Underdeep-like Games Poll

[Humabout]

Those who are not involved in the Underdeep game are invited to this poll as well.  What do you like the most about the prospect of playing in such a game?

[Llum]

I chose Wargaming, Economy and Cities. Wargaming is 100% the best part, but I like the econ/city building bits too.

[Humabout]

Personally, I like wargaming and politicking with a splash of city-building.  I always find the economies that develop in MMO wargames fascinating, too, but that's more from a scholarly standpoint than one of enjoying attempting to build up a functional economy.

[Steerpike]

I find it interesting that you separate politicking and roleplaying, Humabout.  I think of them as essentially the same thing.

[Llum]

I would disagree with that Steerpike. Roleplaying is like staying true to your factions backround and stuff, ala the Dwer and politicking is just finding the best alliance irregardless of faction background.

[LD]

I agree with Llum.

Politicking is to some extent playing the players against each other based on meta knowledge of how the players as people would react, whereas roleplaying is playing the character.

For example, as a player I see a value in not invading Superbright's watchers on turn 1- even if I would have won that battle, it wouldn't have been very fun; so therefore I've developed a detente with her, at least until she stabs me in the back.

My choices were: Cities, Economy and Roleplaying. I don't like the idea of fighting other factions; though that will likely happen.
That being said, some of my favorite games have been: Sim City 1, Sim City 2000, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization, Civilization II (for the city building and less for the conquests), Pharaoh.

[Humabout]

I have to agree with llum.  I might suggest that successful politicking is ultimately a combination of propaganda, psychology, manipulation, diplomacy, and strategizing.  None of these things involves roleplaying, although roleplaying does involve the imposition of restrictions on one's actions and options in all facets of a game, including politicking.  Ultimately, the goals of politicking are generally self-serving in the long term, while roleplaying doesn't further any in-game ends, except perhaps to heighten one's enjoyment or tell a story.  That's my take anyway.  I'm sure my definitions are simplistic, but let's face it - RL politicians aren't playing an RPG, but they politic just fine.

[Magnus Pym]

I like politicizing, but it doesn't necessarily need a section of its own because all the other choices involve Politics. I especially like the war one.

[Dolmar]

I disagree with the view that Politics are not part of Roleplaying so strongly. I think you can go all politicking from a Meta perspective, but I don't think the two are inherently separate...and I think if you're politicking from a Meta perspective, than (Surprise!!!) you're metagaming.

In a game like Underdeep, if you're Roleplaying at all, you should be politicking as your character. Roleplaying doesn't further any in-game ends, i'll give you that - that's because roleplaying is what gives you those ends. If you are roleplaying a bloodthirsty warlord, then you'll politic and strategize like a bloodthirsty warlord. If you're roleplaying a self-serving bastard, you'll politic and strategize like a self-serving bastard. If you're roleplaying a righteous goody-two shoes, then you'll overextend yourself and get involved in three wars at once because you're willing to endanger yourself for what is right (And get cocky and assume you can slip your army of climbers to somewhere two weeks away without getting caught in the process)

If you're not roleplaying at all, what guides your politics? And the "self" that your "self-serving" politics should serve should be the Role you are Playing.



All that rant aside, if someone's playing a game like this without taking on a Role, that's fine. They just gotta acknowledge that fact that other people are going to be taking on a Role and adjust accordingly.  

but let's face it - RL politicians aren't playing an RPG, but they politic just fine.

I'm sorry, but that statement is so incredibly hilarious I have to make fun of it. Real World Politicians politic in the real world. Lets see what other parts of an RPG we could totally dismiss as being part of Roleplaying using this same logic: "Real World soldiers aren't playing an RPG, but they fight just fine," "Real world archeologists aren't playing an RPG, but they explore ruins just fine," Real world gangsters aren't playing an RPG, but they murder and sell drugs just fine." "Real World drunks aren't playing an RPG, but they go into a bar and meet people just fine." "Real World people aren't playing an RPG, but they have conversations just fine."

[Steerpike]

Roleplaying doesn't further any in-game ends, i'll give you that - that's because roleplaying is what gives you those ends.

Yeah, this is essentially how I see it.  The game isn't set up to have fixed goals or objectives, so in some sense these almost have to be supplied by roleplaying, even if the goal is "I want to conquer everything" or "I want to not die."

I think of roleplaying as creating the goals (prosper, gets lot of money, destroy x faction, rule y level, etc) and then the wargaming aspect as coming in to accomplish those goals.

But I do get that one can conduct diplomacy and the like without a strong effort to remain "in character" (for example, some players reference map regions or economic numbers in their messages - information I generally put in square brackets at the end of messages or briefings).  Still, a certain level of roleplaying is almost inevitable, because otherwise your character would just have to sit there doing nothing all the time.  Even if the goal is just "conquest!" then that's a roleplaying decision, because nowhere does it say "the point of Underdeep is to gain the most territories" or "the point of Underdeep is to eliminate all other factions."

Interesting discussion.  My perspective is, of course, just that.

[Humabout]

PM, I may have used the incorrect phrasing for what I'm calling "politicking."  I'm really referring to the interplayer relations people use to gain a competitive advantage toward achieving their goals.  This is social warfare, to misuse words again, is a tool in achieving one's goals as much as military might or market manipulation can be.  I see it as worth mentioning because mechanics can emphasize or deemphasize the impact of such relationships.  Personally, I think things have turned out just fine in that respect.

Steerpike, by calling it a wargame, it is implied that the ultimate goal is to kill everyone else.  That is how I took it, and how I believe Llum (the only other wargamer I'm aware of in UD) took it.  I can see the inception of other non-wargaming goals (those not designed to ultimately defeat everyone else) as the result of roleplaying for sure.  Of course, those who approach UD as a Sim-City type of game might have a different endgame goal with different means for achieving it.  This would also be independent of any roleplaying.  That's my take on it anyway.  To use an analogy, one doesn't have to roleplay to play chess, yet one still has a goal.  That's my take.  Yours is a rather interesting one, though.  I'm not sure one can really roleplay themselves...pondering that's gonna make my brain tingle.

[Steerpike]

Technically, I never called it a wargame: "Underdeep is a strategic play-by-post roleplaying game."

But I do take your point.  I disagree that wargames imply that killing everyone else is the end goal.  I can thinks of lots of wargames where this is not the case (where team victories, for example, are possible, or where meeting other objectives results in victory - capturing territory, securing certain amounts of wealth, etc)

[Polycarp]

I chose Politics, Building Cities, and Roleplaying, which should not surprise anyone who's playing RR with me. :)

I do think the separation between politics and roleplay is a meaningful and significant one.  Risk, for instance, is a game of politics, but not a game of roleplaying.  I disagree, however, that "politics" in inherently non-roleplay, as Llum seems to suggest.  Let me put it this way: seeking an alliance that fits with your "character" is roleplaying; seeking an alliance that is optimal in game terms regardless of your "character" is pure strategy; seeking an alliance at all is politics.  "Politics" in game terms is the use of communications to further game ends, regardless of whether your ends are to conquer the world, defend a certain territory, or support a certain roleplay agenda.  Politics, then, may involve roleplay, or even be intended to secure roleplaying goals, but it can also be utilized from the perspective of pure strategy, and in that sense it is a different kind of beast.

Thus, Humabout is correct in terms of what kinds of means compose politics (propaganda, psychology, etc.) but not, I think, in terms of roleplaying being a "restriction" on politics.  Rather, roleplaying tends to be a restriction on pure strategy - though even this is too simplistic, as sometimes roleplaying itself can inform strategic thinking when you are reasonably certain that someone will act a certain way because of their commitment to roleplaying their character in a certain way.  Since "game politics" is merely the use of communications to achieve ends, whether those ends are strategic or character-based, it doesn't make sense to say that politics are limited by either the presence of roleplaying or the lack thereof.

I disagree that politics without roleplaying is "metagaming," because metagaming is a term that only has meaning when you are already roleplaying; if you're not playing a character, you can't metagame.  There's no such thing, for instance, as "metagaming" in Risk; you can cheat in Risk, but you can't metagame.  You could, I suppose, say that everyone is roleplaying based on Steerpike's definition above, but I tend to disagree that in any situation in which there are user-defined goals there is roleplaying.  Roleplaying, to me, requires characterization, because it's the presence of a character that separates the "game" from the "metagame."  Just because I create an arbitrary goal for myself does not, in my opinion, mean that I am playing a character.

[Magnus Pym]

Well said.

[LD]

I disagree with the view that Politics are not part of Roleplaying so strongly. I think you can go all politicking from a Meta perspective, but I don't think the two are inherently separate...and I think if you're politicking from a Meta perspective, than (Surprise!!!) you're metagaming.

Well, that's the whole point of politicking, playing the players- like a board game (like monopoly) rather than a roleplaying game. This game is moreso a boardgame than a roleplaying game, I would figure, because your faction can very easily die and people can be eliminated to help others "win". Few RPGs set players against each other (you are often in a party or a group vs. the GM), but most boardgames are not cooperative (some are, but most are not).

For example; if I wasn't metagaming with the politicking, the Cleversmart Kobolds would have already alienated all their close neighbors with a series of escalating dumba** threats except for perhaps the GloomyElves. The roleplaying justification for not immediately invading the Watchers below is that the Kobolds are too ignorant to realize that the Watchers are essentially NastyDreams, Kobolds' mortal enemies.

Metagamingwise/Politicking (I'll hold with Polycarp's statement that metagaming in a strategy game does not have the same negative connotations as it does in Risk; while you can 'cheat' in Underdeep by acting on knowledge of people's strategies gained from an out of game conversation; predicting how they might act based on the fact that they're human beings and not their character's faction, seems to be wholly fair) and playing other players, there is a lot of value to not fighting player controlled factions because it's more fun for all to not eliminate them from the game; strategywise, sometimes it makes sense to attack a weak player controlled faction; roleplayingwise, it makes sense to attack certain factions but not others.

Side Note: Expanding on it not being fun to eliminate characters from games- I've been a GM and played DnD for a number of years with a number of different groups. I never killed any characters until the most recent group I ran through. As an experiment, I told them to make several characters because some might die. It was heartwrenching at times because 1 player quit the game because their favorite character died; another sulked for 3-4 sessions until his main character was finally successfully reincarnated. The other two who lost characters were a bit disappointed, but they carried on. It's been my experience that people really dislike their characters dying. In previous groups I had to 'save' characters at the last minute because people have been on the verge of crying, or in some cases they have screamed at me in anger and completely disrupted everything...This has been the case even with throw-away characters.

The only time that killing off characters hasn't seemed to anger people is when I've played in or run Cthulhu one-shot games.

Conversely, with board games, people seem to be less upset when they're defeated by a good strategy of an enemy player.