Skip to Content

Inverse Loyalty

15 replies [Last post]
zdepthcharge
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014

I'm making a Euro/War Game that uses the commanders of armies as a mechanical focal point. Commanders have variable attributes. One of the attributes I'm currently calling "Inspired Loyalty". Mechanically this attribute works with the "Morale" attribute of the commanders army, so that if Morale goes below "Inspired Loyalty" you have dissent. Clean and simple.

I'd very much prefer to have a single word to name the attribute, but I don't think there is a word in English that describes the recipient of loyalty. It's not the opposite, it's the inverse (the person who receives someones loyalty). If a better descriptive cannot be found I'm going to call the attribute "Respect" (which sits wrong with me as that isn't quite what this attribute is).

Any ideas? Any non-English words that describe the inverse of loyalty?

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
how about...

Regard?

Esteem?

Acclaim?

Dominance?

Sway?

Control?

Presence?

Mastery?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The one who receives loyalty from others.

I think he is aiming for something like:

- Admired
- Adore
- Appreciated
- Cherished
- Hailed
- Honoured
- Praised
- Prized
- Prevered
- Treasured
- Worshipped

kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Random ideas

Honor
Leadership
Charisma
Fame

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
Goes below??

I have no other suggestions for the name beyond some of the good ones already posted. However, I have a question about your mechanic

zdepthcharge wrote:
Mechanically this attribute works with the "Morale" attribute of the commanders army, so that if Morale goes below "Inspired Loyalty" you have dissent.

As you've stated it, a commander who inspires a lot of loyalty is MORE likely to get dissent. I think what you want is if "Morale" plus "Inspired Loyalty" goes below some threshold, you have dissent. That is, commanders who inspire a lot of loyalty can make up for a drop in morale. Commanders that the men hate are likely to have dissent even if morale is just average.

MalthusX
Offline
Joined: 04/29/2013
Charisma & Discipline

I'd say you could use good ol' Charisma or Leadership, as per the suggestions above.

However, Zag24 raises a good point. It looks like commanders with a higher 'inspired loyalty' end up succumbing to low morale faster. If you want to keep it mechanically the same, you could change the morale mechanic to 'Discipline' and the inspired loyalty attribute to 'Laxity'. That way, a higher Laxity score translates to a more negligent commander whose army is prone to becoming undisciplined.

zdepthcharge
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
Thanks everyone. Some good

Thanks everyone. Some good suggestions, but I'm convinced there is no word in English that describes this. I'll probably use "Respect".
As for the questions around the mechanic, the "inverse loyalty" attribute is a "lower is better" attribute. It can even be negative under the right circumstances.

zdepthcharge
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
REVERENCE! From

REVERENCE!

From Dictionary.com: The state of being revered.

MarkD1733
MarkD1733's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/05/2014
allegiance?

Is it possible that there is a better word for you than "loyal" with which to find an inverse? Allegiance was the only other word I had not seen that might spark ideas. Good luck!

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
Don't use lower-is-better

zdepthcharge wrote:
As for the questions around the mechanic, the "inverse loyalty" attribute is a "lower is better" attribute. It can even be negative under the right circumstances.

I strongly recommend that you don't go with a lower-is-better approach. It's just confusing. Are you old enough to remember original D&D and AD&D? They changed armor class for a reason -- people got confused by it.

You can get exactly the same result by choosing the right threshold and expecting people to add and compare. If you had originally planned on starting morale at 8 and lower-is-better respect at 3, then your starting state is that 5 points lost on them combined leaves them tied. Then just start with the same numbers (morale is 8, higher-is-better respect is 3) bur say that the threshold for mutiny is morale plus respect < 6. This gives the same result, but isn't going to confuse the issue when you say, "Give your men an extra ration of rum to raise morale" and "Charge boldly into battle to raise Respect." With your lower-is-better approach, you have to say, "Charge boldly into battle to raise Respect (which means lowering the value by 1)."

zdepthcharge
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
Zag, It's not a system that

Zag,

It's not a system that checked frequently (unless an army is having morale issues) and it's not complicated (something is lower than something else). Also, of the two numbers, morale will be the one that changes the most. Even with the above in mind, I'm experimenting with a visual design that will render the state with a glance.

Anyway, once this hits play test I may be forced to change it. Or find smarter play testers.

Note: If there are two responses to Zag it's because I wrote a reply, but it's not showing up so I've written another reply.

Despot9
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
You could just use a track

You could just use a track with two counters. I'm doing something similar for a ship combat game I'm working on. I have a track that the player has two counters on; one for morale, one for ship damage. In my system they each start at opposite ends of the track. As you take damage to one it move it. If they ever cross the crew surrenders. Of course my system works because I only have to have one track per player. If you are using multiple commanders per player it may get tedious.

MarkD1733
MarkD1733's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/05/2014
just like Red Dragon Inn

Alcohol and damage start opposite ends of single track. Alcohol meets Damage and you pass out and get tossed out of the red dragon inn.

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
Danger, Will Robinson!

zdepthcharge wrote:
Anyway, once this hits play test I may be forced to change it. Or find smarter play testers.

Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!

Seriously, I know that you're kidding, here, but it's a very easy trap to fall into -- to blame the user when they get confused, just because something seems so easy and obvious to you. You forget that it (By it, here, I'm referring to the point that Respect is lower-is-better) is just an easy detail to you that makes sense because of how it is used. However, to a user, he doesn't yet know how it is used, and it is one of hundreds of tiny details at an equivalent level of importance that he needs to remember to start playing, and some users will forget. It doesn't mean they are not smart enough, it means that they focused on something else at the time that rule was mentioned.

I GUARANTEE that this will happen within the first 25 times this game is played by playtesters seeing it for the first time: Someone will do whatever action that increases Respect and he'll move the marker/token one higher on the Respect track. He won't realize that he's moved it the wrong way until a couple of rounds later when his morale goes down and suddenly his troops are abandoning their posts. He'll be puzzled and annoyed until he realizes that "Respect is scored backwards." (I'm quoting him directly, here.) Maybe his opponents will let him retcon his mistake, or maybe not.

Most users will blame themselves for the specific event, and won't mention it. However, their opinion of ease-of-use will go down somewhat, and they won't even know why they think so.

I apologize for going on at length here. I design software for a living, and I run into this sort of thing all the time in the software world. The developer does something for a good reason, to him, but users find it confusing. If his response is to blame the users (which is frighteningly common), then he has made a terrible mistake. Don't be that guy.

kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Can you flip the concepts around?

Ditto what Zag24 said.

There are a few options that you could consider to make the concepts intuitive for players.

Idea 1: Name the attribute as the negative of Respect
E.g. Arrogance, Distrust, Pomposity, Incompetence
Then it makes sense that high Arrogance is bad.
But it is still not ideal, because people naturally assume that high attributes are good.

Idea 2: Flip both Morale and Respect around
Leadership/Respect/Charisma: High-is-good
Panic/Disruption/Fear: Low-is-good
Mechanic: Unit routs when Panic > Leadership
I think this is better than Idea 1 because it is the more intuitive use of the words.

I wish you all the best with your game.

Regards,
kos

zdepthcharge
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2014
As I mentioned, Reverence

As I mentioned, Reverence will rarely change. The language used to indicate how to change an attribute (when it does change) will be simple enough that a seven year old can understand it; Add one to Reverence/Subtract one from Reverence. This has been tested on two seven year old children. The age group I am targeting is 13+.

The implementation I am designing will have these attributes side by side; Reverence on the Commander card and Morale on the Army card. If the morale token is below the Reverence token then you've got a problem.

And again, play testing will show whether this ends up working or not.

If I do change the attribute (as I had considered when I couldn't put a correct name to it), I may end up with "Glory", which would work in the same "direction" as all the other attributes, but would still work with morale in the same mechanical fashion. I like that as my working title for the game is "Asshole Commanders". The idea I'm keeping in mind as I design is: you go to war with the commanders you've got.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut