View Full Version : Should we return to ourselves being characters?


Civanator
Jun 03, 2003, 08:35 PM
Should we return to being charcters ourselves? Or should we keep the RPG the way it is?

ScorpiusAP
Jun 03, 2003, 10:33 PM
Could you clarify the question. Are you proposing no inforced deaths?

Almightyjosh
Jun 04, 2003, 01:38 AM
In the previous incarnations of the Demogame RPG, there were no 'characters' as such, just ourselves playing as ourselves.

Sir John
Jun 04, 2003, 02:16 AM
No. Lets keep this system. It may be a little more confuding but its much more fun.

Plexus
Jun 04, 2003, 02:19 AM
I disagree, you are away for a few days, and your family falls apart. And this game is extremely prone to annoying people, as they can have enormous ammounts of power after little work.

disorganizer
Jun 04, 2003, 02:57 AM
maybe we need only a few tweaks to this system, as i like to possibility of having characters and playing with different traits... as well as possible deaths.

1) the LE is far too low. having only 2-3 TC's per character is too short to develop the character or have a storyline going.
2) same for the risk of death on birth... maybe a suffering would be sufficient in the high risk arrea, which would prevent the woman from becoming pregnant for n TC's or maybe forever.
3) limitation of character-count... which means we should drastically limit the number of characters a player can controll. also, only 1 family(!) should be possible per player. this way a player has to decide his caste-status for example


in short, we need to limit the number of characters per player and increase the live expectance. it makes no sense being away for a week and having lost a whole family.

disorganizer
Jun 04, 2003, 02:59 AM
or maybe another idea:

up to 3 characters per player... and these characters will not die until an explicit event (no random event, but assasination, fight, war etc.) will kill him.
(i put 3 chars there to allow succession on death to prevent the ownings to go to the void just because someone was killed)

Sir John
Jun 04, 2003, 07:39 AM
I have a even better idea when it comes to the charcs that die when they leave. The LE is good enough altough a "half a year pr tc" would be preferable to develope the characters. Great idea with the "no dying just no more kids" thingy.

What if you could put up a absent thread where people posted their absents. In the time they were away there charcs would be completley frozen. They cant do anything. They cant die. They cant age and so on. When the player come backs he "revives" them and they are exactly the same as when he left. Ofcourse there would have to be subrules. Like that if he went away for a long time and for exampel owned land or something important to the game he would have to give temporary controll to anothe rplayer or if no player was assigned a manager would controll it. It would have to be controlled in the playr that owns it bests interest and not the player who controlls it temporary..

Good idea??

Sir John
Jun 04, 2003, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Plexus
as they can have enormous ammounts of power after little work.

In the ancient era the despot runned things. Therefor you would basicly have to suck up to him to get "power". Thats actually realistic.

BTW: When we have despotism its easy to get power but hard to hold it.

Bootstoots
Jun 04, 2003, 07:43 AM
That is somewhat of a good idea, but what would prevent someone from simply deciding he is going to keep the land? Perhaps they should keep assets and soldiers where they are, though this would also invite attack, it would make more sense than trusting land over to someone for an extended period of time.

Sir John
Jun 04, 2003, 07:49 AM
There would have to be a rule that the player had to give it all back. As simple as that.

disorganizer
Jun 04, 2003, 08:03 AM
i think we should implement the absent-idea asap.....

the rules would be:
* an absence must be posted with from-to date and the affected characters in a specially designed absent-thread
* before an absence, all units must be either inside the own territory or the controll of them must be given to someone.
* the affected characters wont age or die. nor can anyone attack the territory and as such attack the troops in the territory.

or something like that :-)

ScorpiusAP
Jun 04, 2003, 10:27 AM
I like the ansent idea very much!

I also like the idea of limiting the amount of active (i.e. living) characters one can have to no more than three.

I don't think we should take away death from old age or death from random events. Thats what makes this demogame so differenent from all the others. I think we should stick it out and see what happens. Although I wouldn't mind if we made it .5 years per turn.

Grandmaster
Jun 04, 2003, 02:49 PM
We need to either increase life expectancy (I would like to see an average expectancy of about a month or so, but thats just me...) or else revert to last game, which was a hell of a lot more fun than this one. I for one am contemplating leaving this RPG, becuase it really just isn't fun any more.

CivGeneral
Jun 04, 2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Grandmaster
We need to either increase life expectancy (I would like to see an average expectancy of about a month or so, but thats just me...) or else revert to last game, which was a hell of a lot more fun than this one. I for one am contemplating leaving this RPG, becuase it really just isn't fun any more.

I would have to agree returning ourselves back to the Players as being the Characters, like the last RPG

Civanator
Jun 04, 2003, 03:48 PM
Maybe we should have a poll on this?

Sir John
Jun 04, 2003, 03:51 PM
Well, Its ok for me to change back if thats what the people want. Ill be ok with it. But If we dont revert we should NOT limit characters and especially not familys. Then we might as well rever to the old game. The Absent system should be implented no matter what well do. Ill post a official discussion on just the absent idea tomorrow and then Ill poll it.

disorganizer
Jun 04, 2003, 04:33 PM
Also, we need to decide whether to abandon the character idea (or maybe have them only as npc's which can not own anything for example... they will just be the suffing for the storylines) completely or whether we should just increase the LE and maybe change some other things.

So maybe the resulting poll could look like:
a) abandon character system completely=revert to player system
b) change character system to fit our needs (for example increase live expectancy, limit characters per player etc... details to be discussed)
c) leave everything as it is
d) abstain

option b) could also include a decission to limit us to one character without natural death, which would allow us to use a similar system to the old one with the increased experience to "make a character" or let it die ;-) its impossible to implement death or birth in a), so this is what we all need to remember (in fact that was the reason to introduce the character system)

McNulty
Jun 07, 2003, 05:10 AM
If I may add something, I was ready to make a contribution to this RPG, just as I did in the DGame II, but I was discouraged by the whole LE issue.
You see, as I am also working in the 1BC democracy game, with cross game characters, I could not have them dying in one game and remaining alive in the other. It's a shame, but until such time as I can see a way out of it, I cannot contribute.

Stuck_as_a_Mac
Jun 07, 2003, 10:49 AM
Glad to see you still hovering, McNulty.
I too feel that this is getting dull. I am this close to calling it quits, but Land Paperwork keeps me here (a threadjack reminder to all- GA means +1 of f/s/c to everything). If we were to revert ourselves back to characters, perhaps things would be easier. (Of course, Id put self imposed on myself, like I did last time with the Sir SaaMs)

disorganizer
Jun 08, 2003, 06:55 AM
so what about having characters, but only one active character per player... without LE... and death only during a "conflict" :-) ?

so it would be like in the last dg except:
1) we MAY create other characters, like paying a woman if we like, but not 2 at the same time.
2) we can die, but not of natural reason, but because of conflicts.

the active/passive thing could be easilly tracked and will allow childred etc. to be existing, but not to use them actively in the game.