:58:01 -0500
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

Zan,

I understan your position on this, I also think that the majority of the fun
of this game is the enter player relations thus if a senior is giving all of
his clans the Reg's he would be taking away the quality of the game.  Also
players would end up jumping ship to factions where they feel like a
contributor not a Pawn.  And thus shooting themselves in the foot.  Plus as
the #0 you could have something to say about this, if such happens.  I
personally would not like to run more than 4 in one faction, only so much you
can do.

David

------------------------------

From: Hideyori@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 12:26:57 -0500
Subject: MID: Midgard report

Well, let us claer up a few things from the Midgard report.

1)  The Blood and Fire are not allied with the Imperials.  If making a buck
means you're in an alliance than were all allied with the Getham.

2)  The Blood and Fire did not and have not asked the Imperials to look into
the Fanglan Fire.  We did inform the Imperials that a Legate was burned and
provided them proof of that.  In fact, we haven't even asked the MercVerk for
compensation.  They want to make it seem like it was the fault of the city
inhabitants that all the factional buildings burned.  Feeble.  His comments
about when the city turned Blood and Fire?  Completely wrong.  The only
factional buildings saved were the 30 temples of the Serkeaner.  There were
no Blood and Fire temples to save.  Fact is that the MV don't want the heat
for what they did.  Thing is, its not coming from the B & F.

3)  Asked for terms of peace with the Ring?  When I was Serkeaner and they
looked to be on the edge of annhilation I said what will it take to end the
war.  Then I became Blood and Fire and, well, the Ring do believe in an
insane god.  Hence, Finmart.

Gee, I think that covers all for now.

Eldarion, Blood and Fire #1.

------------------------------

From: SCHRADER@vaxd.sxu.edu
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:56:26 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

I think the biggest problem with the 9 Clan opportunity is that in
essence the richer the person in real life, the more powerful they just
became in Midgard.  I realize that this is wonderful from a business
perspective in making money, but it could really cause the strength of a
faction to change significantly with the addition or loss of a single player.

Imagine one player with 9 clans in the same faction.  Now imagine if
they quit that faction and jump to another with all 9.  Major power shift.
	Even worse, imagine 4 rich Seniors all playing 9 clans in the same
faction.  That's 36 clans, more than enough to cover all combat.  They
wouldn't even need other players in the faction.  They could basically run all
of the cities in the faction too if they were rich enough.  With a power base
like that even a small faction could decimate a large factions made up of
fewer clans and players.
	I'm trying to envision this worst case scenario if the Imperials or
Barbarians had 36 Senior-only clans to coordinate their activities and armies.
	Just something to think about.............

As for constraints on the number of factions you can be aligned with,
I think 3 is a good limit.  Some players already abuse this but I'm not sure
anything can be done about that.  And I agree with Steve T. that you can't use
no enemy clauses because factional alliances can change so quickly.

Personally, I would advocate no more that 4 clans per player with a
3 faction limit on multiple personalities.  Completely do away with EF groups.
This forces factions to rely on getting new players into their factions and
needing those players to run cities and command field armies.  The power in
the faction is more equitably distributed and teamwork is needed to accomplish
most things.
	I think the 9 clan version (plus 9 cities) only encourages certain
players to monopolize the faction's resources and become indifferent about
adding others to the faction (since they might not use the resources exactly
as intended).  And yes, this will encourage players to leave that faction that
hoards resources because they already have sufficient clans but the offending
faction WON'T care (nor will they suffer).  9 clans of the same player can
coordinate their activities and resources better than 9 clans each played by
a different person.

As a Senior, I delegate resources down the factional hierarchy because
I NEED other players/clans to accomplish some of our factional goals.  However,
if David Shirley and myself both take over 9 Imperial clans (a total of 18)
plus 18 cities, I would no longer need any other players.  This completely
runs counter to the "teamwork" spirit of the game.
	Now I recognize that most people can't afford to consistently run 9
clans and 9 cities per cycle but there may be SOME people who could (and perhaps
will).  This certainly dramatically increases their power in the game much to
the displeasure of the person who can only afford 1 clan per cycle.

My 9 cents worth,

Brian Schrader

------------------------------

From: USAMIDGARD@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:49:30 -0500
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

In a message dated 96-03-15 11:29:25 EST, you write:

>
>I understan your position on this, I also think that the majority of the fun
>of this game is the enter player relations thus if a senior is giving all of
>his clans the Reg's he would be taking away the quality of the game.  Also
>players would end up jumping ship to factions where they feel like a
>contributor not a Pawn.  And thus shooting themselves in the foot.  Plus as
>the #0 you could have something to say about this, if such happens.  I
>personally would not like to run more than 4 in one faction, only so much
you
>can do.
>
>David

I'm not saying that anyone WOULD take it to such an abuse; rather,
approaching it from the Devil's Advocate position.  What is the worst case
scenario.... and then point to that as a possible problem... well, I see two
worst cases.. 9 in 1 Faction and 1 in 9 Factions.  That is what is being
discussed...and reasonably intelligently and unbiased I see... most pleasing.

Zan

------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 15:09:58 CDT
Subject: Re[2]: MID: Player Quantity

>I dinna say that it is a problem, but a Senior Player running 9 Clan
>Positions COULD assign all the regulars to his own clans.  This would
>irritate others in the faction, but assuming it a militant faction, could
>give some serious control advantages to that one player.  Let's see what
> the others have to say.
>
>Zan

Good point Zan!  I never thought of that... <g>

I guess this would be a case where the # 0 senior would have to step in and
start worrying if his # 1 was planning a coup or somethin'...

------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 15:27:02 CDT
Subject: Re[2]: MID: Player Quantity

Brian:

I won't quote your message (no need to thank me, Kerry!), but I agree
     with a lot of what you said.

I have no plans on starting more than a couple of new clans for now,
     but I _know_ that upping the clan limit to 9 will draw some of the old
     "power" players back into the game.  They just couldn't resist the
     opportunity to become their own faction... <g>  This, to me, is good.

What is bad is how hard it's going to be for me to talk my wife into
     upping my monthly Midgard allowance...

If I had a vote, I would say limit each player to running no more than
     6 clans and still allow EFs to be formed (maybe one EF per clan, max).
      But I can live with the 9 clan limit.  Especially with the monthly
     turn around.

What's everyone else's opinion?

------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 15:57:28 CDT
Subject: Re[4]: MID: Player Quantity

Kinda messy though that way... <g>

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: MID: Player Quantity
Author:  USAMIDGARD@aol.com at INTERNET
Date:    3/15/96 2:28 PM

Mike

In a message dated 96-03-15 15:19:40 EST, you write:

>
>Good point Zan!  I never thought of that... <g>
>
>I guess this would be a case where the # 0 senior would have to step in and
>start worrying if his # 1 was planning a coup or somethin'...

Nah, you take the thumb and squash the bug... very experienced in that
area.... <g>

Zan

------------------------------

From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:00:37 -0600 (CST)
Subject: MID: Upcoming Changes Affecting this List

All,

I've decided to move this list over to a more stable and professionally
run LISTSERV site, the move should take place by early next week. I'll
let everyone know when this has occured and move y'all over to the new
list until then please continue with business as usual.

------------------------------

From: J1WESCHAN@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 18:23:39 -0500
Subject: MID: Fwd: Number of factions

- ---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Number of factions
Date:    96-03-14 20:11:41 EST
From:    J1WESCHAN
To:      midgard-list@io.com

I have no problems with the number of factions played by one player being
restricted to 4, if this is the general decision. Actually, this is the game
owners' decision.
I feel that we are all adults and able to decide how many factions we could
play and still keep them seperate. We all decided to play this game within
certain rules. To do otherwise would result in expulsion from the game.
Worse, it would expose a persons' character and personal honor. Character is
what you do when no one is watching. It is also part of adulthood.
John

------------------------------

From: USAMIDGARD@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 20:01:22 -0500
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

Jay,.

In a message dated 96-03-15 19:38:54 EST, you write:

>
>Good points. I agree.
>
>J
>
>

Though somewhat moot as the nine (9) clan limit is in place at this point.
 The discussion is really about the number of factions you should be allowed
to play in and how many clans per faction, or any limits whatsoever.

Zan

------------------------------

From: "Petonak, Paul            M'bio" <paulp@microbio.LIFESCI.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 17:43:00 PST
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

You know, I really hate the fact that the mailer does not mail
from the accepting address. I think about half of my posts bounce
off the owner address without anyone seeing them. I appreciate the
service, but I can't bang it into my thick skull that I need to add
the mailer address first. :) Here goes this one again.

In response to Schrader's financial comments.

Yes, it is certainly possible that a set of seniors could dominate
one faction. But, the nice thing about this game is that the GM is
fundamentally in control of all factions. As such, the #0 could
insist to the offending seniors that the resources need to be spread
around to others to optomize the ideas and creative potential of other
factional members (thus preventing the Charlie Day-Glenn Harold-Old
Ring Senior (dont't remember name) syndrome). The monopolizing players
may complain but if that happened I think that just about every player
would support Zan's decision. In the event that the seniors threaten to
quit the game then I would be of the opinion that we really didn't want
someone like that in the game to begin with.

Paul

I don't remember the other two messages I just sent, will have to wait
for the bounces.

------------------------------

From: USAMIDGARD@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 23:02:29 -0500
Subject: Re: MID: Player Quantity

Kerry,

In a message dated 96-03-15 22:39:34 EST, you write:

>Actually I think you're forgetting another worst-case scenario - what say
>a local group of 4 to 10 gamers running 9 clans each in one faction or 9
>different factions, this would give them 36 to 90 clans and cities under
>their control - surely a power bloc to reckoned with and something that
>could easily happen.

The numbers would have the same relative power if you are talking no more
than 3 total clans and 12 EFs, run by the same player or perish the though
group of 4-10.  Most of the factions can't field that many regiments anyway.

And as said before, the issue of 9 is a moot one... that is over and done
with.  The limits on numbers within a specific faction or the number of
factions you can belong to does also seem to bear more in the integrity of
the player to keep the information to himself.  The other burden is on our
shoulders to prevent abuse of the factional assets.

Zan

------------------------------

From: USAMIDGARD@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 22:48:06 -0500
Subject: [none]

a message dated 96-03-15 21:28:34 EST, you write:

>You know, I really hate the fact that the mailer does not mail
>from the accepting address. I think about half of my posts bounce
>off the owner address without anyone seeing them. I appreciate the
>service, but I can't bang it into my thick skull that I need to add
>the mailer address first. :) Here goes this one again.

Echo that for sure!!  But all will be well soon, Kerry promises.

>In response to Schrader's financial comments.
>
>Yes, it is certainly possible that a set of seniors could dominate
>one faction. But, the nice thing about this game is that the GM is
>fundamentally in control of all factions. As such, the #0 could
>insist to the offending seniors that the resources need to be spread
>around to others to optomize the ideas and creative potential of other
>factional members (thus preventing the Charlie Day-Glenn Harold-Old
>Ring Senior (dont't remember name) syndrome). The monopolizing players
>may complain but if that happened I think that just about every player
>would support Zan's decision. In the event that the seniors threaten to
>quit the game then I would be of the opinion that we really didn't want
>someone like that in the game to begin with.
>
>Paul

Well, I'm not bashful and have already made it crystal clear to those that
have asked that the above will not happen.  The game is for ALL the players,
not a select few that the Seniors want to have play.  It may well have been a
problem in the past; however, the past is just that, past!!

Zan

>I don't remember the other two messages I just sent, will have to wait
>for the bounces.

Well, will happen soon enough I'm sure.

------------------------------

From: DShir13@AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:50:27 -0500
Subject: Re: MID: clans/factions per player

Steve,

I agree with you on this.  I think it's up to the players themselfs to
decided if they can handle playing in oppisite factions.  Spys are
everywhere!  It's up to the seniors to restrict information to players that
they don't trust, not to the GM's to put restrictions on what factions can be
played.  Seniors always have the power to kick players out of thier faction.
 I don't like putting restrictions on what a player can do.  If I want to
play a Barbarian and be an Imperial Senior and Mike has no problem with it
then I will, knowing full well that MIke will keep some information secret
from me for internal security.

David

------------------------------

From: USAMIDGARD@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:28:40 -0500
Subject: [none]

a message dated 96-03-14 18:16:07 EST, you write:

>     ---Look at a map? (but enjoy them while you can, they may
>     not be there too much longer.... >:)

Well, the map will show the location, but not the number...  Barbarians are
still probably the experts in this area, though I'm sure it will be a
surprise to them the first time <g>.

>     ---If the reason for this is to prevent people from playing
>     in two factions that are arch enemies you won't be able to
>     stop that unless you allow only one faction. If this is to
>     prevent people from being able to compile information
>     from several factional intelligence databases then having
>     3 or 4 different factions is still significant enough to amass
>     a great deal of different info. And, if someone's true wish
>     was to stoop to underhandedness then they probably wouldn't
>     be above starting other clans under a friends name. This
>     has been done in the past, I beleive even by some seniors.
>     I don't _really_ see what functional limitation this restriction
>     will provide.
>
>     Paul

Well, that is a good reason for the open forum... and leave it to the players
to handle the honesty issue.

Zan

------------------------------

End of The Midgard Digest V1 #17
********************************

To subscribe to The Midgard Digest, send the command:

subscribe midgard-digest

in the body of a message to "majordomo@io.com"

To unsubscribe from The Midgard Digest send the command:

unsubscribe midgard-digest

in the body of a message to "majordomo@io.com"

If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-midgard-list":

subscribe midgard-digest local-mid-list@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "midgard-digest"
in the commands above with "midgard-list".