settled-reach/docs/design/faction-mechanics-reference.md

title, description, type, status, ticket, decision_refs, author, created, updated, superseded_by

title	description	type	status	ticket	decision_refs	author	created	updated	superseded_by
Faction Mechanics Reference	Quick reference for six-faction gameplay systems including resources, blind spots, and reputation mechanics	design	superseded				2026-02-19	2026-02-19	docs/design/systems-framework.md + the wiki faction pages

SUPERSEDED (2026-06-12, cascade-refocus sweep): superseded by docs/design/systems-framework.md + the wiki faction pages (the political model was rebuilt as the institutional systems framework across 301 systems). Kept as historical record; do not build against it.

Faction Mechanics Reference

Quick reference for how the six factions work as gameplay systems.

Source: Round 16 discussion (full analysis at docs/discussions/round-16-faction-mechanics.md)

---

Quick Comparison Matrix

Faction	Playstyle	Starting Resources	Information Channel	Key Constraint
Concord Assembly	Political thriller	Moderate wealth, high institutional access	Political intel, legislative roadmap	Process-locked, slow
Syndics	Economic thriller	High wealth, commercial networks	Economic flows, market data	No authority, transactional only
Separatists	Resistance thriller	Low wealth, frontier networks	Frontier geography, local grievances	Limited institutional access, economic poverty
Severance	Paranoid thriller	Low wealth, counter-tech	Counter-surveillance, institutional patterns	Institutional hostility, high operational cost
Veil Institute	Mystery thriller	Moderate wealth, research authority	Cosmic mystery, Builder data	Classification obsession, compartmentalization
Lattice Commission	Investigative thriller	Moderate wealth, legal authority	Meta-information, lattice/imprint data	Legal process required, internal faction split

---

Resource Asymmetry

Faction	Wealth	Legal Authority	Tech Access	Information Access	Mobility
Assembly	Moderate	HIGH (legislative)	Moderate	Political intel	High (institutional)
Syndics	HIGH	None	Commercial	Economic intel	HIGHEST (own span gates)
Separatists	LOW	None	Low	Frontier intel	Low (sparse infrastructure)
Severance	LOW	None (hostile)	Counter-tech	Counter-surveillance	Variable (off-grid)
Veil Institute	Moderate	Research-specific	HIGHEST (Founder)	Cosmic mystery	Moderate (gate access)
Commission	Moderate	HIGH (regulatory)	Meta-access	Surveillance data	High (institutional)

---

Factional Blind Spots

What each faction CANNOT see:

• Assembly: Street-level activity, Severance networks, Syndic backroom deals
• Syndics: Ideology, political maneuvering beyond market impact
• Separatists: Core institutional politics in detail
• Severance: High institutional politics, economic flows
• Veil Institute: Street-level intel, daily politics outside funding battles
• Commission: Off-lattice/off-Meridian activity, Unbound networks

Design principle: Blind spots create replayability (different factions see different conspiracies) and cross-faction necessity (some intel requires cooperation).

---

Reputation System (3D)

Each faction tracks three values for the player:

1. Trust — Do they believe you're aligned with their interests?
2. Usefulness — Do they think you're valuable to them?
3. Exposure — How much do they know about your activities?

Example Reputation States

• High Trust + High Usefulness + Low Exposure = ideal ally
• Low Trust + High Usefulness + High Exposure = transactional hostage
• High Trust + Low Usefulness + High Exposure = liability

Cross-Faction Reputation Effects

• Assembly ↑ Trust → Severance ↓ Trust (you're institutional)
• Syndics ↑ Usefulness → Separatists ↓ Trust (profiting from exploitation)
• Commission ↑ Trust → Severance ↓ Trust + ↑ Exposure (cooperating with surveillance)
• Severance ↑ Trust → Commission ↑ Exposure + Assembly ↓ Trust (associating with extremists)

---

Multi-Faction Play Strategies

Strategy	Benefits	Costs
Single faction loyalty	High trust, deep access, faction resources	Blind to other perspectives, vulnerable to faction collapse
Transactional multi-faction	Broad information access, economic flexibility	Low trust, expensive, first to be cut off in crisis
Covert multi-faction	Deep access on multiple sides, intel arbitrage	High operational security cost, exposure risk catastrophic
Ideological coalition (Severance + Separatists)	Aligned goals, resource sharing	Limited resources, institutional opposition, high risk
Institutional coalition (Assembly + Commission)	Legal authority, legitimacy	Slow to act, visible, Severance actively opposes

---

Pillar Coverage

How each faction engages with the five pillars:

Faction	Pillar 1 (Info)	Pillar 2 (Network)	Pillar 3 (Society)	Pillar 4 (Crisis)
Assembly	Political intel	Institutional gate access	Legislative power	Policy crisis
Syndics	Economic intel	Span gate control	Commercial leverage	Market crisis
Separatists	Frontier geography	Off-grid routes	Ideological resistance	Secession crisis
Severance	Counter-surveillance	Dead zones	Anti-institutional action	Surveillance crisis
Veil Institute	Cosmic mystery	Gate activation authority	Research vs. secrecy	Existential crisis
Commission	Meta-information	Meridian control	Privacy vs. security	Regulatory crisis

---

v0.1 Recommendation

Recommended factions for first prototype: Commission + Severance

Rationale:

• Maximum mechanical contrast (surveillance vs. counter-surveillance)
• Direct opposition creates immediate tension
• Tests asymmetric information at extremes (Commission sees everything on-lattice, Severance hides from everything)
• Both factions have clear starting hooks in conspiracy investigation
• Demonstrates replayability through opposed perspectives on same events

Alternative: Assembly + Syndics (political vs. economic, tests institutional play)

---

Design Principles

1. Each faction is a different information channel — not just different intel, but different TYPES of knowing
2. Each faction has systematic blind spots — creates replayability and cross-faction necessity
3. Constraints create playstyle identity — what you CAN'T do defines the game
4. Resources are asymmetric — factions are DIFFERENT, not balanced
5. Reputation is multi-dimensional — Trust/Usefulness/Exposure creates complex relationship space
6. Every faction feeds multiple pillars — no single-purpose factions

---

Full analysis: docs/discussions/round-16-faction-mechanics.md