Survey: Starlife's Next NES

Ah, so, yes, I am definently Interested in playing.

My preferences are I and V.

Regarding what you describe, if you think mentions of ImmacuNES IIb are off-topic, you should definitely reconsider.
There are mechanics in this NES that coul be interesting for you. Not the stats, definitely, as these are heavy. However, the mechanism for elections, appointing roles with resources that are not otherwise available to the participants is very good.
ImmacuNESIIb used yearly turns and elections every 4 updates. These made for a lot of internal politics and player interactions. In the settings you describe, what is the difference between major and minor families? I mean, really? In that other NES, it was the number of sceptres, which ment the number of votes (thus political weight) and, at least, early on, the number of actions one could do.
What will make major families different from minor families?
Will a minor family who conquers a lot of lands have enough resources/political weight to be considered like a major family or is there some kind of system that ensures that the minnow remains a minnow? Apart from prejudice that the major families might have, which, again, would have to be based on some rules mechanics otherwise it's up to the players to decide with whom they want to side for different reasons.

What kind of political plotting is there to do?
9 eunuchs chosen for life. Would they belong to a family and have ties to them, would plotting to get one's nephew made a royal eunuch be a worthy goal? Be it by assassination or courting whoever appoints them, waiting for a natural death to happen.

Also, for how long is the Executor appointed? Does he have a guard of his own? Does the Emperor have one? I'm thinking of the rivalries between the Mousquetaires and the Cardinal's guard here. Being appointed Executor could give control over some resources but the Emperor would retain others in order to have a balance of power. Once again, is there anything to foster such balances/inbalances?

And regarding major/minor families. I think the disparity may be interesting but it should not be too important otherwise minor family players may not have as much fun as the others.

LDiCesare said:

My preferences are I and V.

Regarding what you describe, if you think mentions of ImmacuNES IIb are off-topic, you should definitely reconsider.
There are mechanics in this NES that coul be interesting for you. Not the stats, definitely, as these are heavy. However, the mechanism for elections, appointing roles with resources that are not otherwise available to the participants is very good.
ImmacuNESIIb used yearly turns and elections every 4 updates. These made for a lot of internal politics and player interactions. In the settings you describe, what is the difference between major and minor families? I mean, really? In that other NES, it was the number of sceptres, which ment the number of votes (thus political weight) and, at least, early on, the number of actions one could do.
What will make major families different from minor families?
Will a minor family who conquers a lot of lands have enough resources/political weight to be considered like a major family or is there some kind of system that ensures that the minnow remains a minnow? Apart from prejudice that the major families might have, which, again, would have to be based on some rules mechanics otherwise it's up to the players to decide with whom they want to side for different reasons.

Click to expand...

I dislike setting a length of time for each turn. To me, it is gamey, and I don't want to mod a game like that -- similar to how I don't want to mod a game with "action points". In real life, some years are boring, others are full of warfare and intrigue -- so it doesn't make sense for one turn to be set in stone as a certain length of time.

A number of factors make a "major" house different from a "minor" one, which I have only lightly grazed thus far. Purity of bloodline and sheer wealth might be the two greatest, though I suppose your question within itself is a little too black-and-white for my tastes. For example, a lord reigning over an area with a lot of land and perhaps the traditional feudal model of "serfs and lords" might be able to raise an army from the populace, whereas a wealthy, urban lord, or just a lord with a lot of money, can fight wars with mercenaries and bought swords.

I fail to see what kind of mechanics are needed other than descriptions of each house outlining its current geopolitical position (well, other than listing wealth, heirs, military stats and description, and a few others). Anything else would be superfluous.

The system of voting you mention seems to double back on itself; you ask what makes a house major, and say in that NES, it was votes. Why did they have so many votes, though? And in this setting, the world is a rough place -- lords vying for power will not want to vote on who becomes what, but will instead find their way through battle, money, and scheming.

Perhaps you are making too much of a mechanical distinction between the words "major" and "minor". I say that only to make a clear difference between the lords who will begin with a lot of money, resources, and power, and lords who are rather lesser and in support of the "major" ones, or independent in their own fashion. Of course a lord with a small degree of power can make his way to the forefront.

What kind of political plotting is there to do?
9 eunuchs chosen for life. Would they belong to a family and have ties to them, would plotting to get one's nephew made a royal eunuch be a worthy goal? Be it by assassination or courting whoever appoints them, waiting for a natural death to happen.

Also, for how long is the Executor appointed? Does he have a guard of his own? Does the Emperor have one? I'm thinking of the rivalries between the Mousquetaires and the Cardinal's guard here. Being appointed Executor could give control over some resources but the Emperor would retain others in order to have a balance of power. Once again, is there anything to foster such balances/inbalances?

And regarding major/minor families. I think the disparity may be interesting but it should not be too important otherwise minor family players may not have as much fun as the others.

Click to expand...

I think playing a minor house would be a lot of fun. Bigger is not better, in this case. I feel the limit to having a minor house is only what you make it. There would still be plenty for you to do, as the NES will be considerably open-ended and light on the stats.

As for political plotting: well, there is no easy answer to your question, because the world has not been fully developed. I suspect that once all houses and players are accounted for, and the world is completely built, a lot of past grudges or intrigue will be revealed to us. But even now, with such minimal development, we have a few situations where political plotting would be fun and worth it. Eunuchs obviously come from a family, but their family would be largely irrelevant on the surface -- they would have forsaken them and ended their ability to continue any bloodline. But there are some exceptions. I suppose your question is a bit too broad, but I'll try to give you at least somewhat of a comprehensive answer. I feel that eunuchs being appointed for life simply means they will die very often and be replaced very often, die either by command of the emperor or through an external, nefarious scheme. For this reason, I feel that they, too, would be schemers, but also a necessary evil for the realm, assisting the emperor with various duties and they themselves being regarded highly as "religious" figures. They would ultimately, though, be disposable by the powers that be. Still, having a eunuch as your house's friend or ally would be a fun scenario. You can lightly influence the emperor or other more shady events at court, but at any moment your light in the dark could be cupped and extinguished -- like a glimpse into heaven. No one is safe in the world I am crafting.

And really, I might even say that players can be a eunuch or the Emperor's guard (of course, there will be a guard for both emperor and Executor -- that seems given to me).

Additionally, view the emperor as more of a symbolic role, and not as a head of state. I can't say how long the Executor is appointed, because it would vary depending on a cornucopia of factors that are not so easily describable. The emperor, depending on the Executor, may very well be a cultural puppet -- to gain favor with the people and provide symbolic legitimacy to the Executor's reign. But maybe sometimes the emperor will think outside of his shrine, and attempt to subvert the Executor, albeit subtly. Plenty of intrigue to be had there, as well.

Another note on eunuchs: consider it an intense religious position, as well. A philosopher becomes a eunuch, almost knowing that they will die while in their position, and not of a natural cause. It is this devotion, and this insanity, that drives their visions and their very nature. A dark world, indeed.

Ninja Dude is expressing his interest in this!

Nothing

I think that one should not think of these "Major" and "Minor" houses as such concrete things. It's all how you look at it. Personally I'd be fine with creating/taking a house that sits on some fringe territory and has a slightly militaristic background.

Starlife hates you people talking about ImmacNES. No one cares about ImmacNES.

Nothing.

OK, I see I have created a monster by labeling things "major" and "minor". You really shouldn't think of it like that at all. Forgive me for the misnomers. Every house would be major in its own way, I suppose. I only created those terms so that we may differentiate between a house beginning with more wealth and power in our timeline, and one that might not have such extravagance or resources. I didn't mean for those words to suddenly become boardgame terms, 3 = 1, or something so clear-cut.

Ninja Dude said:

I think that one should not think of these "Major" and "Minor" houses as such concrete things. It's all how you look at it.

Click to expand...

Excellent comment. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, Ninja Dude, with the ideas I am leaning towards now, the house you might prefer would be on the "eastern sphere"'s steppe, or at least bordering it somewhere -- perhaps a house that has some of that warrior blood in them? Of course, you don't need warrior blood to be militaristic.

Different regions will contain houses with different mentalities and regional sensibilities. Those are what I'm really excited about creating.

I was thinking like a very mixed blood house that is distinguished by its loyalty and ability to defend the border, but has been kept on a rather tight leash and given little actual reward due to its borderline mongrel status.

Starlife said:

I want to hold off for now on the main drive for major houses, lest this thread be consumed by "gimme gimme gimme". I simply want to know who is interested in what at this point, and who is even playing, before I put in more effort and time.

Click to expand...

I'm interested. I usually play as 'a builder', so any weak house on poor lands would do it for me. I can play major player/house (and have done so successfully in other NESes), but that means too long orders and a bit too much diplomacy.

Starlife said:

I dislike setting a length of time for each turn. To me, it is gamey, and I don't want to mod a game like that -- similar to how I don't want to mod a game with "action points". In real life, some years are boring, others are full of warfare and intrigue -- so it doesn't make sense for one turn to be set in stone as a certain length of time.

Click to expand...

There's also an option to hold whatever voting etc. whenever current ruler dies or is murdered.

The system of voting you mention seems to double back on itself; you ask what makes a house major, and say in that NES, it was votes. Why did they have so many votes, though? And in this setting, the world is a rough place -- lords vying for power will not want to vote on who becomes what, but will instead find their way through battle, money, and scheming.

Click to expand...

Why did they have so many votes - because they had bought/acquired means for voting. Either stole, captured, intrigued (marriages, heirs, married with a noble, had two kids - one male, one female, killed the male heir intrigued back the mother with female kid using ancient traditional in heritage laws as an excuse) or bought the scepters (scepters can be just considered 'tokens for voting'). Major houses were just the ones considered the most successful (or lucky) who had aquired means of voting before we were put in control of them.

Also, Lords sometimes did not vote the way player wanted. For an example religious lord would never vote for Blasphemous noble. Same nobles could be bribed or convinced to vote for someone else - a pope or even the NPC church could convince religious noble(s) to vote for someone else.

Thing is that these forced votings created a need for a lot of diplomacy, countless of posts were made detailing speeches and dirtying opposing nobles. Even in the end, it was unsure who voted for whom - because there were players who said they'd vote for one noble but then voted for another and because Nobles also could be bribed by other players and would have never voted for opposing families.

But this is your NES and you can run it whatever way you want it - I just bought up reasoning and some of the mechanics behind voting/scepter system, no offense meant.

Luckymoose said:

Starlife hates you people talking about ImmacNES.

Click to expand...

This maybe true, maybe not.

Luckymoose said:

No one cares about ImmacNES.

Click to expand...

This is, however, is blasphemy. You deserve to be shot. Twice.

Northen Wolf said:

This maybe true, maybe not.


This is, however, is blasphemy. You deserve to be shot. Twice.

Click to expand...

Both are true.

I dislike setting a length of time for each turn. To me, it is gamey, and I don't want to mod a game like that -- similar to how I don't want to mod a game with "action points". In real life, some years are boring, others are full of warfare and intrigue -- so it doesn't make sense for one turn to be set in stone as a certain length of time.

Click to expand...

A set length for turns does not exist in any NES. They can always be adapted to the situation. An idea of the length of a turn is mandatory. You simply can't write the same stories if a turn is supposed to be around 1 year, 5 years or 100 years, as your characters will either remain the same for all the NES, be replaced over several updates, or last a single one. So I dare say that (approximative) length duration is the single most important thing in a NES. Without it, you can't write related stories or plan stories you'd like to write over several updates.

A number of factors make a "major" house different from a "minor" one, which I have only lightly grazed thus far.

Click to expand...

If it's not important, then just say that players don't start equal. It's about the only thing you gave to players regarding the difference between families, so no wonder people worry about it.

@Ninja Dude: I was thinking along the same lines for you. We'll definitely conjure something up to suit what you want.

@Northen Wolf: As I've said -- I think the voting system is entirely worthless for my NES. I take no offense to your comments; that is just not the NES I am creating. There will be plenty of diplomacy and intrigue without a voting system -- and forced diplomacy and intrigue is about as dull as a board to me (maybe it worked for Immac, but it doesn't work for me).

Also, unrelated: I don't have many NESes of yours to go off of, but I'm hoping if you play in this one that you will send orders and participate. You disappeared from SLNES I for a while if I remember correctly? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything, but I feel like orders will be so essential to one's survival in this NES.

Luckymoose is probably trying to be rude , but he is also making an important point: ImmacuNES or whatever is not returning from the grave under the guise of my own NES. I have no interest in modding a game like that.

@LDi: I think you misunderstood. I will tell players ahead of time "This turn is 5 years," or "This turn is 1 year". This seems entirely given to me (what mod wouldn't inform his players how long a turn is?). What I'm saying is that I don't want to keep turn lengths consistent, because that doesn't make much sense. Over the course of this NES, I want lords to die and geopolitical situations to change -- not for them to remain static. Heirs will obviously be extremely important in this dynamic.

Also, unrelated: I don't have many NESes of yours to go off of, but I'm hoping if you play in this one that you will send orders and participate. You disappeared from SLNES I for a while if I remember correctly? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything, but I feel like orders will be so essential to one's survival in this NES.

Click to expand...

IIRC I was in hospital.

Nothing.

@Northen Wolf: You came and went and came back and went again. Some notice next time would be nice. I hope you are feeling better now.

@Terrance: Please see the Wars of the Roses, a thousand years of Japanese history, the Three Kingdoms period in China, and countless other struggles for power and leadership in lands suffering from disunity. Of course, that is entirely broad -- but so are all of your questions.

And really, I've answered them. The Emperor appoints his own eunuchs. Why in seven hells would a ton of lords with steel and ego cast votes on appointing a single eunuch? It boggles the mind that such a question even exists.

Basically, what kind of common consensus for Emperors and Philosophers be created without "voting", as simply supporting candidates is basically voting in itself (5 support X 6 Support Y, unless 5 has enough strong powers to equal the supporters of Y, Y wins.)

Click to expand...

This question itself is so off-point, that I won't bother answering it (well, I can't answer it, because it seems to have nothing to do with this NES).

Nothing.

Interested.

Terrance: The emperor is hereditary. His son will become the next emperor, and down the line it goes. In our world, it will be the longest lasting line of emperors in known history. The emperor's role is symbolic and religious moreso than political -- however, it once was political. Power has gradually been taken away by the Executor. Most disputes would happen if the heir to the throne has a brother, and that brother does not like the potential pick for Executor, or that heir is courted by a house who would prefer to have their own lord as Executor -- and thus wars can erupt, with two different houses supporting two different heirs. Regardless, the blood of the emperor remains the same. However, there are exceptions. I'm thinking, in our recent history, an ambitious emperor tried to retake power from the Executor, resulting in a war. But more often than not, the emperor is rather politically useless, serving instead as a symbol for the people, and generally well-loved. He does nominally "choose" the Executor, but that is merely a formality.