Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» We're all fine here, thanks. How are you? (Community thread for everything.)
Yesterday at 3:39 am by ZeroCool

» Turn 1-1069
Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:05 pm by Crensler

» Turn 2-1069
Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:23 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Mass Effect 3, Your Edition
Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:40 pm by Braigwen

» Turn 12-1068
Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:20 pm by wolfking2k

» Player Houses
Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:50 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Battle of Scales
Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:52 am by SilverDragonRed

» Good morning!
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:41 pm by Galtori

» We started a Discord chatroom for the community. It's free to boot!
Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:14 am by Chatterbox1991

You are not connected. Please login or register

So, The GM Likes Transparency...

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 7]

1 So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:42 am

...so I'm going to lay out some things on the table.  I have no preferences here by the way, I just want to mold the functionality of the game so people are having the most fun.

So.  I admit I was utterly shocked when, after setting up the initial form of government, almost all the active players immediately wanted to play Governors instead of... members of the government.  I was okay with that as long as everyone else was, but the 'inactivity' problem that's been deadlocking the national level of government at some levels has been a slowly increasing problem.  

Now, I have a possible solution in mind for the Senate deadlock (which I've already discussed over there and, when I have time when I get home tonight, will work to implement pending the responses to this thread).  But what I really want to know is, is the current format of the game fun for people?  

Would everyone rather play regional governors, feudal lord style, vyeing for resources and land ;and making and forming alliances?  Would everyone rather combine into an aggregate senatorial body and form a more office politics form of alliances and betrayals?  Would everyone prefer to each be in charge of their own civilization??  I'm opening the door to honest feedback here, so let me know what you guys think.  

MiniXahn also insists I send smileys.  So... Very Happy Suspect pirat affraid



Last edited by The Lorerunner on Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/

2 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:53 am

I really like the Crusader Kings style of gameplay we accidentally evolved to right now. I would be a part of the government but my character knows that the way the Constitution was worded effectively neuters any member of the senate or leadership. Effectively forcing them to rely on Corporate Assistance for basic needs. Thanks guys for the Mega Corp paradise



Last edited by Gollvieg on Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

3 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:59 am

To be honest, I envisaged the game as more of an office politics game or the ultimate game of diplomacy. Less gathering your armies and stat number chasing, and more just slowly gaining influence and playing by bargaining with other players to push through policies, building your own personal power base through diplomatic means rather than force. Of course that was just my expectations, but I can't say that I am not, not having fun right now.

View user profile

4 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:02 pm

OOC: Tom, I don't think my English is good enough to fully understand what you are trying to say. You just gave me a triple negative. Is it a yes or no to the fun?

View user profile

5 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:03 pm

The 'office politics' thing is admittedly what I was envisioning as well (as is probably obvious from all the gameplay examples I gave in the original Youtube video). But as people were expressing interest more and more players kept saying things like "Well instead of being a politician, maybe I could do this OTHER thing" and of course I just want people to enjoy themselves, so I kept allowing it. It's part of why I had to do a live stream to hammer down gameplay mechanics since the original game never had any of that in mind.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/

6 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:07 pm

Gollvieg wrote:OOC: Tom, I don't think my English is good enough to fully understand what you are trying to say. You just gave me a triple negative. Is it a yes or no to the fun?

OOC: Sorry, that wasn't the most elegant sentence I have ever written Laughing but yes the game is certainly entertaining.

View user profile

7 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:18 pm

I envisioned a House of Cards type game with lots of policy building in which you convinced other players to support your measures with alliances/favours or by adding things onto a bill. The game right now is most certainly interesting with people getting shot and battles.

View user profile

8 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:44 pm

Before I start, I want to say I really enjoy the game so far and that I am really grateful to you ,Lore , for organising this.
I had a probably a bit the wrong exceptions at the start for how the game would progress.
I expected more politicking and less, well... Civ, murder, and war. Smile

Also I have to say that some of the things addressed are too high for me, especially the howle Constitution and Espada things. Way over my head.

I am not sure if I stay on topic here but I guess I just use this to, for lack of a better term, "vent".
I have to be honest, many of the discussions intimidate me a little. Be it for the fact that I am not an English native speaker or that my real factual knowledge of many of the things we talk about is rudimentary at best. Which leads me to not even try to chime in because I know a few people will just reap my argumentation to shreds...

Nowthat I read it through again it sounds extremely negative, so I just want to state again that I am having fun but these are just who I feel about the game so far.



Last edited by Governor Lorinbas on Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

9 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:47 pm

Well, in order to have a House of Cards Style Game. We need to have a government that is already established for hundreds of years and is stable enough that we are more effective at dealing with crisis than, wait for the private citizens to deal with it or hit it with an army.

I also agree with Lorinbas that this style of game where we are playing politics instead of politicians is pretty enjoyable

View user profile

10 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:23 pm

I mean I've already screwed my character, so the idea of fighting for land and resources and making alliances doesnt sound too bad in my opinion

View user profile

11 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:27 pm

I'm also open to more than the four options I gave, if anyone has any strong thoughts on the matter. For now I'm going to be manually tallying people's responses from this thread to see what people prefer.

For reference, the options I outlined are: Things stay as they are, Turn things into more office politics (IE playing a politician), Turn things into feuding lords type of situation, or Make each player run a separate country.

Right now I see four people voting for Things stay as they are.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/

12 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:37 pm

I must admit I do like the sound of the last one now that I think about it.

View user profile

13 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:38 pm

(MoD) Bradley3000 wrote:I must admit I do like the sound of the last one now that I think about it.

I would also be ok with that one, I have to be honest.

View user profile

14 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:41 pm

The last one sounds like it'll be like a forum based civ which could be really cool. Also what the heck is happening XD. I go to work and come back and all hell breaks loose there's murder, calls to overthrow the gov't.

View user profile

15 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:56 pm

I would prefer if we all were still working within one country. While we're all currently a bit antagonistic we each have our own ideas on what will help Echain. And actions that I really don't want other people to do. If we only have to think of ourselves and our allies it removes a bit of the politicking I know I certainly feel is interesting right now. Especially figuring out ways around constraints other people have placed.

I really would like to apologise if people have felt I've exploited being a primary English speaker a bit too much. I can imagine following the logic of some of my arguments must have been a bit difficult with a language barrier there too.

I personally love being a governor, but I might suggest we double up the role. Dissolve the senate. Merge some regions. And have more than 1 governor per region. That way there's office politics in running a region and office politics between regions in the Council of Governors.

View user profile

16 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:59 pm

I hate being president... Very Happy
No wonder Obama looks so old now...

View user profile

17 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:02 pm

President Grifenknight wrote:I hate being president... Very Happy
No wonder Obama looks so old now...
Yeah you have been doing this a couple weeks imagine 8 years

View user profile

18 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:03 pm

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I would prefer if we all were still working within one country. While we're all currently a bit antagonistic we each have our own ideas on what will help Echain. And actions that I really don't want other people to do. If we only have to think of ourselves and our allies it removes a bit of the politicking I know I certainly feel is interesting right now. Especially figuring out ways around constraints other people have placed.

I really would like to apologise if people have felt I've exploited being a primary English speaker a bit too much. I can imagine following the logic of some of my arguments must have been a bit difficult with a language barrier there too.

I personally love being a governor, but I might suggest we double up the role. Dissolve the senate. Merge some regions. And have more than 1 governor per region. That way there's office politics in running a region and office politics between regions in the Council of Governors.

I second that.
Also Whiskey I think "exploiting" is a strong word to use. Very Happy
I try to see it as an incentive to polish up my foreign language skills.

I also want to add that I find the Constitution in some regards needlessly restrictive.

View user profile

19 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:23 pm

So, the idea being (roughly) parceling out players across the regions and having multiple players in charge of each region? And probably shrinking the overall number of regions to accommodate. Not the worst idea in the world, sounds like an in-between.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/

20 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:25 pm

Exactly.

View user profile

21 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:26 pm

So we officially have FIVE options available now. I don't mind taking our time in deciding this though, but please think / debate on it.

As a way of facilitating, if players wanted we could probably 'demo' some of these systems in a very limited format so players can see how it'd be in action.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/

22 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:39 pm

I would prefer that we don't do such a massive gameplay change OOC. Let the Senate's inctivity be an in-character thing, and it's possible change also in-character.

And, if we do such a huge change OOC, as in merging regions, completely changing the political system etc., then I suggest we just reboot it outright.

View user profile

23 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:46 pm

I agree with Shinpei, if we are going to do a massive restructure, it might be worth nuking Echain from orbit and calling an end to the tutorial game.

View user profile

24 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:48 pm

I wouldn't get rid of Echain. We invested too much to its lore.

View user profile

25 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:48 pm

Meh, the in between option seems too much like what we have currently.

I was expecting and hoping for a game about politicking. At most our personal actions outside of the Government room would be as diplomats, backroom dealing, or something like that.

This Civilization gameplay (as the game is now) seems far too... compartmentalized. It makes the Forum more difficult to monitor, and lets people play the game with little interaction with other PCs.
And making all of our actions revolve around being in one room to vote would help with the IRL time and IC time passage discrepancies. We all do stuff until the day of the 'vote', then vote until we are finished voting (freezing time until we finish), then time starts again for all of us.

Granted, the politicking option is also more punishing for PCs who are not on at least once every 2 days. This could also make the deadlocking issue we have currently worse. This can be rectified by giving the players who do not want to be politicians to be secondary roles that don't need to be active as much. That was a key place where I think this game turned away from the point of itself: it made the secondary roles (Govrns) more powerful than the primary roles (Feds).

The politicking setup could also greatly reduce the (what I see as) unnecessary complexity currently in the game. We would focus more on each other, rather than stats.

The 'each player running their own country' sounds fun, but I would probably blow my brains out due to the complexity and time we would likely need to put into that.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 7]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum