Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player

From: Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:34:39 +0000

> The actual equipment is probably among the easier aspects to
> handle. More difficult, I find, are the inherent capabilities
> given to new positions.

Equipment in TBG isn't as minor a concern as in Fantasy games, as in it
you have (are?) a spaceship which is simply the sum of its parts
(engines, etc).  Equipment there is more akin to characters or skills in
a fantasy setting.

So to extrapolate the idea to a fantasy medium, perhaps what you'd have
is that starting players get a party consisting of a mercenary or two
who have been hired for a certain number of turns, but will leave after
that.  Then new positions' first task will be to find some permanent
members.  This also requires that real party members be more powerful
(at least in the long term) than your starting mercenaries.  Or perhaps
you could start with regular adventurers, who have some minor
disadvantage like having a non-contagious version of the black death, or
assassins chasing them, and only have so long to spread the word of
their mission.  After all, how many RPG campaigns start with a
mysterious messenger dying at the players' feet?  :-)

If you have a skill based game, then you could be given a couple of
blessings which act like having skills, but will run out after some time
period.  You get the general idea!

> 1) A number of characters capable of kicking ass.
>
> 2) A party. Regardless of how many characters are in it, each party
> has the innate ability to be located in its own location. The more
> parties you have, the more locations you can inhabit. Also, each party
> is allowed a limited number of orders per turn. More parties = more
> orders.
>
> Now, point 2) above is worth considering. This is a hidden asset with
> innate capabilities that most games tend to give any new position, but
> that is often unobtainable in quantity for existing positions. This
> therefore turns into a huge, fat carrot for the power gamers and you
> get multiplayers.

All this really shows is that Quest wasn't designed to discourage people
from playing multiple positions, which is no surprise given that
multiple positions are allowed.  Contrary to your assumption, I'm not
familiar with Quest, so I can't comment in too much depth as to how it
would be different if it had been thus designed, but perhaps a good
starting (continuing?) point for discussion would be brainstorming a few
more ideas about how Quest-like games might make playing multiple
positions less of an advantage?  I've given a couple to start off with,
but I can't say how well they actually fit Quest...

Steve.

References

Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
wavey@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:01:26 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:37:03 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:18:34 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:43:12 +0000

Referenced By

Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
wavey@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:01:26 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:37:03 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
Stephen Baillie <dont@spam.me>
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:18:34 +0000
Re: Mechanisms to combat multiple-entry by a player
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager)
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:43:12 +0000