dynasties should be isolated. things like “the claiming Player immediately gains a single point of any resource of their choosing that is described only in the Dynastic Rules” greatly limit what someone can do in a future dynasty. We’ve had dynasties in the past where you have things like crowns that are hard to come by and you only need like three of them to win. If favors were a thing, you could just cash them in for crowns and break the dynasty.

It’s an interesting idea. The Crown thing wouldn’t happen - we’d have to be extremely careless to enact a rule of “3 Crowns to win” if we all knew that someone had three ripe Favours in their top pocket. We’d most likely just scale all gamestate values up by a factor of ten or a hundred.

I’m interested in this, and I think it might be best to patch it into the special case rules. 

So for the first fifty dynasties or so we had a persistent variable that didn’t reset from dynasty to dynasty, which got renamed in the AA. This feels like going back to that and I’m here for it; let’s mandate that we all have to have blogs again, why not?

@Kevan but that is forcing people to structure one dynasty based on what happened in a previous dynasty. we shouldn’t have to bend dynasties around this rule

And its not just crowns that a broken. you couldn’t do a “assign {6, 5, 4} to your strength, dex, and con” mechanic because the rule specifically allows you to transfer non transferable stats.

Another massive problem is that it means that people who, either due to lack of time or lack of interest in this particular theme, are suddenly at a disadvantage in the next dynasty. We moved away from stats that persist from dynasty to dynasty for a good reason. This would further entrench long term players ability to be successful because they would always have more favors they can cash in and get a leg up.

@ clucky you *could* do that kind of mechanic, u would just have to balance it with Favours in mind!

and i mean, as it stands, it’s only going to be possible to gain favours via this dynasty’s rules, so it would have to be another proposal and another whole conversation to give the rule any staying power beyond the v next dynasty :0

the “If the lender is idle, the claiming Player immediately gains an unripe favour with the lender as its lender.” clause already allows favors to leech into the next dynasty.

this could maybe work as a special case rule. But we shouldn’t have a rule talking about “Contenders” and “Pegs” and “Spectators” bleeding into the next dynasty. And Emperors should be able to declare favour does nothing in their dynasty. And we should fix the current weirdness with how favor interacts with idle players (in the current form even if your idle, your favors still ripen and then die on the vine), and overall I’d personally just rather avoid the idea altogether because I think each dynasty should be its own isolated game.

This should be a Special Case rule, and maybe it is worth revisiting the old persistent variable idea instead, to save us from the inevitable workarounds of either multiplying up all game variables or adding “this can’t be gained through Favour” clauses.

People being at a disadvantage for sitting inactively through the previous dynasty may not be an entirely bad thing, if it encourages people to be active instead, or to idle when they’re genuinely not playing.

to take the general metadynastic idea forward: could be interesting to see how much this changes the share-of-mantle endgames.

@Kevan

the problem isn’t people who are non-idle but also non-active. its exactly the “idle when they’re genuinely not playing” crowd that gets screwed over by this proposal. If Bucky returns next dynasty, they’ll still be at a disadvantage because suddenly other people have this “favor” concept that they were unable to earn due to not being able to play in the current dynasty.

Yeah, if we’re going back to a persistent variable we’d want some fair way to set new players’ values for that stat, including those unidling from past dynasties. Still needs work.

and that’s really part of my concern. the idea still needs work

could we come up with some balanced way to formalize the concept of collecting favors in one dynasty and cashing them in another? I guess? It already happens informally. I’m not sure its even a good thing that it happens informally. But I wouldn’t be completely opposed to at least trying that out.

this current implementation just has a lot of big concerns. in addition to the stuff I’ve already pointed out (putting new/returning players at a distadvantage, having references to stuff like “pegs” that will persist across the dynasty), we’re this to pass, my strategy would have to switch from “get 30 Magistrelli, hope I win two of the championship games and that no funny business happens with pegs” to “give up on winning this dynasty. stop playing games of Giolitti so that I don’t cross the 30 Magistrelli mark as if I do cross it, there is a 50/50 chance I still lose but wind up owing a bunch of favors next dynasty where as if I don’t cross it, I can ensure I have favors with both the emperor and one of the other players next dynasty, giving me a leg up there” (or maybe go for the win, and then just idle out the next couple of dynasties if I lose so I’m not playing them at a disadvantage)

@clucky that all seems little extreme!! i mean, i’m new here, but is it standard to act like Victory-Maximizing AIs? is it not fun to like, keep playing even if ur in a tough spot (or even just a slight disadvantage) and see if u can manage to win?

i promise im not dunking on u im just like, confused by those conclusions!!

Its not about victory maximzing. its just about me being able to play dynasties without other players having leverage over me.

If I owed someone else a favor, they would have leverage over me for the next dynasty.

If I wind up over 30 magistrelli, there is a good chance I would wind up owing multiple other people a favor

Hence I just wouldn’t try to get over 30 magistrelli

If you win as a result of buying Pegs through Favours, though, the leverage is irrelevant as you’re running the next dynasty instead of playing it. And you can still choose to buy Pegs in exchange for regular no-win-no-fee shares of the mantle pass.