The High Council

[Maximus Dominus]

I made the mistake of giving my phone number to another Hyborean war player and the son of a bitch called me to tell me every time he was going to kick my ass.  lol Thats another game I miss, a buddy and me thought we might try to get back in one, as far as we can tell, RSI is still around running games by mail.  I actually went to an RSI convention in New Jersey one time back in the 80's to play Dualmasters in person, was pretty fun.  Other than Tex and the other chick who ran it, my wife was the only woman there, she led a parade of nerds around all weekend it was funny as hell.

Hyborian War is my favorite game. Rick McDowell was never overly impressed with it, but The Road of Kings forum site which is the largest gathering of Hyborian War players on the Internet, is a far busier forum than the Alamaze forum, here, is.

For current or recent programing, Alamaze is far ahead of Hyborian War. But the base design of Hyborian War is sound, regardless of Rick's personal opinion of it from his perspective as a game designer. RSI simply doesn't engage in making programming changes to Hyborian War, anymore, as far as I know, as far as using programming to add changed to the game. It's actually possible to increase the variety of possibilities that the game can offer, by way of manual changes to certain things that don't really require changes to the programming. This was demonstrated with a Special Variant Game of Hyborian War that I persuaded Lee at RSI (the president of RSI) to agree to try.

I'm fairly well versed in the rules and mechanics of Hyborian War, which allows me to focus more upon the meta-game aspect of playing that game. The meta-game aspect largely swirls around the players and their personalities and player-to-player interactions. Here, where Alamaze is concerned, I simply don't command any real degree of mastery over the game's rules or mechanics, so it's more like being an Alamaze Neanderthal, by comparison.

I've never been to one of RSI's Duel2 (formerly known as Duelmasters) face-to-face tournaments. A friend of mine, Wayne (The Consortium on the ROK/Rad of Kings) goes to all of them, if I'm not mistaken. He's been attending those face-to-face tournaments for many years on end. They are a real highlight of his personal life, from what I have been able to gather. I tried Duelmasters decades ago, but it just didnt turn out to be my cup of tea. I've never tried RSI's Forgotten realms PBM game.

Rick never wanted to put any effort to keep previous versions of the game going.  I think we started a 2nd or 3rd cycle game last year, but we only got to turn 3 before there were technical issues.  The first cycle was designed to be printed on paper, I don't know how much effort it would take to make it electronic.  I think second cycle turn could be emailed, but it was a labor intensive thing, done by hand, not automatically.

I don't speak for Rick McDowell, of course, but I suspect that just trying to do one game at a time (Fall of Rome, first, and then the newer versions/cycles of Alamaze, after he moved on from Fall of Rome) was an enormous challenge. Plus, too, trying to simultaneously work on and offer multiple different versions of Alamaze would have required a substantial increase in resources allocated to the effort. I don't know how much money that Rick sank into developing and improving Fall of Rome and then the new versions of Alamaze, but I do know that it was a sizeable amount, for sure. He tried all kinds of stuff to promote Fall of Rome, and then Alamaze, but the stars just never seemed to align for him, in bringing about a surge in popularity for either Fall of Rome or Alamaze. His heart, I think, was set on trying to bring about a bigger vision into existence - namely, the Kingdoms of Arcania concept.

The current iteration of the game does look more exciting, but it's really apples and oranges, just depends on what you are in the mood for.

Understood, and I agree.

Currently, the primary "unwritten rules" for Steel games are that:

1) all communication between players in a particular game must be done inside the forum so all can see and
2) Non-aggression pacts between players are forbidden.
There are other things people look sideways at, but you probably won't ever get called out for it.  And newbies never get called out.

Ah, the Steel games thing. Just another needless complication, from my perspective, one that hasn't really proven to be of much value, from what I have seen, in growing the size of the overall player base for Alamaze.

These rules are not enforced by the game-masters or owners, but rather just by players bitching in the forum when the rules are broken... which is why Rick banned the accusations of rule-breaking in the forum.  He never wanted to admit the rules HE initiated were ever broken, despite him having no desire to investigate.  So, as players, we couldn't even shame people into complying.  Rick did write these rules down somewhere, but I don't remember where.

Just a clusterfuck, from the sounds of it. It discourages communication, if you ask me, rather than encourages communication. Without communication, the amount of "shit talking" that players do to one another tends to diminish. One thing that I can say about Hyborian War discussions both on and off The Road of Kings forum site, shit talking flourishes. Too many times, I think that some players of various games tend to prefer more of a gentlemen's spirit, of sorts, thinking that shit talking undermines forum discussions. From my perspective and based upon my own first-hand use of forums stretching back many years, shit talking, itself, is an art all its own. It has a back-and-forth quality to it that can help to undergird a game's forum. War games, in particularly, tend to gravitate around a spirit of competition, and shit talking is a natural force for driving competition on a verbal level.

My stand is, if you can't enforce a rule, there shouldn't be a rule.  Especially if you are going to ignore rule breakers anyway.

I agree.

We should get a no holds barred game going.  Maybe now that we have a new leader we can forget about all this unwritten nonsense?

I think that you've already begun another forum discussion thread to try and accomplish the "no holds barred" game that you envision, Jon.

[Wookie Panz]

From the 4th Cycle: Maelstron rulebook:

The following represents the possible issues that members on the High Council may
address during the course of the campaign:

• Commend or condemn a specified king for his actions at large. This has the effect
of raising or lowering the specified king's influence by one.

• Endorse or degrade a particular king's actions in a particular region. This has the
effect of raising or lowering the king's regional reaction by one.

• Elect to increase food production by 1,000 units and lower gold production by 1,000
units for cities, towns, or villages throughout Alamaze.

• Elect to increase gold production by 1,000 and decrease food production by 1,000
for cities, towns, or villages throughout Alamaze.

• Vote to expel a member on the High Council for acts contrary to the civil intent of
the High Council.


Even way back when I first tried Alamaze, when it was run by Reality Simulations, Inc., the concept of the High Council in Alamaze has always struck me as odd. These five options are the raison d'être for the high council's existence? What, exactly, does the term "civil intent of the High Council even mean?"

The High Council strikes me as a rather drab, boring affair. It is largely an exercise in the pursuit of self-interest, and to a lesser degree, vindictiveness/punishment. What actions of any king in the game, currently, warrant endorsing? Raising and lowering of influence, with the potential for cumulative effect when achieved multiple turns. It just strikes me as a rather lofty title for an entity that doesn't really have much to choose from. It makes me think of both the League of Nations and the United Nations - largely incapable of accomplishing anything of note, in the grand scheme of things. Oh, sure, the High Council exists - but to what grand end?

Incremental increases or decreases in both influence, food, and gold. That and the expelling of a member of the High Council, itself. Whoop-de-doo!

It just doesn't strike me as a very imaginative feature of the game. Can it prevent or halt a war between opposing kingdoms? Nope. Can it mandate peace for a period of time? Absolutely not! Can it outlaw crime (assassinations and kidnappings). Not at all. I realize that it's just a feature designed into the game, but why would a bunch of fantasy kingdoms come together under any pretense just to "accomplish" the five rather dubious things agreed upon in the first place?

The current 32 kingdoms in the game that players can choose from to play embody a lot of colorful characteristics. The High Council, by comparison, is dreadfully boring. Am I alone in thinking this? I'm not trying to cause, nor advocating for, a bunch of extra programming work for Mike, but just as a topic of conversation, can any of you actually envision the fantasy realms that populate the Alamaze setting all coming together at some point in time, and agreeing to what is currently the case? Is that the grand accomplishment of these 32 kingdoms acting in unison and with great or noble intent? Pah!

Honestly, I don't think that these fantasy kingdoms would ever come together for some grand purpose, and when all was said and done, the current end result is what they would all settle for. To borrow a phrase, such is fit for the Mad Hatter!

If one never seeks a seat on the High Council, then one can never be kicked off of it. The world certainly doesn't end, if one is not a member of the High Council. If incrementalism and minimalism are to be the order of the day, then why the term High Council? What's so high about it?

I do know that, over the years, various changes have been proposed for the High Council. But why would kingdoms that are historically poorer than some of their other counterparts ever agree to a system whereby kingdoms that ascend to the high council do so based upon bids made in gold? Such is, I think, ludicrous on its face. And if the supposed High Council in its current form didn't exist, at all, would Alamaze really be any the poorer for its absence from the grand scheme of things?

In a word, the High Council in its current watered down form is nothing short of dreadfully boring. In my current game of Alamaze, Game 5684, my kingdom managed to snag a seat on the High Council on Turn #1. Yet, is there any feeling of great excitement in achieving this? Nope, not at all. Thus, why bother with bidding in the first place? Very anti-climactic, people. It's akin to chewing on cardboard.

From my perspective, the High Council, if it is to exist at all, should be a body of consequential decisions. Incrementalism and minimalism are hardly consequential and of over-arching importance. Do I think that changing the way that people look at the High Council and what the High Council has power to do should be the top priority for changing, as Alamaze goes forward with its development and refinement? Certainly not. Yet, as a long term project, I really think that it is one area of the game that holds a lot of potential that has not been exploited, yet. Tell me this - is there any experienced player of Alamaze who thinks that the High Council in its current form is their favorite part of the game?

When browsing previous postings by others, where different players seek to entice each other with proposed food and gold trades, particularly as their games progress, I can't help but to wonder how much difference that a change of 1,000 gold or food per pop center per turn actually makes, and especially once a game of Alamaze has been going for a while, and players have improved their kingdom pop centers by a good bit. Is the High Council, in reality, little more than a mechanism for facilitating any earlier removal of certain kingdoms from the game - namely, the weaker ones with less food and/or gold at their disposal?

It isn't kingdoms pursuing their own meager self-interest that annoys me about the High Council in its current form. Rather, if pursuit of self-interest is to be the order of the day as a guiding light or purpose for the High Council, then why isn't it done on a much grander scale?

If you stumble across this posting and are reading it, feel free to enlighten me as to what it is about the High Council in current form that I am missing. What, to you, makes the High Council in its current form one of the crown jewels of game design for Alamaze?

And how does a vote by the High Council actually make pop centers more productive or less productive? Do gold mines that such gold comes from in the first place suddenly become less productive? Or would fantasy kingdoms fighting for their races' survival actually be inclined to go along with some arbitrary limit imposed by a High Council that does nothing to spare their people from their looming fate? From the perspective of backstory and lore, feel free to explain the High Council concept to me.

By all means, enlighten me.

H.C. is just one of the many tools that you can have in your kit to get through or win a game.  It can be a cheap way to gain influence at the very least.  I've seen players get a seat cheaply on turn 1 along with a bid for influence so a 2 point boost right out of the gate.  A standing order to raise your own influence for  with your H.C. seat can save you a lot of gold over the course of a game.
Again, it's just a single tool but it can be a very helpful one if used with long term vision.

I should mention that High Counsel is tied into the charisma trait, which gives a gold bonus discount of, I think 10000 gold discount  when you place a bid for H.C.  This helps balance some of the kingdoms that are weak in other areas.
In a team game it can get pretty interesting if a team gets one player with charisma.  That player can get a cheap seat and sell it to another team member, wash and repeat.  Not that Senior or I have ever done that, of course.

[Jon Deaux]

Nooo, we'd never do anything so sinister

[Maximus Dominus]

Well, having served on the High Council in more than one game, now, I can say that there's a certain pleasure that comes with voting NAY on issues where your vote effectively kills a motion to increase the influence of a particular kingdom that you have had a falling out with.

Yeah, that part of the game adds a little kick of fun to a given turn where you manage to pull that off. Lots of people on the High Council seem to prefer to abstain. Oh, hell no! Not me. I'm game for voting against other kingdoms, though sometimes, I do vote YEA. Just depends on what it is.

Is it worth an order slot to cast a vote on the High Council? I think so. It just feels good to stick it to the other guy - and especially if he messes with your towns.