Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

open  game  political  Star  discord  Trek  child  WArs  appeal  xcom  

Latest topics
» Eye of the Storm
Today at 10:18 am by SilverDragonRed

» Turn 10-1068
Today at 2:37 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Battle of Scales
Yesterday at 12:42 am by wolfking2k

» Discovery Rumination Schedule?
Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:54 am by DaltonImperial

» Turn 9-1068
Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:08 pm by FreelanceZero

» Nest of the Koth
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:21 am by SilverDragonRed

» Star Trek TOS essential episodes?
Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:04 pm by NMdum1

» Turn 8-1068
Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:03 am by FreelanceZero

» The end of a journey (Star Trek: Voyager Rumination)
Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:13 pm by NMdum1

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 2 of 7]

26 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:55 pm

Well the in-between option would definitely fix governors being more powerful than senators by turning senators into governors.

To prevent deadlock, governors wouldn't need to vote on their actions, but the other governor/s running the same region could veto something they don't like, causing it to need to be voted on.

View user profile

27 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:20 pm

Part of my problem with removing stats entirely comes from when players come to me asking how they perform certain actions or how they can champion certain ideas without stats. It's one of the reasons why, when I first thought of this idea months ago, the idea was that the players would be senators/governors/etc. of essentially a civilization in a civ-like game that I would be playing on the side and relaying information back and forth. That way stats were a tangible thing with real results (building, researching, etc.), easy for me to keep track of, and the focus for players would almost universally be on the politicking. That was the idea, at least.

Oh and one way or another I probably won't abandon Echain; I tend to not abandon anything I've put that much effort into. Maybe it can take another form if people vote for a change. Or vote on how to decide on what to vote for the vote on voting for the vote to change.


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

28 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:41 pm

my problem at the minute everyone give me fire to try and put out but once a try and get on top of one another couple pop up out nowhere because try to put out the first fire

View user profile

29 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:42 pm

I just had an idea.

If we move towards making the Council of Governors the main national body, we shouldn't "double up" governorships, IMO. What we could do is move players "down the stream" - mayors of other large cities or areas.
There are many such cases stemming from the "lore" I made up in my head while doing the map. I'll list them here:

  • Lurem - Lurem (Irish, poor), Asheviere Valley (English, rich agriculture), Planalto de Pocos (strong monarchism, more portuguese)
  • Waltens - Heartland (most dense population, agricultural), Tensinho basin (coal and silver mining), Central Masiff (heavily militarized, one of the centers for resistance), Southern Waltens (very strong Australian influence)
  • Eastport - Clearspruit (heavily dependent on trade), The Muds (granary for Eastport), Once-Port (religious centre, very strong Church influence), Con City (essentially the Omega of Echain)
  • Southport - has less equitable division, but the area surrounding Southport is otherwise divided, cosmopolitan, for example Dundarrach was built by emmigrants from Lurem etc.
  • Plainsdale - strong rivalries between Plainsdale, Kennard, Purdy and Sandy (old capital of Echain)
  • Central - Central and Cidado do Rei Luis (rich, aristocratic), Válonga (agricultural, poor)
  • Versberg - Southeast (waning historical centre), North (ascending port of Wormatia), Atarashi Shikoku (old - 19th century - Japanese colony), Eden (agricultural centre, filled with refugees)
  • Northport - conflicts between East (most of food production), West (population and mining) and Northport itself
  • Aberisk - Esculpir (Aberisk v Milhundos; Aberisk depends on Milhundos), Brown River (older settlements, poorer)


I'll add the others in an update.

Now added all of it.



Last edited by Suko Shinpei on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:53 pm; edited 2 times in total

View user profile

30 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:49 pm

Honestly, I was thinking that we keep it as is and let Echain dissolve into multiple states on its own. It isn't really too far from now if Shinpei puts his words to actions and is successful. From there, we can OOC have that shift.

I've been having a lot of fun this game, and I can at least attest to, from my persective, that a lot of back-door politicking secret stuff having happened, which is basically what I am in this ride for.



Last edited by Governor Mega Erox on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

View user profile

31 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:52 pm

I don't mind stats, I just wanted to see more interpersonal actions on a political stage.
My desire for a House of Cards game is already palpable enough.

View user profile

32 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:59 pm

I don't think we should split Echain. Not right now. It would remove a lot of interaction within one government, second, it would make it much harder to give Echain's independent regions some proper agency on international stage, and last if we go that way, it simply won't be a political game, but essentially a HoI4 multiplayer with cold war mod.

View user profile

33 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:01 pm

The problem with dissolving into multiple states is that it would be near impossible to track and I doubt it would realistically happen if it wasn't for the afk problem...

View user profile

34 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:02 pm

Adamemnon wrote:I don't mind stats, I just wanted to see more interpersonal actions on a political stage.
My desire for a House of Cards game is already palpable enough.

There are lots of dealings going on between Governors at least, I myself have been doing a lot of this. E.g. Me and Paradox negotiating whaling rights took a while, but was a pretty fun back and forth. The problem is right now the government isn't really a functioning thing, so the opportunity for Senators to get involved, or even the value of approaching Senators isn't really worth the hassle. I like the idea of drawing up extra regions so Senators who want that kind of House of Cards-esq dealings can get involved in what is already going on. Maybe make Echain more of a Confederation.

The only reservation I have with delegating players to Mayoral roles is the fact we will have a similar situation we have now, for those guys there won't really be much to do and their power will be such that it won't really be worth investing in gaining their support, but I don't know how it will work, so I am open to changing my mind on it.

View user profile

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

Yeah I like the stats. Especially after the recent retool of them.

View user profile

36 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:05 pm

The Mayor system could work as an unofficial undercurrent. I mean, realistically, the Governors will be occupied with National work, which the Mayors can exploit. To say they wouldn't have gameplay is the same as saying the Governors don't have gameplay right now.

View user profile

37 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:07 pm

Suko Shinpei wrote:The Mayor system could work as an unofficial undercurrent. I mean, realistically, the Governors will be occupied with National work, which the Mayors can exploit. To say they wouldn't have gameplay is the same as saying the Governors don't have gameplay right now.

I see what you mean, but the Governors at least have to work with other Governors which involves communicating with players across the whole game, or voting in the Council of Governors. For Mayors or regional leaders, they will have their hands tied and be primarily interacting with one person. The more people there are with equal power, the more it becomes necessary for players to communicate with each other and bargain.

View user profile

38 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:10 pm

The major problem with any system we develop is inactive players. They will come in momentarily, take a position, and never be seen again.
I think our first order of business should finding a way to integrate new players in so that initially they are not major, but if they are active, they can be promoted or rewarded. This should stop any potential deadlock in the future and should stop clogging up the major positions with inactive players.

View user profile

39 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:17 pm

Who says Mayors cannot work together? Esculpir and Planalto de Pocos have a lot in common. Cities in Plainsdale could conspire against Plainsdale City. Wormatia has better access to Northport. I could go on.

If the players choose to, mayoral system can be a lot of fun.

Just to give an example from RL.
My country is divided into 14 regions with very little power. However, there is an organisation - semi-oficial - called "Regions Association".
Now, first phase can be seen from 2002 to 2008. Then, the Government was ruled by the socialist party, but the regions were lead by the liberal party (right-wing), and the liberals used regions against the central government, even though they had little institutional power.
Second phase came from 2008-2016. The socialists lost 2009 elections, but gained control of the regions first. A strong regional politician, Milan Hasek, led his own wing of the socialist party and used it to advance his agenda in it. After 2013 elections, socialists controlled both regions and national government, but there was a rift between the national leadership and Hasek's wing, and he used the Regions Association to gain more and more power, culminating in an attempt to install himself as a leader of the party. He failed and was defeated in the last regional elections, but his young deputy from another region, who won against the odds in his region, is essentially taking his place.

All this was because the regions cooperated on an unoficial level. So could Mayors.

As for inactive players, that's the beauty of mayoral system: it's quite informal, meaning people can get into the position of Mayor easily, and can drop out easily; they can be hyper-active or come online once a week.

View user profile

40 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:20 pm

I Feel that we tried to bring in Democracy so quickly when we don't truly knows what it means to be a Democracy, which is 60+ guys that hate each other but sucked it up for 12 years to get the system right before beating the crap out of each other over ideological differences. The way we are playing right now is exactly like a Constitutional Monarchy like originally intended except worse because there is no King to beat everyone into working together

View user profile

41 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:22 pm

Suko Shinpei wrote:Who says Mayors cannot work together? Esculpir and Planalto de Pocos have a lot in common. Cities in Plainsdale could conspire against Plainsdale City. Wormatia has better access to Northport. I could go on.

If the players choose to, mayoral system can be a lot of fun.

Just to give an example from RL.
My country is divided into 14 regions with very little power. However, there is an organisation - semi-oficial - called "Regions Association".
Now, first phase can be seen from 2002 to 2008. Then, the Government was ruled by the socialist party, but the regions were lead by the liberal party (right-wing), and the liberals used regions against the central government, even though they had little institutional power.
Second phase came from 2008-2016. The socialists lost 2009 elections, but gained control of the regions first. A strong regional politician, Milan Hasek, led his own wing of the socialist party and used it to advance his agenda in it. After 2013 elections, socialists controlled both regions and national government, but there was a rift between the national leadership and Hasek's wing, and he used the Regions Association to gain more and more power, culminating in an attempt to install himself as a leader of the party. He failed and was defeated in the last regional elections, but his young deputy from another region, who won against the odds in his region, is essentially taking his place.

All this was because the regions cooperated on an unoficial level. So could Mayors.

As for inactive players, that's the beauty of mayoral system: it's quite informal, meaning people can get into the position of Mayor easily, and can drop out easily; they can be hyper-active or come online once a week.

But realistically, is it going to work like this.

View user profile

42 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:23 pm

Gollvieg wrote:I Feel that we tried to bring in Democracy so quickly when we don't truly knows what it means to be a Democracy, which is 60+ guys that hate each other but sucked it up for 12 years to get the system right before beating the crap out of each other over ideological differences. The way we are playing right now is exactly like a Constitutional Monarchy like originally intended except worse because there is no King to beat everyone into working together

I don't know if I agree with this. People, in an RPG, want to create unique characters that want to achieve specific goals. By nature of this, many characters will be hyper politicized and opinionated, no matter what system we play under. That is part of the beauty of this.

View user profile

43 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:27 pm

Governor TomRP wrote:But realistically, is it going to work like this.

I think you give the players too little credit. Unofficial politics is still politics, and I see the sollution to our issue in narrowing down amount of "official" roles while opening up more space for, well "emergent gameplay", so to speak.

View user profile

44 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:32 pm

Suko Shinpei wrote:
Governor TomRP wrote:But realistically, is it going to work like this.

I think you give the players too little credit. Unofficial politics is still politics, and I see the sollution to our issue in narrowing down amount of "official" roles while opening up more space for, well "emergent gameplay", so to speak.

I didn't say that at all.
We can't get a Senate working, never mind creating even smaller offices which would require even more time dedication from players to make it work and further stall gameplay in a different way. All I am saying is the reason the game is stalling is the fact the Senate fundamentally does not work for the way the game is played. We are all in different timezones, with real world obligations, forcing players into micro roles is not going to solve that issue, in my opinion.

View user profile

45 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:32 pm

I feel that one of the reasons why there is a problem with the current system is that Senators are way too important of a position to play once a week. There are too many problems and situtations that require fast action for us to wait around for something to be legal. I originally wanted to play the game like Donald Trump, be a fool for a few decades before coming in at the last moment and stealing the goal, but it turns out I am more like FDR where I am running around taking care of emergencies before the Senate does anything about it and no one stops me because no one can afford to.

Don't misunderstand I LOVE being FDR but the Senate is a bigger roadblock than gameplay mechanic as it is.

View user profile

46 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:36 pm

What would be your solution, TomRP?

View user profile

47 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:39 pm

My solution is to disolve the Senate and create a mighty galactic empire in it's place. Governors can be Moffs, Independents can be Cartels or Federations, The Ministers can be Grand Moffs and the President will be thrown out the window and an Emperor will take his place.

View user profile

48 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:42 pm

CAN I BE TARKIN? \ Very Happy /

View user profile

49 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:43 pm

Right now I would simply remove the Senate all together, merge its powers with the Council of Governors, give the President some form of executive powers to actually make the position attractive, and create more regions for the more active Senators and the ones who want it à la Rule 0, and continue.

But I admit this is not an ideal solution and will probably lead to problems further down the line (inactive Governors etc), but it could at least get some laws passed so we can build a framework and an environment to play the politicking style game people seem to want.

View user profile

50 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Jan 26, 2017 5:48 pm

I vehemently disagree with actually spliting the regions. Sure, some of the areas I outlined could be used for this, but the main problem remains.

The necessity for X players to be active.

What happens if someone wants to join in? Do we split another region artificially?

What happens if someone drops out? Do we join two regions back together?

Such system will always need outside intervention. Mayoral system is much more flexible. I believe 9 players can and will be active at any point in time, it's a reasonable number. The rest can be assigned to much more flexible system underneath.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 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