I am working on a arguement game where the players act as a kings court to govern a kingdom and make a decisions based on scenarios. Each scenario has the same 9 options and each option affects the kingdom in a certain way... economic rise and fall. Morale shifts and military readiness and so on.
Each player also has an agenda they have to complete which is simply convincing the other memebers of the court to vote for specific options enough times. For example, going to war 4 times.
At first I thought I would allow the players to decide ONLY on 3 of the 9 options per scenario and let the scenario govern which options are available. After some thought I didnt like that because if you never get a scenario with war as an option, you can never win. So then I allowed all 9 options for each scenario. Now players refuse to compromise and vote for anything other than what was on thier agenda. I needed an incentive for teamwork.
Ive tested where each scenario has "prefered" options that affect the kingdom in additional ways beyond the normal. Ive found that players are more willing to vote for these "prefered" options than what are on thier agendas because you get more for your decision. I feel that allowing these "prefered" options detracts from the core of the game, which is discussion and argument.
So now I need to seek a new way to aid against stubborn players without providing too much incentive towards one decision to destroy the freedom that leads to the discussion and argument that is the heart of the game.
As of now I am toying with a banner system where a player can use a banner to declare an incentive for 1 of the 9 options(like increase economy if the court agrees on going to war.) My though is that this being a player driven incentive that other players may not be so willing to vote towards that option because it may help the other player. And on yhe other hand, players may still vote with that player to gain the additional effects of the banner. Its a little weak right now and Im looking for some help.
