Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» PATREON CHANGES
Today at 4:34 pm by Braigwen

» Turn 1-1070
Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:24 pm by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Black Scale
Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:48 pm by SilverDragonRed

» HAPPY BIRTHDAY...
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:32 pm by WKC690

» Black Water
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:17 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Turn 12-1069
Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:41 pm by Onyx Aurelius

» Turn 11-1069
Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:51 am by Onyx Aurelius

» MCU Discussion Links - Historical
Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:12 pm by DollarD

» Turn 10-1069
Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:44 pm by Crensler


You are not connected. Please login or register

So, The GM Likes Transparency...

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 5 of 7]

101 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:12 pm


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

102 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:07 am

So, after some discussion it seems the consensus is a true 'office politics' game is simply infeasible with the way things are in a forum format. So where do we go from here?

I'm still open to ideas but I have a relatively new one. It'd function like this.

Everyone who's interested in more political gameplay (this wouldn't affect people wanting to be spies, corporations, military, etc.) would be in charge of their own subdivision of a singular nation, probably Echain (I'd like to keep going with it), but without the full capability to function on their own. They would more or less be required to politic, bargain, coerce, fight, join, etc. the other players in order to function and move forward. Think of it as a series of feudal states.

The key difference between this and what we have now is the national level of things would be completely abolished. And... I'd be using a slightly modified version of keeping track of things on my end, to help me keep everything straight.

Thoughts?


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

103 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:15 am

My only problem is that corporations and rich people(i.e. Gollvieg) have much more ability and autonomy then people in the political process. While the politicians are stuck with their systems, if they like it or not, corporations and rich people have the ability to bypass everything and just play the game by themselves. This is exactly what Gollvieg was doing. Everyone was stuck in the government that could not run while he was able to make an organization with practically unlimited resources(or that is what it seemed like). I'm not saying that Gollvieg did a bad job or that this aspect should be banned, but it should be limited in a way that doesn't make corporations like gods compared to the politicians.

View user profile

104 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:00 am

I like the first part, but I still think just having one chamber of the national government might still work. If we look at how much activity was happening in the ministries, as well as how active governors were, just throwing everyone in the same room would probably work.

As for your point Griffenknight, I think if we can get a national government interested in challenging people like Gollvieg and the mercenaries with legislation, we could quite easily hamstring them, forcing them to take much riskier actions to accomplish what they want.

View user profile

105 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:47 am

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I like the first part, but I still think just having one chamber of the national government might still work. If we look at how much activity was happening in the ministries, as well as how active governors were, just throwing everyone in the same room would probably work.

As for your point Griffenknight, I think if we can get a national government interested in challenging people like Gollvieg and the mercenaries with legislation, we could quite easily hamstring them, forcing them to take much riskier actions to accomplish what they want.

Yeah, Whiskey is right on point with this. My entire Organization is based around permission and guarantees. In fact, because it took so long for the Espada to be minted I been running operations purely on large scale bartering so personal wealth took a back seat since the 3rd for 4th day of the game. The easiest way to stop me from functioning is by rejecting the Rangers Right of Operation in any Region. Let's say Braigwen does not like how I run things or think that the Rangers are a security issue in Northport. If she says, "Go home!" I have no choice but to pack up all my things and leave Northport. This means that neither I nor my Organization have the legal right to operate in Northport and if I Operate there anyways I am subject to as much legal and political trouble as if I were to march 10,000 soldiers into Central.

Another thing is because this Organization is not a For-Profit Corporation but is instead a Volunteer Organization I have to manage a lot of different issues such as, "How do I keep all my volunteers content and maintain their belief in the cause enough to not simply leave the Organization." I also have to think about funding now that we are actually using money. Funding that I am gathering from Regional Leaders in order to maintain continued operations inside their Regions. The primary reason why the Rangers gained political and real power so quickly is that they occupy a gap in government services. If that gap did not exist, there would be no Rangers to fill in that gap. So if you want to stop Non-Government Organizations from existing, pass a law banning their existence.

View user profile

106 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:38 pm

Hm.

When's a good time for everyone to be on at the same time and talk about it? Can be in the chat or on stream, I don't mind either way. For record I'm unavailable for most of Tuesday and Thursday.


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

107 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:28 pm

I am pretty much on all day today

View user profile

108 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:54 pm

Tomorrow is fine.

View user profile

109 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:56 pm

I will most likeliy not be able to choin if it is during the week as I have exams every bloody day.

View user profile

110 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:59 pm

the only day that i'm not free is Tuesday between 6:30-8:00 pm GMT

View user profile

111 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:22 pm

So far we have two unavailables on Tuesday and one available on tuesday, and one unavailable all week. *pause* Man this reminds me of scheduling raids back in WoW, hah.


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

112 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:27 pm

Looks like it's gonna be a Stream chat then. I checked the Scheduled for Sat and you have nothing listed Lorerunner. Could we reserve 12pm EST Saturday?

View user profile

113 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:08 pm

Ssssure I can do noon EST this Saturday. How's that work for everyone else?


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

114 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:12 pm

That's perfect for me Very Happy

View user profile

115 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:39 pm

That is fine with me Very Happy

View user profile

116 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:43 pm

that good for me

View user profile

117 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:54 pm

Sounds fine to me

View user profile

118 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:26 pm

That's 4:00 am for me, would bringing it back 2 hours be too difficult? If it is, I'll just try and make it anyway.

View user profile

119 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:53 pm

Switching it to 10 EST is doable for me.


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

120 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:41 pm

It's gonna be very hard for me to catch the beginning of the stream at that time. I would be able to catch the very end of it though. You already know most of my opinions so I think I would be okay with missing the beginning

View user profile

121 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:38 pm

I'm undergoing dental surgery saturday so I'm probably not going to make it. I'll post a more thorough elaboration of my opinion on the matter before then, though.

View user profile

122 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:49 pm

As usual, I won't be around on Saturday, but I'll watch the past broadcast and catch up.

View user profile

123 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:26 pm

Any thoughts as of now, TomRP? I'd really like your feedback and input.


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

124 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:48 pm

I'm working on putting together a sort of presentation I'll show Saturday but the way I see it, we need to decide on how we proceed with several points, which are not mutually exclusive. These include;

Do we utilize an underlying game (stats of some sort or another) or no?
Do we merge everyone into federal (and at least three variants on this idea I can think of), or no?
Related to point 2, do we have NPCs in federal government?
And finally, do we utilize Turns or no?

Again I plan to discuss these in more depth Saturday but if anyone wants me to elaborate in advance I can.


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

125 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:54 pm

I'll post a comprehensive gameplay ruleset as an example, or suggestion, of how I'd change the game.
However, before that, I have to put in the rest of the towns into Wiki, and then write down the crucial part of my headcanon, and only then will I write my proposal.
I'll hurry up a bit Wink

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 7]

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

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