The Death of IOT

[Sonereal]

That isn't a mechanics problem. That is a paradigm problem.

EDIT: There is a LOT to roleplay about the economy and domestic issues.

Of course people roleplay economy and domestic issues, but that does little for the people who aren't into roleplaying heavily.

 

[Terrance888]

I am by no means a NESing spokes person. The most I can say is that everyone has their own opinions on the matter, mostly negative.

More specifically, there are those who simply feel IOTs are forum-geopolitical-roleplaying games that are merely of a different stage of development than NESes. Ergo, no reason to not combine the two groups.

There are those, influenced by several IOTers who may or may not have left a negative impression, are against this mainly because they fear you guys would be bad influences on our community.

As for myself. I don't really see a good reason NOT to combine the two. It is true that some IOTers are hard to work with, but then again, there are such NESers as well. If we do combine them, however, we need to set some sort of standard or protocol for mutual assimilation. There are different things expected from NESers than IOTers, and the underlying culture can still clash. And when that happens, bad feelings can rise again.

Blatant Advertisement:

If you guys want a taste of NESing, I promise my NES is very open to new players and unexperienced NESers. Don't be worried by the massive amounts of roleplay (some whom I would not name were scared off, apparently). I accept them as they come. I am willing to coach you if you ask for it and I am willing to help you find a nation that fits what you want, or even create a new one just for you. Note: as of now I prefer VMs over PMs.

Currently we are transitioning in the middle bronze age. What was once reserved only for the military and the wealthy-good, strong metal- is becoming common. Economies are booming, bureaucracies are expanding, and cultures are flourishing. However, the rise of this new age also sees heightened conflict and brought ever more waves of barbarians to crash upon the borders of our civilized nations. Right now, we are facing merely the stragglers of the last barbaric offensive.

Keltia is sighing after the end of a Holy War as the combatants turn to face their aggressive barbaric neighbors. the Mediterranean is flourishing as the wheat trade is reinstated and Egypt is unified. "Mesopotamia" is dominated by a single player, but India has many growing power players surrounding an overstretched colonial empire. And then, we have "China". In east Asia Japan has just been unified while various "Korean" states made themselves wealthy from selling shiploads of weapons. Meanwhile, barbarians attack the Yi homeland as the nation falls into civil war. To the south, new Man powers rise the banner of Daoism on the path to empire.


EDIT: Well, if people aren't invested into roleplay then there is your problem. They get bored, and they know only one way to give themselves their desired fix; go to war.

Here's the rub. In my NES, I GIVE my players domestic issues to worry about. I GIVE my players crisis that they need to resolve. Whether they do so with role play, military action, diplomacy, spending money or what have you is up to them entirely. If IOT mods do this, then take a look at CI. EQ uses a RNG to give natural disasters and accidents around the world, provoking action. Coups attempts happen, and sometimes in the most unlikely of places.

Of course, I players who give themselves issues and make their nation multi-dimensional. Kudos to Optical, Iggy, Tycho, Erez and many others!

 

[Sonereal]

he rub. In my NES, I GIVE my players domestic issues to worry about. I GIVE my players crisis that they need to resolve. Whether they do so with role play, military action, diplomacy, spending money or what have you is up to them entirely. If IOT mods do this, then take a look at CI. EQ uses a RNG to give natural disasters and accidents around the world, provoking action. Coups attempts happen, and sometimes in the most unlikely of places.

Mosher is probably the best at this right now, given his "enjoyment" of writing unique events in Shattered Europe. That's probably why I enjoy SE so much.

Not that I haven't bummed off Capto's update format in at least three games now.

Of course, the IOT GMs have went varying directions on what to do. Ranging from Shattered Europe's Capto-esque unique events, to generic random events of MP2, to me just expanding the peace game mechanics to !!fun!! levels.

Also, happy one-year on your NES! I'll bite. I'm going to read the updates, since NES knows how to make updates interesting to read.

 

[Mosher]

Mosher is probably the best at this right now, given his "enjoyment" of writing unique events in Shattered Europe. That's probably why I enjoy SE so much.

Not that I haven't bummed off Capto's update format in at least three games now.

Of course, the IOT GMs have went varying directions on what to do. Ranging from Shattered Europe's Capto-esque unique events, to generic random events of MP2, to me just expanding the peace game mechanics to !!fun!! levels.

Also, happy one-year on your NES! I'll bite. I'm going to read the updates, since NES knows how to make updates interesting to read.

I am the only GM who does unique events for each nation every turn that I know of, though Tani does generic ones (baby boom, depression, etc with no description). The problem with them is trying to balance them and trying to keep them feeling unique.


@Terrance - You have convinced me to join the Civil Experiment. Is there anything I should know before I begin reading?

 

[Terrance888]

A link to a link.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'll consider more flavored events next IOT. :V

But yes. Events are an excellent way to shake things up mechanically and possibly add some story elements.

 

[Double A]

Bring back characters. And wizards.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Really, for me, that was the most fun of the two Mobius IOTs. Since there was a solid story behind each already, I was able to create deeper immersion if I so desired.

I'll keep such in mind for MP3.

Though back on the topic, I'd add that point as well. Ultimately, story progression isn't just the players, it's the GM as well. The GM can provide a lot of opportunities to create a bigger story behind it all; it is up to the players if they do anything with it, however.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Of course people roleplay economy and domestic issues, but that does little for the people who aren't into roleplaying heavily.

True. Classical IOT have the advantage of making one more involved in their nations. I guess there might be a bias since my first IOT, IOT IX, was set in mind of the older IOTs but I felt more involved in that then the "mechanical" ones, challanged perhapes by my playment of the the Leiurus Blade (although that may more have to do with its being a C&C IOT) and UG, the latter noted mainly due to the eco map. MP2 was good too in that reguard I guess, although I did not develop a cast as I did in IOT IX.

I am enjoying IOT X. Although my cast is limited at the moment I will correct this as time comes.

That said mechanics are useful for setting structure I guess. The issue is that "spend this much into industry" to increase ecomony is not exactly emersive, although it does have usage I guess.

Really, for me, that was the most fun of the two Mobius IOTs. Since there was a solid story behind each already, I was able to create deeper immersion if I so desired.

I'll keep such in mind for MP3.

Though back on the topic, I'd add that point as well. Ultimately, story progression isn't just the players, it's the GM as well. The GM can provide a lot of opportunities to create a bigger story behind it all; it is up to the players if they do anything with it, however.

Since GM is the god of the IOT, yes. A story can help direct how to set out, although one has to be use not to dictate totally on the vision. The GM is the creator (and destroyer) of a IOT.

 

[filli_noctus]

IOTs happen to implode at a point, collapsing around a worldwide conflict or something like that. During a few turns, maybe one, maybe two, they suddenly grow ten pages longer overnight, and when it settles down it stops growing altogether. Because there are few people who RP. LH, DT and Thorvald do good RP. Filli noctus too, when he plays, and christos and PF and Ailedhoo just spam RP like mad.

Here I use spam in the sense of producing lots of it. Ailedhoo's is arguably quite better, but it's annoying at his usual rate.

Wait, do I produce good RP or spam? I'm assuming (hoping) the former but your ambiguous sentence structure is making me paranoid.

Onto the topic at hand. As a relative newcomer I can't comment on anything before Valkyrie and I'm kind of picky about which games I join and if I don't join a game I don't tend to look at anything beyond the first page so my perspective is kind of narrow. Having said that I can see trends. With the exception of MP:R, which folded quickly, and Enlightenment II, which seems to be tending towards short lived continental scale conflicts, every game I've played in has eventually got involved in a global cluster*cough* war at some point. Often this is due to a single player trying to be cocky and cascading alliances taking hold.
Now I have no problems with global cluster*cough* wars per se, but the current standard rulekit encourages war which will eventually lead to everyone getting involved to grab what land they can or to join an alliance so they don't get swallowed by those trying to grab what land they can.

The problem - which is not unique to IOT, many RPG rulesets face the same issue - is that the most developed part of the rules is devoted to combat (this includes espionage), thus encouraging people to use them. This is exasperated by the economic rules which give you money to spend on A) Making more money, B) building units for combat or C) becoming better at making or money or engaging in conflict. It's a vicious circle.
Some games attempt to reduce the desirability of combat - common means include upkeep costs for units or stability hits for games that use stability - but they can only mitigate the problem, if they don't exacerbate it (if you have a standing army with an upkeep cost there's a siginifcant temptation to use it).

Of course a game without any kind of conflict isn't fun, so what is needed is a way to engage in non-military conflict. The UN analogue many games have provides a means for diplomatic conflict, but many players don't take it seriously (doohdtf, anybody) and it doesn't really do anything mechanics-wise. Trade is the obvious other venue, but I have certainly never seen a game with greater trade depth than a choice between free trade, embargo or blockade. In the MP2 wrap up I proposed a beefed up trade system, although it may make too much work for the GM.
Other options for ways to divert money away from military spending include:
National infrastructure (which may impact on population growth or stability mechanics)
Large scale projects which may or may not have lasting impact on the game world (things like building the Panama canal or irrigating Australia)
Making tech development less of a sure thing (give every IP spent on tech development a chance of increasing tech level as opposed to guaranteeing it)

The alternative would be to reduce the depth of the combat mechanics to the same level as other mechanics but ultimately it's up to each GM what complexity level is right for their game, but they really should strongly consider having each aspect of the rules at a similar level.

Sorry for the essay.

 

[JohannaK]

I mean good RP. I don't see how could you doubt, you don't produce THAT MUCH RP to even consider it spam.

 

[christos200]

In east Asia Japan has just been unified

And I was the one who unified it!

 

[SamSniped]

I support anyone joining TerraNES, by the way. Although don't join too close to the nation of Leon, might not be in your best interest

 

[Mosher]

@Thorvald - if you are looking for an IOT that is somewhat heavily RP based I suggest joining up in Shattered Europe when it reboots. I am also looking for a sub-GM to help arbitrate NPC decisions and orders (though preferably not one who is playing the game as a specific nation as well)

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Spoiler :

Unfortunately, I don't know what my workload's going to be for the next couple months. Hell, I might even have to pull out of TSR.

But I'll bear it in mind.

 

[JohannaK]

I hope you have some time to play JIoT, its going to be the most simple thing going on... And the complete opposite of your ideal IOT.

 

[BSmith1068]

Perhaps a completely different opinion on the matter may bring some new ideas to this discussion?

Now, I will admit I was not present for the earliest of IOTs - and there is a good reason why.
From my perspective, right or wrong, IOT was a host of headaches - the RP was the only dominating factor, and victory seemed assured merely to those who screamed the most, or changed the rules fast enough. Initially, there were no provinces, no mechanics, and, even after they began to appear, many things were left unchecked, and he who wrote the most won the most.

Now, when I came in, at a point I believe is now considered roughly the mid-point of IOT, mechanics were at their height. I percieved IOT (again, accurately or otherwise), as slightly more complex games of Risk, and that appealed to me. Economies were driving forces, mechanics could be planned out, and victory went to the player who planned the most, a factor I considered most deserving. Sure, there were still elements of luck and RP involved, but they sered not as a dominating factor, but as a balance, a way to maintain interest and avoid the inevitable snowball of a runaway state or monotony of a math-rules-all game.

Then, a call and transition were made back towards RP-based games. No longer were numbers and predictions core to a gameplay, but a bad piece of writing or irate player now lead a game into a completely different direction, and quite literally all of your planning could be devastated by a bad RP - or someone else's good one - rather than a fallacy of planning.

Now, which is better is definitely a matter of one's personal opinion, and I don't claim to have a better opinion than anyone else, but I definitely preferred it when economy and mechanics were the underlying blood of IOT, and the most successful games I participated - Fiat Lux and SonRisk II - were both very mechanics-oriented - and the most successful game I ran - Into the Fire - was certainly my least RP-friendly game.

EDIT: I also disagree about IOT "dying". It seems to be doing quite well to me, even if it has dropped a bit from its peak.

I have to say that this pretty much sums up my opinion with regard to IOTs. I am not one to RP all that much. I can, but I generally don’t have the time or inclination to do so. It is probably no surprise that I find the SonRISK and IB3 type games the most compelling to me, although I certainly hold a special place in my heart for the pure Iron and Blood genre.

The game has to be complicated for me to really get into it – but by complicated I don’t necessarily mean the rules have to be complicated. SonRISK and IB3 are prime examples of streamlined rule sets that still offer a ton of complexity and need for strong strategic planning/thinking. I probably spent more time planning/thinking about the game in IB3 than I have in any other IOT for a long time.

If all IOTs were RP based and really driven by the stories instead of the stats, I don’t think I would play very many. Thankfully we have a broad base of game types that are run here. Some games are more RP based, and others are more mechanic based.

To be honest, I think that this variety would only increase if we were to merge NES and IOT. I really see no compelling reason not to at this point. The only difference that I can see between them are the location of the games (different forums) and player base, although the player base is already integrated to some extent. Merging the two would only increase the options that both sets of players have, and increase the likelihood that there is a game out there that fits your likes and desired play style. It would also allow for some cross pollination of ideas and spreading of the player base so that we are not always playing against the same players in game after game.

 

[Osmowstroyer]

I hope you have some time to play JIoT, its going to be the most simple thing going on... And the complete opposite of your ideal IOT.

Will it have nukes or something similar?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Unfortunately, I don't know what my workload's going to be for the next couple months. Hell, I might even have to pull out of TSR.

But I'll bear it in mind.

At times Thor, I wonder if you are actually the President of the United States or something, with how busy you are.

To be honest, I think that this variety would only increase if we were to merge NES and IOT. I really see no compelling reason not to at this point. The only difference that I can see between them are the location of the games (different forums) and player base, although the player base is already integrated to some extent. Merging the two would only increase the options that both sets of players have, and increase the likelihood that there is a game out there that fits your likes and desired play style. It would also allow for some cross pollination of ideas and spreading of the player base so that we are not always playing against the same players in game after game.

I agree that a merging just makes practical sense. IOTs are simpler than NESes but some IOTs are simpler than others. While there was a resistance to merging by defining IOTs as mechanic-based and NESes as story based, that the overlap has become so extreme kind of deflates this argument.

 

[JohannaK]

I hate WMDs.