An alternative method to unlock Dynasty Legacies

[philanthropic19]

Hi everyone,

Imagine a dynasty whose rulers rule far and wide in many different parts of the world. The rulers generally possess righteous lifestyle, do not commit acts of tyranny, don't do hostile schemes that often and are generally perceived as kind and just. After a few generations, the dynasty has enough Renown to unlock the first Legacy. The Dynast decides that their dynasty shall be known for their dread and tyranny and hence unlocks the first level of the Guile tree, Ominous Reputation, giving 20% increase to Dread - whereas the fact of the matter is that the dynasty certainly does not have an ominous reputation.

I would like to suggest an alternative method of unlocking legacies: Different actions (by all dynasty members) in the game provide points towards a certain legacy. Executing and murdering people (by your dynasty rulers) gives your dynasty Guile Legacy points, marrying people with good congenital traits gives you Blood Legacy points, warmongering gives you Warfare Legacy points and so on for the other trees. The Dynast can then spend the points collected for each legacy tree to unlock legacy bonuses for that tree.

In order to give the player more of a "weightage" in this process to make it more fun and controllable, actions of the player can provide a larger number of points as compared to AI dynasty members.

This method, in my opinion, is much more organic, immersive and also requires proper planning and execution on the player's part to achieve a certain legacy for their dynasty. Killing and executing people and then finally unlocking legacies in the Dread tree will feel like a true accomplishment which will be backed by real actions of the dynasty in-game. This will add another dimension to the gameplay and make the legacies truly representative of the dynasty's reputation.

Would like to hear your thoughts about this.

EDIT: Based on some discussion in the thread, here is a summary of my proposed system:

1. Keep the Renown system as it is.
2. For Player Dynasts, for each legacy, add some extra conditions e.g. (your dynasty must win "x" wars to unlock "y" legacy). Actions by the player should provide a higher score than actions by AI dynasty members, so that the player has a stronger impact on molding the dynasty.
3. Allow the Player Dynast to propose a "Dynasty Focus" which will encourage AI members of his dynasty to take actions for a certain legacy tree of his choice.
4. For AI dynasts, only keep the Renown system and don't add these extra conditions.

 

[Rubidium]

I assume that the choice of legacy (when made by the AI) will be influenced by the dynasty head's traits and education (so a kind, charitable AI dynasty head will be unlikely to pick Guile, while a brave, martial education AI dynasty head will likely pick War). So it would mainly be the player doing weird things like picking one completely out of character.

As to your suggestion, I'd much rather keep the method of unlocking legacies the same. That both keeps player choice at a maximum (remember that dynasty renown is unlocked by having a bunch of independent rulers of your dynasty, which is explicitly something they want to incentivize) and avoids balance issues (both in the sense of avoiding making different legacies easier or harder to unlock depending on the required actions, and avoiding the "great, now I have to murder 100 more lowborns to advance my legacy" aspect). More broadly, it also helps keeps legacies distinct (you don't have someone going all murder-happy and fighting wars at the same time to unlock both dynasties separately; you have to choose, and choices are a good thing).

As to immersion, I assume a lot of it comes down to hiring family chroniclers to portray your dynasty in certain ways. This may or may not have any realistic connection to how your dynasty behaved, but that's hardly important to medieval chroniclers (anymore than Charlemagne and the Franks were actually descended from the Kings of Troy). Remember that a dynasty will have lots of members in it, with lots of personalities (for every Alfonso of Leon there's a Sancho of Castile).

 

[philanthropic19]

I assume that the choice of legacy (when made by the AI) will be influenced by the dynasty head's traits and education (so a kind, charitable AI dynasty head will be unlikely to pick Guile, while a brave, martial education AI dynasty head will likely pick War). So it would mainly be the player doing weird things like picking one completely out of character.

I must point out that in my OP I also meant that the player will choose something out of character. However, even with the AI, the problem is that the personality of the dynasty's head does not necessarily represent the reputation of the dynasty. Hence, the dynast can and likely will choose legacies which do not necessarily represent the dynasty's overall conduct in the eyes of the world.

As to your suggestion, I'd much rather keep the method of unlocking legacies the same. That both keeps player choice at a maximum (remember that dynasty renown is unlocked by having a bunch of independent rulers of your dynasty, which is explicitly something they want to incentivize) and avoids balance issues (both in the sense of avoiding making different legacies easier or harder to unlock depending on the required actions, and avoiding the "great, now I have to murder 100 more lowborns to advance my legacy" aspect).

You are correct that the current implementation gives the player maximum choice. Regarding the balancing of the difficulty to unlock different legacies, you have a fair point, but this is something that can be balanced if some thought and work is put into it. The numbers can be adjusted so that each track feels accessible, as it is now.

I would also like to point out that in the current implementation, if the player is not the dynast, the player has practically 0 choice and say in what dynasty legacies are unlocked. For good players, this will most likely be never the case - however it is a possibility within the game's mechanics. In my proposed method, the player's actions are always weighted higher than AI dynasty members' actions and thus the player will always feel they are molding the dynasty's reputation by their actions.

More broadly, it also helps keeps legacies distinct (you don't have someone going all murder-happy and fighting wars at the same time to unlock both dynasties separately; you have to choose, and choices are a good thing).

In my proposed method, the choice is still there.

As to immersion, I assume a lot of it comes down to hiring family chroniclers to portray your dynasty in certain ways. This may or may not have any realistic connection to how your dynasty behaved, but that's hardly important to medieval chroniclers (anymore than Charlemagne and the Franks were actually descended from the Kings of Troy). Remember that a dynasty will have lots of members in it, with lots of personalities (for every Alfonso of Leon there's a Sancho of Castile).

You raise a good point here. I have nothing against this. I just think that with my method we achieve everything: choice, immersion, progression, challenge, reward - in a way which is more organic than the current implementation.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

You raise a good point here. I have nothing against this. I just think that with my method we achieve everything: choice, immersion, progression, challenge, reward - in a way which is more organic than the current implementation.

You lose choice - as the legacies are linear, and would at best be choosing whether or not to buy a legacy.

You lose the sense of interaction with the system as it becomes effectively passive, and largely driven by AI entities actions, meaning that even if you control Dynasty Head for the whole game, you have little to no control over what actually progresses, even with weighting so player actions count for more.

And then there's that some legacies have no practical way to deliberately work towards them. Marrying people with good congenital traits is not the way to advance Blood. It's deliberately fixing those traits into your dynasty - but this isn't something you can distinguish between "accidentally" and "deliberately" doing. Different people might also value different good congenital traits far differently, or even be deliiberately aiming for particular "bad" traits.

You also have that your suggested system is possible to abuse somewhat - in that you can progress multiple legacy paths at once with certain lifestyles, rather than there being a practical limit to how fast you can progress any one given legacy.

 

[philanthropic19]

You also have that your suggested system is possible to abuse somewhat - in that you can progress multiple legacy paths at once with certain lifestyles, rather than there being a practical limit to how fast you can progress any one given legacy.

I will address your last point first. In my system, we could tie it with the Renown requirement PLUS some conditions for specific legacy unlocks e.g. 100 murders committed by your dynasty etc. This way, the Renown is still needed but these secondary conditions add another layer of immersion and believability to the unlocking of said legacy.

You lose the sense of interaction with the system as it becomes effectively passive, and largely driven by AI entities actions, meaning that even if you control Dynasty Head for the whole game, you have little to no control over what actually progresses, even with weighting so player actions count for more.

This is a matter of adjusting numbers. Additionally, something like a "Dynasty Focus" could be implemented which is chosen by the Player when playing as the Dynast and would encourage dynasty members to take actions that would advance a certain legacy tree.

These are just ideas I am thinking of right now. Not all of them may be perfect and we can think of better solutions. The point is to make the entire legacy unlocking system more immersive and believable.

 

[Heatth]

I agree that is likely more immersive but there are two fundamental issues with the suggestion, I believe. First it would undermine the reason renown is accrued the way it is: to incentivize more historical play style. In CK2 there is little reason to spread your dynasty as much as you can (it is actually often detrimental). Renown exists as a way to change that for CK3, so changing how you gain renown, or how useful it is directly counters the reason it was designed in the first place.

Another big problem is this suggestion could potentially cripple the AI. The player have a lot easier time focusing on optimizing specific tasks like that. That means that a player who really want to advance in the Guile tree will hyperfocus on murdering people do so in no time. Meanwhile, the AI will never do so (as it is preferable for more immersive game) leading to less optimal gameplay.

To be honest, I am not super fan of the system either, but I don't think the solution is to gamefy it even further and remove the incentives to the dynastic gamestyle. In the end of the day, I think the current system would ultimately lead to more immersion, not less, despite everything.

I will address your last point first. In my system, we could tie it with the Renown requirement PLUS some conditions for specific legacy unlocks e.g. 100 murders committed by your dynasty etc. This way, the Renown is still needed but these secondary conditions add another layer of immersion and believability to the unlocking of said legacy.

Ok, that is a lot better, but it is still problematic as it still doesn't solve the issue of the AI simply not being able to play as focused as a player can (and that coding the AI to do so would be a negative as well)

 

[philanthropic19]

I agree that is likely more immersive but there are two fundamental issues with the suggestion, I believe. First it would undermine the reason renown is accrued the way it is: to incentivize more historical play style. In CK2 there is little reason to spread your dynasty as much as you can (it is actually often detrimental). Renown exists as a way to change that for CK3, so changing how you gain renown, or how useful it is directly counters the reason it was designed in the first place.

Another big problem is this suggestion could potentially cripple the AI. The player have a lot easier time focusing on optimizing specific tasks like that. That means that a player who really want to advance in the Guile tree will hyperfocus on murdering people do so in no time. Meanwhile, the AI will never do so (as it is preferable for more immersive game) leading to less optimal gameplay.

To be honest, I am not super fan of the system either, but I don't think the solution is to gamefy it even further and remove the incentives to the dynastic gamestyle. In the end of the day, I think the current system would ultimately lead to more immersion, not less, despite everything.

You raise some very interesting points. Here are my thoughts:

1. Keep the Renown system, and add the conditions on top of those (e.g. for "x" legacy you need at least 100 people murdered by your dynasty) for player dynasts.
2. Don't put the extra conditions for AI dynasts, but keep the Renown system.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I will address your last point first. In my system, we could tie it with the Renown requirement PLUS some conditions for specific legacy unlocks e.g. 100 murders committed by your dynasty etc. This way, the Renown is still needed but these secondary conditions add another layer of immersion and believability to the unlocking of said legacy.


This is a matter of adjusting numbers. Additionally, something like a "Dynasty Focus" could be implemented which is chosen by the Player when playing as the Dynast and would encourage dynasty members to take actions that would advance a certain legacy tree.

These are just ideas I am thinking of right now. Not all of them may be perfect and we can think of better solutions. The point is to make the entire legacy unlocking system more immersive and believable.

Guile does not necessarily require murder.
There are far more plots than just that, and requiring murders to advance the Guile tree forces players into one particular playstyle, which is bad.
A Guile based approach centring around kidnapping and blackmail should be just as good at advancing the tree as one based around murder.

The same applies for other legacy paths. You must not make it so that one particular playstyle is required to advance the legacy paths.

Double locking advancement is something that has to be considered very carefully.


A "dynasty focus" that encourages other characters to act in the way you want them to is equally unimmersive as the problem you suggest. The player makes a decision, and now his 20 or so landed relatives all start acting differently.
And it still doesn't solve the problem that with the requirements to advance a legacy path, it still becomes mostly a passive system of waiting for the AI rulers to do things so you even have the option to advance legacies.
Alternatively you have to set the requirements such that a player can advance them on their own if the AI doesn't go near the requirements, and then they become effectively meaningless if you have enough dynasty members each doing one or two tasks.

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

Edit: I misunderstood the term "Dynast" in the OP, which renders most points in this post irrelevant. Oops

I'm not particularly happy with the player having so much more say when it comes to the direction the dynasty is taking, just because they are the player.

Firstly, that gives the player an additional mechanic to play around with which the AI simply doesn't have, and secondly, it could lead to difficulties in Multiplayer when there are possibly a dozen or so players using these mechanics. Consider, for example, six players playing as different characters of the same dynasty, but everyone goes for another renown focus.

I would instead suggest to give the extra mechanics in the Edit section if the OP to the dynasty head rather than the player. In single player, the player will usually by the dynasty head anyway, or try becoming the dynasty head if they aren't, so it doesn't make much of a practical difference for the player, plus the AI can use the same mechanics. In multiplayer, there would be a solid rule for these things if several players play in the same dynasty.

Plus, it would give the dynasty head some more authority over their dynasty, which kinda makes sense.

 

[philanthropic19]

I would instead suggest to give the extra mechanics in the Edit section if the OP to the dynasty head rather than the player.

That is already the case in the OP. I specifically mention them for the dynasty head only (the dynasty head is called the Dynast).

 

[philanthropic19]

Guile does not necessarily require murder.
There are far more plots than just that, and requiring murders to advance the Guile tree forces players into one particular playstyle, which is bad.
A Guile based approach centring around kidnapping and blackmail should be just as good at advancing the tree as one based around murder.

The same applies for other legacy paths. You must not make it so that one particular playstyle is required to advance the legacy paths.

I agree with all of this. I didn't mean to imply that Guile should be advanced by murder only. The murder was just an arbitrary example for an arbitrary legacy that would be dependent on it.

A "dynasty focus" that encourages other characters to act in the way you want them to is equally unimmersive as the problem you suggest. The player makes a decision, and now his 20 or so landed relatives all start acting differently.
And it still doesn't solve the problem that with the requirements to advance a legacy path, it still becomes mostly a passive system of waiting for the AI rulers to do things so you even have the option to advance legacies.
Alternatively you have to set the requirements such that a player can advance them on their own if the AI doesn't go near the requirements, and then they become effectively meaningless if you have enough dynasty members each doing one or two tasks.

Fair points. I will have to think more about this.

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

That is already the case in the OP. I specifically mention them for the dynasty head only (the dynasty head is called the Dynast).

Oh? Ignore my ramblings, then, I thought dynast was a general term for any member of the dynasty

 

[Sindai]

Oh? Ignore my ramblings, then, I thought dynast was a general term for any member of the dynasty

It actually is, now. Paradox changed the terminology themselves when they realized how confusing it was.

 

[Olden Weiss]

I don't think I'm onboard. I wasn't a fan of having to meet certain arbitrary requisites to unlock a bloodline in CK2, so I doubt I'd appreciate it in CK3.

 

[Riamus]

I am not a fan of grinding. The idea that you have to do something X times to advance seems very "grindy" to me and not fun at all. Yes, it may be more immersive to people as it gives you that sense that what you did gave you the ability to gain the next level in a way that makes sense. But I love reading books where even when they provide good descriptions still requires you to have a good imagination to really see the world. For me, I think that you can take something like this and easily think of it in more immersive terms rather than focusing on the exact mechanic and calling it unimmersive. I am pretty sure if you were to put the mechanic of this aside and just think of how this could be described in an immersive manner, you'd be able to do so.

Besides, is it really not immersive to say that my dynasty is renowned as being very dreadful people and so we have that dread Guile legacy? It took time to get renowned as that, but now we are and this is the effect it has. Do you really need to manually do all the dreadful things (such as murdering 100 people) for it to be immersive? Or can you "see/imagine" that your "background" actions led to that (actions you didn't specifically do, but that could have been behind-the-scenes RP)? Or, if you don't want to imagine that you did something you didn't actually do, you could view it as what all the rest of your dynasty has been doing without your direct involvement? After all, it's your dynasty's legacy, not your personal legacy. So you might have "unlocked" the dread Guile legacy less because your character was dreadful and instead because your dynasty as a whole is dreadful. You obviously aren't manually killing people with every dynasty character.

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

Just a random thought that crossed my mind:

What about a hybrid system? I.e. the dynasty head has the option to commit to one of the available legacy perks as the next unlock whenever they don't have such a commitment set.

When they don't commit to a perk, the system works as described in the dev diaries, i.e. the dynasty accumulates renown which can be spent on a legacy once they have enough of it.

When they do commit, the dynasty no longer has a choice to pick a perk with their renown, but the chosen legacy automatically unlocks once they reach the renown required for it, at which point they're free to commit to the next legacy if they so desire. However, they also get a slight boost (10%?) to their passive renown growth if they have a commitment set, and appropriate actions by dynasty members (e.g. successful hostile schemes if they commit to a guile legacy) add a small lump sum of renown to their dynasty's progress.

In terms of gameplay, this means the player has the option to either retain their ability to choose, or to commit early if they have a certain build in mind and get a little bit of extra progress if they actually act like the legacy they're trying to build without it being too grindy (you can choose to grind if you antagonize, abduct or kill everyone in your court, but it's strictly optional).

In terms of RP (and I am again picking guile as an example), the dynasty head starts acting all creepy, only wears black, decorates their castle with spikes and skulls, brings a white cat to council meetings which they can stroke ominously, grows a mustache which they can twirl even if they're female, practices their evil laugh in their spare time, you get the point. Their subjects can't help but notice, and pay closer attention to what the rest of the dynasty is doing, and what they're seeing only confirms their belief that the dynasty is up to something because confirmation bias is a thing.

 

[Karlington]

I don't think I'm onboard. I wasn't a fan of having to meet certain arbitrary requisites to unlock a bloodline in CK2, so I doubt I'd appreciate it in CK3.

Agreed. I remember wanting to found a murder bloodline and inviting unpopular people like lepers and kinslayers to my court just so I'd get easy kills. It was really bad gameplay.

 

[philanthropic19]

Just a random thought that crossed my mind:

What about a hybrid system? I.e. the dynasty head has the option to commit to one of the available legacy perks as the next unlock whenever they don't have such a commitment set.

When they don't commit to a perk, the system works as described in the dev diaries, i.e. the dynasty accumulates renown which can be spent on a legacy once they have enough of it.

When they do commit, the dynasty no longer has a choice to pick a perk with their renown, but the chosen legacy automatically unlocks once they reach the renown required for it, at which point they're free to commit to the next legacy if they so desire. However, they also get a slight boost (10%?) to their passive renown growth if they have a commitment set, and appropriate actions by dynasty members (e.g. successful hostile schemes if they commit to a guile legacy) add a small lump sum of renown to their dynasty's progress.

In terms of gameplay, this means the player has the option to either retain their ability to choose, or to commit early if they have a certain build in mind and get a little bit of extra progress if they actually act like the legacy they're trying to build.

In terms of RP (and I am again picking guile as an example), the dynasty head starts acting all creepy, only wears black, decorates their castle with spikes and skulls, brings a white cat to council meetings which they can stroke ominously, grows a mustache which they can twirl even if they're female, practices their evil laugh in their spare time, you get the point. Their subjects can't help but notice, and pay closer attention to what the rest of the dynasty is doing, and what they're seeing only confirms their belief that the dynasty is up to something because confirmation bias is a thing.

That is very interesting. I even like it from a gameplay perspective, as it is not grindy nor annoying - rather it is arguably more rewarding without being overpowered. I like it.