New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[jalapeno_dude]

Next section, this time government!

Good. I needed more stuff to nitpick.

Changing either of these is obviously a big deal, and will need tons of political capital or some sort of violent revolution.

Given that the player controls the faction in power, shouldn't they almost never want to change it?

This ties into another question--what happens if your faction falls out of the dominant spot? Is the player kicked out, or can they continue playing as the new faction? How will you enforce playing in-character as the ruling faction if it changes every couple turns (like e.g. in the case of the modern US)?

On the next line is your current amount of political capital, possibly the most stat in the ruleset

The most important stat, I'm assuming you meant to put.

this numeric shows how much your government can do; new policies cost political capital, changing the budget even more capital, new treaties cost political capital, new wars lots of PC, and so on.

Are there any hard guidelines for this? Like changing the budget 5% costs 1 PC, etc?

It will be refreshed every long update

So a long update is 4 years. How long is a short update? 1 year, 6 months, 3 months?

And I assume if, say, you're invaded, or during other extraordinary circumstances, you could gain extra PC in the middle of a long update?

Stories are a way to get free PC, if you can relate them to your policies – support for a war will be much greater if your king starts it off with something inspiring after all.

I assume there will be some type of limit on this...

You can go into a deficit of PC if you really wish, but that will make it likely that other factions seizing the leadership role

Can other players play non-dominant factions? Or write stories attempting to promote a change in leadership?

Popularity is a one word ranking of how happy the ascendant faction/majority are with your actions with a possible description.

Which one? Wouldn't it make the most sense to list both, or at least both within the faction and within the population with political power? To go back to the US, Republicans were the ruling faction in 2005, but approval among the majority differed greatly from approval among the Republican party--after Terri Schiavo and Katrina, let alone once Iraq went haywire.

Prestige is a numeric of how the international community sees you (-5 to 5) and is gained by being trustworthy, respectable, stable, and pleasant and lost by the opposite. This actually matters, although it has only a little effect on your own PC it will significantly affect the PC of other players when they cooperate with/oppose you, and it will of course affect how willing short stat nations are to work with you.

Will NPCs/short stat nations with low reputations be more or less willing to work with nations with high reputations? Could you get "axis of evil"-style banding-together among nations with extremely low reputations?

This stat seems problematic in general. Consider the Cold War. Wouldn't reputation vary greatly depending on which bloc a nation was in and which bloc the reacting nation was in?

So it seems reputation should be either broken up into groups (e.g. -2 among Catholics, 2 among Protestants, or 1 among Republics, -3 among Monarchies) or gotten rid of, and I prefer the former option.

Next there is a one word description and numeric of your systems effectiveness

A numeric? Where?

Then comes the size of the public sector as a percentage of the whole population,

Wouldn't it make more sense to put this as a percentage of the working population, or at least the employable population?

Next is the standing budget items, these show how you're choosing to allocate the money coming in from your tax rate section into the main outlays of the government: Military Maintenance, Infrastructure Maintenance, Social Maintenance, R&D (later on), Savings, Paying off the Debt, Enacting Policies.

Where does funding for the bureaucracy fit into this?

These are done as percentages in units of 5%, so that they are flexible over time,

If the tax rate can move in units of 1%, why can't the budget allocation?

And I assume you can change the tax rate for appropriate amounts of PC as well?

upkeep in cash and possibly PC if it becomes unpopular

Unpopular among whom? The ascendant faction or the entire population? Or either? Or both?



Nitpicking aside, I really like both main innovations you've proposed. Political capital as the spending unit makes a huge amount of sense, as does the project model for policy changes. Good job!

 

[North King]

But if you feel positively towards any various change suggested, you should post your support (and preferably some constructive criticism) rather than remaining silent--it seems to require a critical mass for changes to catch on around here.

No. Changes catch on because mods use them in a successful NES and other mods imitate them. Players don't influence the rules, mods do, so popular opinion is meaningless.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

No. Changes catch on because mods use them in a successful NES and other mods imitate them. Players don't influence the rules, mods do, so popular opinion is meaningless.

I'm assuming your means that you're joking, but I shall proceed to refute your point by pointing out that the set of all mods and the set of all players is far from disjoint. Furthermore, if a potential mod receives no feedback whatsoever they are far less likely to start a new NES with innovative rules, but rather stick to the same old same old.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Next section, this time government!

Very nice. Thorough and complete. The model should be a work of art.

As a player I would find it a bit daunting to manage. It certainly will restrict willy nilly changes in government and encourage play along whatever lines are currently established. In my experience, NESing has mostly been "outward looking" and about player interactions and their foreign policies toward one another. "Looking inward" towards how one ran ones nation was almost an after thought except to generating more spending. Updates focused almost 100% on religion, foreign policy efforts and war. Some of that has been changing recently.

Your level of complexity will force players to spend at least as much time running their nation as dealing with other nations. No more "oh lets go to war and see what happens" attitudes. It should also shift the updates to reporting on al the various internal issues facing a nation. If this level of detail is added to all aspects of play, NESing will be a whole new game. Its the difference between playing Risk and Drang nach Osten from the Europa game series.

Factions I like and have them in BirdNES 3.

I am also using "Prestige", but a bit differently. In your model it seems that prestige comes from what others think of your nation and it can affect how they interact with you. I'm using it as a result of accomplishments that affects the loyalty and strength of the factions at work in your nation. You have prestige affect the PC of other nations when they interact with you. That seems to take too much away from player control and go too far to the simulation end of things.

I really like your addition of "Political Capital" It is almost an "initiative stat". that acts as a check on what a player can do even if he has the money to do a lot. As a player I would have two spending ledgers: money and PC and when one runs out, that caps what you can do for the turn. Spending seems pretty straight forward, but accumulating it might not be so obvious. It is a very nice addition to NESing tools.

Great work!

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Your level of complexity will force players to spend at least as much time running their nation as dealing with other nations. No more "oh lets go to war and see what happens" attitudes. It should also shift the updates to reporting on al the various internal issues facing a nation. If this level of detail is added to all aspects of play, NESing will be a whole new game. Its the difference between playing Risk and Drang nach Osten from the Europa game series.

I think this is desirable. I'm 90% sure you do as well.

I'm using it as a result of accomplishments that affects the loyalty and strength of the factions at work in your nation.

Isn't this essentially equivalent to the Popularity stat Dis proposes?

You have prestige affect the PC of other nations when they interact with you. That seems to take too much away from player control and go too far to the simulation end of things.

If implementing unpopular domestic policy costs more PC, why shouldn't implementing unpopular foreign policy?

And you mean simulation shouldn't be taken to an extreme? But, but, but...

It is almost an "initiative stat". that acts as a check on what a player can do even if he has the money to do a lot.

Which is of course a good thing. It really enforces the fact that the player is the leader of a faction, not the omnipotent god of an entire people.

 

[North King]

I'm assuming your means that you're joking, but I shall proceed to refute your point by pointing out that the set of all mods and the set of all players is far from disjoint. Furthermore, if a potential mod receives no feedback whatsoever they are far less likely to start a new NES with innovative rules, but rather stick to the same old same old.

Well, maybe I'm just an exception to the rule, but I never base my rules off of what popular opinion is championing at the time.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Well, maybe I'm just an exception to the rule, but I never base my rules off of what popular opinion is championing at the time.

Then you are a rare individual indeed.

Still, isn't it valuable to find the kinks and holes in a rule set before they're taken advantage of by Terris a particularly unscrupulous player?

 

[North King]

Still, isn't it valuable to find the kinks and holes in a rule set before they're taken advantage of by Terris a particularly unscrupulous player?

Duh. That's why you speak up if you find something wrong with the rules.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Duh. That's why you speak up if you find something wrong with the rules.

And by extension, I'd argue that speaking up can greatly improve your potential game experience, both for player and mod. Some of these ideas will eventually make it into the NESes of the future--if you take an active role in commenting on them and presenting your own, you can make NESing a far more fulfilling experience.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think this is desirable. I'm 90% sure you do as well.

Isn't this essentially equivalent to the Popularity stat Dis proposes?

If implementing unpopular domestic policy costs more PC, why shouldn't implementing unpopular foreign policy?

And you mean simulation shouldn't be taken to an extreme? But, but, but...

Which is of course a good thing. It really enforces the fact that the player is the leader of a faction, not the omnipotent god of an entire people.

I feel pretty strongly that a good game balances fun, playability and realism such that it matches its audiance.

I do agree that players need to attend to their nation as much as they attend to others.

You could construe my use of prestige as popularity, in as much as all support, or not, by factions is a measure of popularity. If the Catholics like what you do and the policies you put in place they support you and you are popular among them. The opposite is perhaps true among prostestants. My use of prestige is a measure of accomplishment that affects factions and NPCs. I've designed it this way because other players will ahve the ability to influence factions in your nation and having prestige will act as a check on enemies who go overboard buying influence. It is not trying to simulate real world events particualrly, just add an intersting play element.

Prestige is a numeric of how the international community sees you (-5 to 5) and is gained by being trustworthy, respectable, stable, and pleasant and lost by the opposite.

Dis has set an absolute standard that says by "being trustworthy, respectable, stable" I gain prestige. In truth many nations gain prestige by being just the opposite. I think that players should be able to determine what other player behaviors they admire. Perhaps the mnodel should reflect that similar prestige levels provide bonuses and differing ones do not.

And you mean simulation shouldn't be taken to an extreme? But, but, but...

Napoleon is different.

Yes, an initiative or PC stat is a good thing. I may try to find a way to use it. maybe prestige can be a driver to keep one's PC primed and ready.

 

[North King]

Well, actually, looking back on it... I'm not really sure I like the idea of a political capital stat. It seems like this would actually detract from the accuracy of the simulation, because I don't see how any mathematical model can handle political capital better than a human moderator.

Feel free to explain to me why it can...

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Well, actually, looking back on it... I'm not really sure I like the idea of a political capital stat. It seems like this would actually detract from the accuracy of the simulation, because I don't see how any mathematical model can handle political capital better than a human moderator.

Feel free to explain to me why it can...

Because players are less likely to do something unrealistic if they know they'll get punished for it. A good moderator takes this into account, and Dis states that the effects of PC need to get translated by the moderator into good and bad policies and changes in popularity. At least as I conceive of it, making explicit the factors that are taken into consideration are at least as important in Simulationism as making those models fully automated. There's always going to be a human factor, and this is desirable--if it wasn't, we'd just play single-player computer games.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, actually, looking back on it... I'm not really sure I like the idea of a political capital stat. It seems like this would actually detract from the accuracy of the simulation, because I don't see how any mathematical model can handle political capital better than a human moderator.

Feel free to explain to me why it can...

I agree that it would be difficult to model in a simulation. But in a less rigorous game it could have value.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

I agree that it would be difficult to model in a simulation. But in a less rigorous game it could have value.

I don't think anyone is advocating a simulation in the sense you seem to be implying (forgive me if I'm wrong). Simulationism (again, as I conceive of it) is not meant to eliminate the role of the mod. It is instead meant to provide tools to allow the players and mod to achieve plausibility (which is not the same thing as reality--if we wanted that, all we'd have to do is read the news). Models are never perfect, and plausibility will of course require the mod to correct or override them.

To preemptively silence a potential argument, the fact that models cannot be perfect does not allow the contention that models cannot therefore be useful. Something that provides good results 80% of the time is better (by better, I mean more useful for the goal of achieving plausibility) than allowing every player-dictated action to succeed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think anyone is advocating a simulation in the sense you seem to be implying (forgive me if I'm wrong). Simulationism (again, as I conceive of it) is not meant to eliminate the role of the mod. It is instead meant to provide tools to allow the players and mod to achieve plausibility (which is not the same thing as reality--if we wanted that, all we'd have to do is read the news). Models are never perfect, and plausibility will of course require the mod to correct or override them.

To preemptively silence a potential argument, the fact that models cannot be perfect does not allow the contention that models cannot therefore be useful. Something that provides good results 80% of the time is better (by better, I mean more useful for the goal of achieving plausibility) than allowing every player-dictated action to succeed.

I don't disagree. Simulationism is at one end of spectrum of game styles and as one moves towards or away from that end, pardon me, the rules change.

I would not discourage more games at the Simulationism end of the spectrum and I have never thought that it meant doing away with the mod. The mod has to resolve the interactions between players and models and be able to put those results into a form where players can understand what happened. But I will say that in the extreme Simulationism means doing away with the players, for after all it is their their input and control that diminishes. Much like in RL when a national leader cannot control events regardless of what they try to do. Now I know that that is not the goal of the more structured play many of you are talking about, but it is where the path leads if one follows it far enough.

My point was that the idea of PC is a very good one and I think it has application in NESing whether the game in question is a "very simple few rules or constraints" one, or a more complex one with consideable rules and constraints. In any complex game the modeling will be difficult and complicated. I know from my own experience that I struggle to make it all work in a seamless manner that allows for good play value. That is why I noted that the government model Dis proposed would be a "work of art".

To me what is important is that such ideas are being put on the table for viewing, discussion and possible use. Good ideas that are kept on the shelf are a waste.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

But I will say that in the extreme Simulationism means doing away with the players, for after all it is their their input and control that diminishes. Much like in RL when a national leader cannot control events regardless of what they try to do. Now I know that that is not the goal of the more structured play many of you are talking about, but it is where the path leads if one follows it far enough.

Their control diminishes, certainly. But I'd argue that the kinds of orders that are taken away from them are, if the system is done correctly and the mod sufficiently skilled, precisely those orders that violate plausibility or immersion or lessen the quality of the gaming experience. And I'd appeal to your own analogy--indeed, a national leader cannot control events, just as a player should not be able to control absolutely everything about their nation. But they can influence them, to a greater or lesser degree depending on their power, skill, and cleverness. And that's what a player should be able to do.

In the limit, then, regardless of whether such a limit is achievable, Simulationism does not do away with the players, but gives them precisely the power of that national leader. The very nature of human interaction (not to mention quantum mechanics) means that the course of events is not fixed--the player has the opportunity, through their actions, to manipulate probabilities, which is the best any of us can or should hope for.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Their control diminishes, certainly. But I'd argue that the kinds of orders that are taken away from them are, if the system is done correctly and the mod sufficiently skilled, precisely those orders that violate plausibility or immersion or lessen the quality of the gaming experience. And I'd appeal to your own analogy--indeed, a national leader cannot control events, just as a player should not be able to control absolutely everything about their nation. But they can influence them, to a greater or lesser degree depending on their power, skill, and cleverness. And that's what a player should be able to do.

In the limit, then, regardless of whether such a limit is achievable, Simulationism does not do away with the players, but gives them precisely the power of that national leader. The very nature of human interaction (not to mention quantum mechanics) means that the course of events is not fixed--the player has the opportunity, through their actions, to manipulate probabilities, which is the best any of us can or should hope for.

The two bolded parts are key. In the first case you have begun to set the parameters for what you consider a good game. You are defining the limits of player actions.

In the second you more precisely describe what you want you game to look like when its done. In my mind such a finished product is not really a game, it is too close to RL for me. I prefer games with fewer constraints, more freedom and room for creativity even if it is not exactly historical.


EDIT: BTW, thanks for the links! I'm off to bed.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

In the second you more precisely describe what you want you game to look like when its done. In my mind such a finished product is not really a game, it is too close to RL for me. I prefer games with fewer constraints, more freedom and room for creativity even if it is not exactly historical.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I think Dis would agree that this purpose is what he is trying to approach with his rules.

I'd point out that the power of a national leader was at various points in the past much greater than it is today, when it is limited by things like constitutions, legal opposition, etc. Such times may be more to your liking as settings, but they maintain the same basic philosophy of only giving you the power that could plausibly be accrued by an individual or an organization.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for the links! I'm off to bed.

No problem.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Given that the player controls the faction in power, shouldn't they almost never want to change it?

Well people always want to hang onto power, even if that needs some adaption, or that circumstances force their actions.

This ties into another question--what happens if your faction falls out of the dominant spot? Is the player kicked out, or can they continue playing as the new faction? How will you enforce playing in-character as the ruling faction if it changes every couple turns (like e.g. in the case of the modern US)?

Well its up to the player, but they will now get PC for a different spectrum of desires (and they won't be that different RP after all - despite the rhetoric the Democrats and Pubs agree on huge amounts of stuff).

The most important stat, I'm assuming you meant to put.

Curse you space carrot!

Are there any hard guidelines for this? Like changing the budget 5% costs 1 PC, etc?

Use your discretion, generally any change will only be costing 1, but trying to eliminate the military budget will have costs later on.

So a long update is 4 years. How long is a short update? 1 year, 6 months, 3 months?

3 months, but they are event driven, so I'll go "Hey, nine months in [Snappily name: Brazilian-French Diplomatic crisis occurs], three months of X happens, what do involved players want to do?"

Like this:

Long Update            _3_6_9_12_15_18_21_24_27_30_33_36_39_42_45_48_L
[French-Brazil Crisis] _____S_S__S__S________________________________
[Mexican Revolt]      ______________S___S____________S_S____________
[British-US Crisis]     _________________________S____________________

Short updates are short, to produce constant activity in the NES .

And I assume if, say, you're invaded, or during other extraordinary circumstances, you could gain extra PC in the middle of a long update?

You'll use PC and cash on hand in each short update. After each short I'll rework out PC for the 'involved'.

I assume there will be some type of limit on this...

Oh very much so, stories will primarily recoup spent PC, so at most you'd be doubling your stuff on hand for next turn, and there will be critequing going on!

Can other players play non-dominant factions? Or write stories attempting to promote a change in leadership?

Yes, but they'd have to apply for it, and I'd only allow it for nations on the cusp of revolution/break up (as in the main player has to be driving things into the ground first).

Which one? Wouldn't it make the most sense to list both, or at least both within the faction and within the population with political power? To go back to the US, Republicans were the ruling faction in 2005, but approval among the majority differed greatly from approval among the Republican party--after Terri Schiavo and Katrina, let alone once Iraq went haywire.

Thats a good point, I'll have to think about it.

Will NPCs/short stat nations with low reputations be more or less willing to work with nations with high reputations? Could you get "axis of evil"-style banding-together among nations with extremely low reputations?

Despite Bush's rhetoric, how much do NK, Iran and Iraq actually work together ? But that's a digression, prestige as I envisioned it would be a combination of power, preceived reliablity and preceived notority, so say Nazi Germany would gain prestige for conquering Poland and France, and lose it for breaking their deals and the genocides being found out about. You do generally find the evil nations making all their friends at the pre-overt stage of their evil...

This stat seems problematic in general. Consider the Cold War. Wouldn't reputation vary greatly depending on which bloc a nation was in and which bloc the reacting nation was in?

Hmm yes, though beinging in one bloc or the other implies a diplomatic decision has been made, and the international community is now less important.

So it seems reputation should be either broken up into groups (e.g. -2 among Catholics, 2 among Protestants, or 1 among Republics, -3 among Monarchies) or gotten rid of, and I prefer the former option.

Or maybe changed to a descriptor.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put this as a percentage of the working population, or at least the employable population?
Where does funding for the bureaucracy fit into this?

Yes. Well its paying their wages and operational stuff.

If the tax rate can move in units of 1%, why can't the budget allocation?
And I assume you can change the tax rate for appropriate amounts of PC as well?

I'm lazy, and the 1% change in tax rate is going to be much more money than a 5% change in budget allocations. PC for everything (except certain executive action)!

Unpopular among whom? The ascendant faction or the entire population? Or either? Or both?

Either and both, its coming from the same PC pool.

Your level of complexity will force players to spend at least as much time running their nation as dealing with other nations.

Well I still hope (and is the point of having numeric PC) that whilst players may choose to spend a lot of time thinking, their orders don't need to be that long. It also be nice to declare someone with high prestige, wealth and HDI as the winner, rather than the biggest conquerer .

No more "oh lets go to war and see what happens" attitudes.

One would hope!

I am also using "Prestige", but a bit differently. In your model it seems that prestige comes from what others think of your nation and it can affect how they interact with you. I'm using it as a result of accomplishments that affects the loyalty and strength of the factions at work in your nation. You have prestige affect the PC of other nations when they interact with you. That seems to take too much away from player control and go too far to the simulation end of things.

It's still the players choice, and I'd hope it'd force people to think carefully before allying with the local maniac/going on a conquering spree. Maybe I need to do some renaming/seperating of those stats.

I really like your addition of "Political Capital" It is almost an "initiative stat". that acts as a check on what a player can do even if he has the money to do a lot. As a player I would have two spending ledgers: money and PC and when one runs out, that caps what you can do for the turn. Spending seems pretty straight forward, but accumulating it might not be so obvious.

Yeah, I spent ages trying to think up a catchy name (especially due to the obvious PC - PC conflict), but in the end I had to settle on 'political capital' neatly encapsulating the concept. Unless anyone has any ideas...

It was also hard to think up stuff that could limit player activities - have action points that showed the leader could only do so much? Well then my first action is to hire more staff to enable more actions (since the playeader is only setting policy anyway).

Dis has set an absolute standard that says by "being trustworthy, respectable, stable" I gain prestige. In truth many nations gain prestige by being just the opposite. I think that players should be able to determine what other player behaviors they admire. Perhaps the mnodel should reflect that similar prestige levels provide bonuses and differing ones do not.

Perhaps your right and I should rename the numeric 'reliability' based on "being trustworthy, respectable, stable" which will have some effect on PC of people allying with you (though a huge effect on your credit rating ), and have a descriptor for the more estoric 'prestige' things. If a player wants to ally with another because they admire them then they can damn well write a story indicating /why/ they admire them and recoup the PC. Prestige and PC should also have the effect of reducing the backroom dealings you so often see in NESes.

Well, actually, looking back on it... I'm not really sure I like the idea of a political capital stat. It seems like this would actually detract from the accuracy of the simulation, because I don't see how any mathematical model can handle political capital better than a human moderator.

The numeric is for the player, not the mod. It allows them to decide how much they can do in their orders, what they want to focus on etc, rather than requiring a two stage order process where I send back the first set saying 'you're not popular enough to do all that'. The amount you get at the start of the update is all done by mod fiat and careful consideration, and will be one of the few stats that isn't automated at all.

Also punishing players for craziness in a way beyond just writing in the update 'people don't like that' or putting in a revolt.

Also also limiting, in a vaguely realistic way, the number of thigns players can do each turn to make thing easier for the mod.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.