New NESes, ideas, development, etc

Silver Steak said:
Only the MOD makes the rules/stats (which gives him back all of the power vested in them) and the players can only check this by leaving. A NES without rules would attract no actual players either. Then they could simply "identify" or rather "cheer" on one faction or other while the story progressed at the MOD's own whim. :p
Click to expand...
A moderator can't generally just change the rules on a whim without explaining the change to the players and providing some sort of reason--he is answerable to them in altering those rules, or else they'll be pissy and possibly leave. And yes, that is the main power of a player no matter the degree of rules present. The logic's called "My way or the highway," and in fact several NES have had no real effective stats, ie: the first one, unless you count those entries as "stats" in the very loosest sense of the word (as they're more just facts).

The moderator is collating and compiling input. However, most of that input, even in a fairly highly ruled NES like BirdNES, is mostly outside of stats. Even if they were no stats they would still be "Players" as their events would be impacting progress unless you just completely ignored them. Even though they do have input in such instances however, that input is filtered through the moderator, and as such, he has more or less total power over its interpretation.
 
Shush, NK. I was demanding stats for deities. Go badger someone else. :p

Symph, are you out to prove something? You're the kind who never ceases arguing until your opponent admits fault, aren't you? Fine, I may have presented a faulty argumentation for the necessity of stats in a NES, but that doesn't change my opinion that they nonetheless are needed in every NES.

Also, finish my map already! :p
 
There willl be a description, and a stat for influence, but I don't see why there should be more.
 
Silver Steak said:
Symph, are you out to prove something? You're the kind who never ceases arguing until your opponent admits fault, aren't you?
Click to expand...
I enjoy grinding down poor arguments and forcing people to intelligibly defend themselves. It promotes logic by presenting a consequence to the alternative. Most people don't want to make themselves better, so it falls on others to give them some impetus. Opinions are mostly useless if they can't be defended as right, whatever modern interpretative relativists might say. :p

Also, finish my map already! :p
Click to expand...
Set a deadline then. I do other things too.
 
I prefer the deities to be a manifestation of their believers' devotion, meaning their existence is solely dependent on mortal worship. To put it blunt, no attack against a deity can be made, unless it is indirectly - through decimation of followers through cataclysms or conversion.
 
Like in Black and White 1, central temple means everything.
 
I prefer the deities to be a manifestation of their believers' devotion, meaning their existence is solely dependent on mortal worship. To put it blunt, no attack against a deity can be made, unless it is indirectly - through decimation of followers through cataclysms or conversion.
Click to expand...

I suppose it can be nice, game-wise, but I never particularily liked that theory myself. I mean, what the hell is a "manifestation of devotion" anyway? That sounds more like a religious parade than like some bizzare physical avatar of something as abstract as faith. Faith in what? In the avatar of faith.

I suppose I just like Lovecraft's take on it better. Deities are powerful not because they are believed in, but because they simply ARE that powerful, and the believers are drawn to that power. As said, ofcourse, the former idea is probably easier for NESing purposes.
 
But if Deities gain their power from those who worship them, could not mortals too achieve "godhood" through their believer? Like the Japanese Emperors if believers makes power ;)
 
This also makes the idea of setting up a personality cult extremelly attractive. Kind of reminds me of that Hitler vs. Stalin comic. ;)
 
Silver Steak said:
I prefer the deities to be a manifestation of their believers' devotion, meaning their existence is solely dependent on mortal worship. To put it blunt, no attack against a deity can be made, unless it is indirectly - through decimation of followers through cataclysms or conversion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I like.

alex994 said:
But if Deities gain their power from those who worship them, could not mortals too achieve "godhood" through their believer? Like the Japanese Emperors if believers makes power ;)
Click to expand...
The Manifestations of belief affect the other world, which can affect the mortal realm in turn. The deities could lend some of their power to a mortal, and that power comes from mortal belief.
 
But what about semi-gods? Like erm... the God-Kings/Emperors? ;) And divine servants to do the Gods' bidding?!?! :p
 
If you're going the Followers=currency model, allowing Deities to interact is largely pointless, since no matter how much one beats down another, it has zero effect without killing followers (and really, it's kill or be killed, if deities are "real" to mortals, there would be no conversions--everyone's a fundamentalist!) On the other hand, you want to give *some* amount of definiteness to your deities, otherwise your just mortals with powers (and thus, not really playing deities at all).
 
What if it was set up semi-nes like?

Exempli Gratia, if you set it on earth or something, players could choose to attempt to cultivate influence through death and destruction, or through culture and miracles and great works.

KillahJesus1337 could choose for his deity to empower a mortal who would lead men into battle and slaughter heretics and he could make a drought ravage the heretic landscape.

SuperBuddah might make his deity build huge monuments and help them advance. He might create a healer who would cure X horrible disease.

Its just an idea.

Or we could do your original influence idea, but put it in Modern Earth. So you start out as an underdog God, but slowly you grow and your advancement effects the world and international events.
 
I'm sticking with the idea that the first gods appear when humanity is in its infancy. Civilizations will be in the typical cradles, and other places may become civilized if they give rise to a god.

Gods cannot interact in their world, they must communicate through human proxies.

A whole variety of themes will be available, limited only by what they represent. So the Almighty Lord of Robin Williams' left Nostril probably won't have a large following.

There can be multiple deities for one thing.

Generally, it's best for a god to be fairly generalized. IE: God of War, God of Knowledge, God of Fear... whatever you want. And things can get far more indepth.

One Kingdom might be wracked in conflict between the belief in two different gods, or two rival Deities of Destruction might attempt to outdo each other to gain followings.

Anyway, doing really impressive things can convince people to convert, as well as simple military conquest by armies of faithful.
 
Reserving the title of God of Water and Death.
 
Cleric's deity will be named Seth Dethos, everyone! :lol:

Reserving the title of God of Air and Winds.
 
You don't really reserve, as there can be other gods of the same thing (Ra/Helios), though it is likely that they won't be very simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gori the Grey
Splitting a new thread off from an existing one
Replies
3
Views
677
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
Thlayli
pre-TNESVII - Signup Thread
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Terrance888
Terrance888
Recursive
VP Community Roadmap/Vision Brainstorming
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop
28 29 30
Replies
595
Views
38K
CppMaster
CppMaster
S
Espionage Updates - Lets talk planning
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Siegfroh
S
Top Bottom