MP hotseat passwords

I've noticed that some M2TW hotseat campaigns have run into trouble over passwords. The games are killed if players forget their passwords or drop out of the campaign without passing on their passwords.

With the wisdom of hindsight, it is clear that the solution is for all players supply their password to someone at the start of the campaign. That someone should test them, then hold onto them. That someone could be the gamesmaster who initiates the game. However, as the gamesmaster is likely to be a player, that may be less than ideal.

I am happy to act as the depository for hotseat passwords and to test them out. I have no interest in competitive hotseat campaigns, so there would be no potential conflict of interest.

Thx Econ

That's a great idea...

Should have come earlier, I already gave my PW to the GM (Elite Ferret)

I'll PM to you also

While I think it is a fine idea with good intentions, I see a problem. Here is why. Here is the rule I made up in the Teutonic thread:

Quote:

---

I have thought up some rules that a GM might want to consider when starting up a Kingdoms hotseat campaign:

1.) Before the GM even sets up the first savegame, he should demand everyone's password to be given to him in private.

2.) After turn one, he should test all of the passwords while taking care to not look at anyone elses save game.

3.) If a password does not match, he should PM the person and demand the new password.

4.) If he can not get a password for every faction, he should restart the game. Since he has his own password, he can simply withhold it which would effectively kill the initial game. As GM, he has that right.

It will only be on its first turn so it shouldn't be too big a deal to start over. I know this sounds a little harsh but I think we might want to consider it. Because we have come close to having both Kingdoms hotseat games die because the GM could not get access to the passwords he needs.

We need players who will commit to the game. If real life intervenes, then we need to be able to replace that player. Because I think we would all have more fun if the games could be kept running at a brisk pace. Playing one turn should not take too long if your auto-resolving every battle. We have the Teutonic Campaign on the verge of death simply because a player can not remember his password. And we had the Crusade Campaign stalled for over 3 weeks simply because a player dropped totally out of contact.

So, the GM who runs these games needs to have every single password to every faction. My proposal is harsh but it would ensure that a game would not be derailed all because of one player.

---

Now, the really important part of this rule is step 4. And that is where the GM kills the game if he can not get every password. And he kills it by simply refusing to supply his own password and refuses to play his turn. That is something you could not do since you would have no savegame to "hold hostage". In my opinion, step 4 is integral to this process since it is easier to kill a game on turn one than it is on turn 5, 10, 30, ect... Someone who is being difficult with their passwords needs to know that there will be immediate consequences. If there aren't immediate consequences (such as the game being restarted with them left out), then they have less reason to cooperate.

So, I believe this would only work if you would agree to help the GM kill a game that has a holdout player. Which means the GM would need to know there is a holdout so they can then make the executive decision on whether to risk having the game held up in the future.

While I see your offer as making it more comfortable on players to do steps 1 and 2, I still think it should be the GM that receives them. It is his game and he is the one running it. Perhaps the moderator of the forum (you) can have a copy of them just in case something happens with the GM, but the game is his creation. It would be like Tosa having the KotR savegame but not you. Something about it just doesn't seem fair to the GM.

If I run a hotseat, I will simply demand everyone's password before I even start the first game. And then I will test each password as each player plays their first turn. If I can get into every savegame, then the game will progress to turn 2. If I can't, I will give the holdout a chance to give me the new one. If they continue to holdout, I will kill the game by refusing to play my turn and holding on to my password. Then I will start a new game without the holdout player.

While all of this seems draconian, I have seen three instances in just a few days where people killed or came close to killing a hotseat game simply because the GM did not know the passwords to their own game. Now while people may feel uncomfortable with supplying the GM a password to do step one or two, they could just start their own game. If you do not trust the GM to not look at your savegame, then just don't play in his game.

Maybe this is a declaration of "GM rights". Your the moderator of the forum so your rule as GM is even more strengthened by the fact that you have real powers regarding enforcement. The rest of us just have to make due with what we have. It would be like if I came into your house and demanded to keep the D&D character sheets even though your the dungeon master.

So, in summary, I think the GM should have every password to his game because it is his game. I think it would be cool if the moderator had a copy of the passwords but he should not be the sole repository as it could cause a weird triangular conflict between the players, GM, and mod.

whoo! That was a lot to say while trying to wake up. Time for coffee... ^_^

I do not agree with you PK

I would much rather have a third party hold all the PW even the GameStarter (and not GameMaster) so that should the GS (or GM if you prefer) go AWOL the game can still go on...

It is quite simple for Econ here to notify EF if and when he received all the PW for all players...

Moreover it removes any suspicion of unfair dealing by the GM (this is not for you EF...)...

Just my two cents...

But that makes Econ the "super GM" of every hotseat that comes up in the throne room. While he is moderator, he does not make the executive decisions regarding every game (nor would he probably want to).

The GM has every right to the passwords to his game. If you are not comfortable giving him the password, then you shouldn't play in his game.

If people want to keep their passwords secret, they can always start a "password secret" hotseat game where no one knows anyone else's password. Of course your basically rolling the dice but maybe all 5-7 people will work out fine.

If I run a kingdoms game, which I probably will when school slows down a little, I will simply demand every password before I even start the savegame. If people give them to Econ as well, thats fine but I will require them. And then I will test them. If they don't work, I will ask for the new one. If it still doesn't work, I will kill my game and restart it without the problem player. Anyone who does not agree with this can simply not play in my games.

I do not want to over-ridden in these decisions by Econ. It would become quite burdensome if I had to run everything past him. Plus he could find himself in a conflict of interest where he has to make a ruling between the GM and one or more of the players.

So, I'm all for Econ having a copy of every password in the throne room. But I think the GM's should have the passwords to their own game as well. This leaves the GM as the head of their game yet has a backup system if something happens.

I prefer PK's method but not because I can cheat because cheating takes the fun out of games for me and I never do it (the only time I have used the console on M2 is to make the AI have better armies). The simple soultion of me going missing is if I PM my password to a 3rd party or an ally in the game.

Upon further thought, and coffee, I have come up with some more points.

I see three basic types of Kingdom Hotseat games.

1.) Game is "password secret" which means that everyone has their own password and no one gives it out. The GM is severly limited in what they can enforce. Both Kingdoms hotseats in here started as "type 1" games and have not done well. The Teutonic game was killed simply because someone was going to quit and pass their faction to a replacement player but they ended up forgetting what their password was. The game had to be restarted. And the Crusade game was held up for more than 3 weeks because a player dropped out of contact and refused to speak to anyone from the game. They finally communicated and passed on their password to a replacement but a second player has quit due to not wanting to play with that replacement. That second player has still not given over their password. So the Crusade game might be killed as well.

2.) GM demands every password before starting the game. This is to fasciculate enforcement and to ensure that the game keeps running. In my experience, the GM does more than just "start" the game which is why I use the term GM and not GS (game starter). The GM maintains the game thread, finds the players, sets the house rules, and keeps the game running. There are very few mechanisms for enforcement. Being keeper of the passwords is one of the few tools the GM has. Passwords can also be deposited with a third party as backup. This is my preferred type of game.

3.) Every player hands their passwords to an impartial third party such as our forum moderator but not to the GM. This would mean that the GM and mod would have to communicate over every executive decision regarding other players. Plus the mod could overrule the GM by simply passing the GM's password out if the GM tries to kill his own game. If a GM wished to replace a player or kill his game, he would need the mod's cooperation and permission.

So, if people want to play in a type 1 or type 3 game, then they should start one and I wish them luck. But please do not take away my ability to run a type 2.

People are of course free to start up whatever games they wish - I'm just offering my services if they are useful. Notifying the players when all passwords have been received is important and I would do that for games I was the password repository for.

I maintain that I prefer a 3rd party to be the recipient of PW but I don't really care as EF can ascertain having obtained my PWs or the two precedent Hotseats...

Anybody can swear an oath never to use something, until the moment he uses it... So someone having no interest in the process is in my opinion the best solution...

Personally I posted my password openly in the thread. It's not a big deal, IMHO. If people are going to cheat then there are about a hundred exploits you could search up on these forums that would give you more advantage than just a chance to look at my save.

:egypt:

and its not like u wouldnt notice if someone cheated and all of ur guys and buildings were dead

No, but some lurking armies, spies and assassins could be revealed... and that would be a shame...

u wouldnt get a end of turn report either, if the guy before changed stuff and then uploaded. if they're just looking at the saves, thats more elusive. maybe we could use the honor system and treat everyone else like adults??