jpmschweitzerandClaude Opus 4.6
c6f2e69cc8
Remove misplaced ROUND-16-STATUS.md from root (duplicate of round-16-session-notes.md). Convert all macOS absolute paths to project-relative paths across round-16 docs and design reference. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
127 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
127 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
# 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`
|