The Discussion Thread at Dawn!

[Stargate525]

Just noticed this; Cine the Machta-in just absorbed the majority of a nation that was nearly 100% Dragon Saints Worshipers, what happened to them? None of 'em show up in the Machta's statblock.

[Wensleydale]

Oh, yes. I was wondering about that. I mean, the Machta might have force-converted them, but then, it would've been mentioned, right? And I doubt people would be particularly happy about that either.

[Polycarp]

The point is noted and the stats will be corrected accordingly.

[Wensleydale]

Ooh, stargate! Wily, you are.

[Polycarp]

A Questionnaire
With the coming of our 10th update, I thought it would be an appropriate time to step back and examine what we're doing, where we're going, and what you'd like to see next.  I have a few questions for you, if you'd like to answer them.  Of course, these are just prompts, and if you have other feedback I'd be happy to hear it and talk about it.

About TWAD
1. What do you think of the stats/rules?  Would you prefer them to be more detailed/complex, or more free-form?  Where do you think the stats/rules are weak, and where are they strong (e.g. military, religion, trade, and so on)?
2. How is my level of interference and control?  Would you rather I do more (unexpected) things with your states, or act as more of a rule arbiter?
3. What do you think of the game setting?  TWAD tries to be more realistic, avoiding anachronisms and being sparing with the fantasy.  How would you change it?
4. 25 year turns - too much time to develop characters, too little time to advance technologically, what?

About the Future
1. What kind of settings would you like to see in a future forum game (iron age, medieval, modern, high fantasy, post-nuclear apocalypse, colonization, historical scenario, sci-fi, and so on)?
2. Would you be interested in starting a new and different game soon, or continuing TWAD (understanding that I can't reasonably GM more than one of these)?
3. I've been thinking about running a "senatorial" forum game, where instead of everyone running their own state, players roleplay people/factions/families of a single state and vote on that turn's orders.  This would theoretically encourage more roleplaying and diplomacy while lessening the workload for everyone (you only have to produce one set of orders, and I only have to process one set of orders).  What do you think of that?

Thanks!

[Wensleydale]

Hmm. I actually think TWAD is perfect as it is. You don't interfere too much, whilst allowing for changes within states not written in by the leaders. As for the future, I love TWAD myself, but senatorial could also be... interesting. Although JUST voting wouldn't be as good. The idea of 'families' within a state (or groups, or parties - hell, it could be a modern soviet ex-satellite state in the style of Novistrana), with orders being along the lines of 'search for talent', 'canvass suburbs', or even 'assassinate political opponent' would be very interesting.

... actually, I'm considering doing a game like that now.  

[Stargate525]

Ooh, stargate! Wily, you are.

Why thank you. ;)

[Stargate525]

1. What do you think of the stats/rules?  Would you prefer them to be more detailed/complex, or more free-form?  Where do you think the stats/rules are weak, and where are they strong (e.g. military, religion, trade, and so on)?

I like how the stats are relatively simple, although I'm having difficulty equating, say, a prosperity of 4 to real-world examples. That's really the only weakness I see.

2. How is my level of interference and control?  Would you rather I do more (unexpected) things with your states, or act as more of a rule arbiter?

I think it's just right.

3. What do you think of the game setting?  TWAD tries to be more realistic, avoiding anachronisms and being sparing with the fantasy.  How would you change it?

I could do with a little bit more insertion of the unusual, along the lines of the turtles and the hot air balloons; I don't want wizards running about by any means.

4. 25 year turns - too much time to develop characters, too little time to advance technologically, what?

I like the 25-year turns. I think we'll be due for a large skip sometime soon, but for play, 25 years seems good.

1. What kind of settings would you like to see in a future forum game (iron age, medieval, modern, high fantasy, post-nuclear apocalypse, colonization, historical scenario, sci-fi, and so on)?

sci-fi colonization. New solar system, dozens of planets, hundreds of moons, and factions fighting for them.

Alternatively, there was a game called 'evolution' on a different forum that was alot of fun. It's alot like the senatorial one you propose, except we decide the development and evolution of a species.

2. Would you be interested in starting a new and different game soon, or continuing TWAD (understanding that I can't reasonably GM more than one of these)?

TWAD MUST NEVAH DIE!

3. I've been thinking about running a "senatorial" forum game, where instead of everyone running their own state, players roleplay people/factions/families of a single state and vote on that turn's orders.  This would theoretically encourage more roleplaying and diplomacy while lessening the workload for everyone (you only have to produce one set of orders, and I only have to process one set of orders).  What do you think of that?

I'm not keen if it means TWAD dies. If you run them both, I'd certainly participate.

[amikaligula]

TWAD
1.I think that later on down the road, the 1-10 scale for the stats might cause some problems.  I would rather have a point system based on accomplishments.  For instance, it makes sense in the current system that Avardera's construction of their great road conferred +1 to infrastructure.  Yet, when comparing the stats, it seems iniquitous that this is no more than Andos' expanded goat trails.  It seems to me that it would be better to just use a point system rather than a scale.
2.I think you are doing absolutely great with your level of control:  I don't feel stifled and I still can't predict what will happen from one update to the next.
3.Again, I think you are doing great.  While I would like a little bit more fantasy elements in the game, I see how it might present balance issues in the game.
4.Like you said, too little and too much.  I cannot suggest any better time frame.  What I do suggest is mini-updates for important events, such as battles and natural disasters and important discoveries.  By mini-update I mean summarizations as opposed to full stat updates.  In fact, I would suggest holding the stats of a battle until the actual update and instead give something like the following:
[spoiler=Y-affiliated nations]Y had a magnificent victory over X in the battle of Z, all but completely destroying the  armies of X.  Join us in the spoils of war as we make the final press![/spoiler]
[spoiler=X-affiliated nations]Y overcame our forces as the wind was against us.  So we had to withdraw, but our forces will still triumph.[/spoiler]
Or even send the players involved a PM and let them state it as they wish.  Although this would primarily concern only pc related nations, major battles "heard around the world" should also be recorded here, as well as the year they happened, which would give an estimate of how long until the next update.

Future
1.I'm not to fond of the colonization idea, as it seems that if it was to be good, there would be more like running a business simulation.  I'm not too fond of the historical scenario either, but aside from those two, I think they all sound good.
2.I would like to continue with TWAD
3.I actually really liked Stargate's precursor to "colonization" ("noble war"?), especially the idea of having a certain number of agents in the beginning.  That could be very fun and interesting, though the long-run complications of having a lot of agents and an extended family should be considered.

[Wensleydale]

Hmm. Tell me, how many of you would be interested in joining if *I* ran a relatively modern game based around the ideas I mentioned before?

I'd still play TWAD, and if I staggered my updates with Mith's, it could mean we'd have something to do a lot of the time.

[amikaligula]

I think I would, though I wouldn't be sure until you fleshed it out a little bit more.

[Wensleydale]

Hmm. Let's say I created a fictional eastern-european, perhaps ex-soviet, state controlled by some form of dictator, inside which you could create factions (ranging from Mafiya groups to political parties etc) which would influence politics there. This is of course just an example - I'd be willing to create any kind of state, within a fictional or non-fictional world. You could try to influence politics, get rich, assassinate the president or even ascend to the presidency yourself, and your group could range from a single character to a multinational organisation (foreign embassies, anyone?). If it was democratic (or if you managed to make it a democracy) you would have a say in the running of the country. This would not necessarily be the aim, however.

[Polycarp]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.  I was also thinking of adapting a "faction" approach, similar to Noble War, to a senatorial game.

When I used to run these on other forums, I came up with a few ideas that I never put into play.  One of them that I was thinking about using here was a senatorial factional game, where each player represents a prominent family within a city-state on a major trade route, like a fictional Silk Road, with the local culture drawing from high medieval China and central Asia.  Each family would run their own affairs and have one member on the ruling council with one vote.

The inherent problem with senatorial games is that they are only enjoyable for all so long as they remain republican; a Julius Caesar ruins the game for everyone else, because it's not a cooperative game anymore if one player becomes dictator and sends the rest to Siberia.

I would caution you about modern era games - they tend to be very difficult to run and play, thanks to 1) the complexities of modern technology and politics, 2) the high degree to which players understand those complexities from their first-hand experience, and 3) goddamn nuclear weapons, which have prematurely ended more forum games than I could possibly recall.

Though I said I could only run one of these, I was considering a senatorial game because in theory it wouldn't take as much work on my part.

[Wensleydale]

Ahh yes. Nukes.

However, there are, as we have recently seen, strong deterrents towards soviet satellite states acquiring nuclear weapons (that is, the fact that Russia will point THEIR nukes at them if they're given american ones). So.

[Polycarp]

I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm just saying that when the greatest possible loss is losing a forum game, the nuclear option tends to be a great deal more attractive, especially when you're already losing and feel like a graceful defeat is too underwhelming.  Interpret that however you see fit. :)