A Living World

Omega124

Challenging Fate
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
7,087
Location
Albany, New York
DISCLAIMER: So, after discussion with tolni my own personal theroy of why an IOT succeeds or fails, I have elected to formulate my thoughts on the subject matter into a full thesis not unlike Thorvald's attempts to explain IOT in Cult of The Offensive or The Death of IOT I've liked his works in the past and I do largely agree with especially Death. So firstly read them for a lot of context in my school of thought of what IOT ought to be. And then remember that, although this is my attempt to explain how a good IOT runs, this isn't an exact science and that results can vary for numerous factors out of the mod and/or player's control.

---

What is the most important aspect of an IOT? There is a lot of differing, often outright competing views within our community over what an IOT should focus on, story or stats. On one hand, you have the mechanics-oriented people, who believe that games live and die on the ability to create a clear and concise ruleset that still manages to remain unique and engaging. People who champion this viewpoint, most notably Sonereal's since-redacted Heterodoxy and Robert Can't's efforts in creating a unified ruleset for all players, will argue that the best way to attract players is simply to make the best actual game possible, and people will naturally flock over to play. And I don't think they're necessarily wrong, either. Sonereal makes wonderful stat games that even people like me eagerly join and even have fun in. However, when all is said and done, do we look at the SonRISKs or the Cold Wars and say "This is the best IOT ever! Nothing could ever possibly top this!"? Do people (other than AA of course) fondly sigh over the exploits of Black Hole? StatIOTs are wonderful in their own right, but they're one and done; to be discarded and forgotten about once the game finishes.

The other school, which I must profess I am a part of, are the storyists. We maintain the belief that it is not the game itself that people join IOTs and the community with it, but it is our ability to weave narratives and tell a collaborative story which engages with the players that is the key for long term success of the IOT. Usually, purist storyists, such as Thorvald and I, have argued in the past how story and stats are in direct competition with each other; as soon as you stat your game up and make it more complex, that IOT loses its collaborative nature and ceases to hold long term interest. The dichotomy between story and stats was the central thesis in Death, and the continued legacy of storyist games such as IOT IV or XIV help bring vindication to the idea that IOT is best when the game is left as out as possible without descending into anarchy.

In the past, I would have argued that the dichotomy exists, and that if people finally let go of the idea that complex mechanics is automatically better, we'd have far more vibrant IOTs. However, there is an important IOT that launched last year that I personally believed shifted the paradigm. For Lucina's sake, it was the one of the only two IOTs I can think of in our five year history that actually ended. I am, of course, referring to Ninjacow's s***post IOT, IdIOT.

At first, IdIOT was a return to the state of nature that people like Thorvald and I have argued for. There was some mechanics in place to please the mechanicists, but it was largely barebone and players were free to just sit around and roleplay. And roleplay we did! Even with some of the shoddiest update cycles known to man, we all stuck together and continued to build upon a world based on "fun"posting. However, as the game went on, there was a shift in how the game was structured. As player actions led to new concepts into game, and with the mod's own dissatisfaction with the initial ruleset, the game got more and more complex, until it was estensially a stat IOT in its own right. Yet, incidents of drama aside, player interest in roleplaying and woldbuilding did not wane. In fact, I'd wager the game would still be running with continued player interest if drama didn't overtake the game.

There is also the issue of NES, our sister community. NES doesn't just pride themselves on being "more" than "just map painting simulators" mechanically; they have a roleplaying tradition which equals if not surpasses our own. That seems to directly oppose the traditional storyist thesis, which views complex mechanics as being destructive to complex storytelling. While one could rationalize NES as having a different playerbase and culture than IOT, and thus can get away with having both, the fact remains that with IdIOT and with NES, it is possible to have both.

So, the question remains: what is the most important part of an IOT? What do all the successful games, from XIV to IdIOT to even Gone is the Old Guard*, have in common?

The answer is NOT having a story or being story-centric

The answer is having a living world.

A living world is more than just the background lore that makes up the context of the game. A living world is more than just a world that has internal consistency that remains unique and interesting. A living world is a world that players and mods work together to create a game that has its own inertia and reacts to its own stimuli.

Let's look at IOT XIV, my favorite IOT, for what I mean by that last statement. How would one sum up the plot of the game, like if we were writing a summary to someone who has never seen IOT before? The awnser is, it would be pretty hard to, because there was a lot of seemingly unrelated plot threads that nethertheless intertwined with each other into what would be the XIV world. Sure, the game started with Texarkana invading the Pirate Coalition right off of its doorstep, and the game "ended' after the Indonesian War was resolved**, but how we get from from point A to point B was the real magic of XIV.

Let's look at the invasion of the Pirates more in specific. From a purely IC perspective, what was the implications of Texarkana attacking them? The most immediate conclusion is that Texarkana became the dominant power of North America, and that it became one of the major power brokers on the diplomatic stage. Texarkana was one of the leading nations in in the peacekeeping operations in Vietnam, and would use its good international standing and initial show of force to create a union with the American Empire.

However, the invasion of the Coalition led to far greater implications than just the rise of Texarkana, one in which directly influenced the game until it ended. One of the pirates escaped the destruction of the pirate nation, and offered her services to France. France would use her to create the Rosemary Incident; a false-flag operation which secured France the ability to produce nuclear weapons while making Japan look like national pariahs on the international stage. The Rosemary Incident was one of THE leading causes for the UN Intervention against Japan, the one Texarkana took advantage of to eventually form the PAU...

Meanwhile, the Rosemary Incident effected France as well. The French government felt betrayed by the pirate they hired for never disclosing her intention on attacking their own sailors, and thus had the STD take her out. The STD agent would have a mental breakdown finding out her own government inadvertingly killed her sister in the Rosemary Incident, and thus eventually shot up a French university. This terrorist attack effected Germany, radicalizing the feminist movement in that nation, which would (unsuccessfully) attempt to assassinate the Kaiserin. This only heightened the tension between the two nations, which would have likely gone to war if I kept up with my stories instead of doing them post facto after the timeskip.

What did the Rosemary Incident mean for the rest of the world? Devilfish. The failed attempt to invade Taiwan by Rome and the Platonic Republicled to the death of Roman Emperor, which severely weakened the Roman State and caused outlying regions to splinter. More importantly, the Platonic Republic completely fell apart as it fell into civil war with the People's Militia (itself the creation of previous game events in the Thessaloniki Crisis). The weakening of both Greek states led to direct Russian intervention into first Platonic and later Roman lands, which the latter would kick off a war with Germany...

I could go on all day on causes and effects. The point is, XIV is filled with a lot of causes and effects, many of which are not immediately obvious. XIV reacted to the players, and the world changed with its own reactions back to the players. What people did in the game mattered, and more than the superficial stat-outlook. Robert showed some of the finest modding IOT has ever seen, crafting events in updates in reaction to what players did the previous turn, making sure to keep everything fresh. He built upon and added to the lore that players wrote on their own, and thus players felt like their roleplay actually mattered, encouraging it way more than any hard stat bonuses ever will.***

Without getting into extensive detail, IdIOT worked on this same principle. Events early on the game would continue to haunt nations in-game years after they were made, making the international politics dynamic and internally consistent. It told a story, and it was a story that the entire IOT, mod and players, experienced themselves.

So, what exactly am I proposing? I am proposing that, stat or story, all mods take the time to sit down and create a world. This doesn't necessarily mean sitting down and creating an extensive backstory with pre-defined nations (although there's nothing wrong with doing so!). What it DOES mean, is reading your player's sign ups and RP posts. It means, writing actual fluff updates that are more than just recaps or summaries of events that happened, but introduce new concepts of their own which build upon what they wrote.

An example: say a player wrote an RP post describing neoliberal economic reforms where they deregulate and privatize a once-mixed economy, in order to encourage foreign investment. In the update, you mention the neoliberal reforms, and talk about how foreign investors are interested, perhaps even list specific nations interested companies are from to involve those players, but hit the player with a whammy. The reforms have caused numerous wage cuts, and now his workers are on strike. You now have the world reacting to the actions of the player! The player responds with trying to suppress the strikers by shooting at them with police, so the next update, you have the workers organize into a communist revolt. Then it succeeds, and inspires revolutionary movements in nearby nations, etc, etc.

A little heavy handed of an example, but that's what I mean by introducing your own concepts. You want to have your updates REACT to whatever the players do, so the players in turn have to react to the changing circumstances of the world at large. If players aren't giving them sufficent RP to react, then you need to nudge them along with maybe an event you concout out of your mind, but that should be only if they don't do anything interesting themselves. And try to make it so that you have multiple people interact with the same stimuli; it makes everyone more engaged when they have to interact with each other to resolve crises.

Don't be afraid to write, don't be afraid to experiment. Not everything goes well on your first try. But players have an insanely cool knack of being able to fill in the potholes on the rough road themselves if you give them the chance. And as long as players feel engaged, they will take it.

In conclusion, modding in a way that not only just worldbuilds, but also makes it so that player roleplay matters in the development of world building, is in my opinion the most effective way to make a game memorable and enjoyable. Soon, maybe instead of reminiscing over IdIOT or XIV, we'd be sighing over our whimsical adventures in your IOT!

*GITOG is, from my own understanding, just as influental to NES as IOT IV was to IOT

**Not withstanding the botched final update which would have continued the war

***However, bringing up XIV as a case study means I must also say the biggest shortcoming of it and what eventually brought it to its death; the mod attempting to force his vision of events despite player's intent. From him trying to force the Caen Meteorite over my own storyline of my nation getting couped, to trolling the final peace deal in Indonesia, it just caused resentment of players who felt like they were sidelined and railroaded.
 
This is an interesting read. I appreciate your thoughts and feedback on IdIOT, I tried really hard to make that a fun an enjoyable game. As the GM of IdIOT I think I can provide a unique perspective on the game, I'll do that once exams are over.
 
Interesting essay.

An example: say a player wrote an RP post describing neoliberal economic reforms where they deregulate and privatize a once-mixed economy, in order to encourage foreign investment.

I'm pretty sure this example was inspired by my RP in IdIOT. :p
 
Stats tell stories. That's always been my view. Even though I don't RP or even post IC, I actually get into character in my head quite a lot. I don't really care about sharing that because I want everyone to find their own fun.
 


A wonderful essay megan, well thought and well written.

I agree with you 100%, its the setting, and its reactions to the players, that makes or breaks a game.
 
Very thoughtful essay.

Stats tell stories. That's always been my view. Even though I don't RP or even post IC, I actually get into character in my head quite a lot. I don't really care about sharing that because I want everyone to find their own fun.

I actually think this might be something everyone does. Sure enough there are some Munchkins, but all but the most hardcore of Munchkins will feel something in their heart for the character they're supposed to be. In the context of a IOT/NES, you'll note that even when the game is literally RISK people will still get into "character," even if just to mess around - because it's entertaining.

I believe in robust stats mainly for this reason. Even when people get excited about stats/gameplay, they're also getting excited about something which the gameplay is an abstraction of. Getting more EPs, for instance, is an abstraction of a growing economy, which is what people really care about. Stats are there to communicate facts about the world to the player. There is a "game" involved but honestly there is no way to create a multi-agent simulation without it being a game, because that structure is very central to games in general. Remember Clausewitz said "In all of the range of human activities, war most resembles a game of cards." But it's not just about the cards you're dealt, it's where you choose to play them - and why - that makes the difference. Hence why diplomacy, as Megs identifies, is the core mechanic of IOT/NESing.
 
Since I'm apparently now an academic source, I figured I should swing by to deliver the customary scholarly reply. :p

All in all I agree with your thesis, and had in fact been planning a similar article, although you've answered the question much more precisely than I would've managed. In my letter to CivOasis for the podcast way back when, I'd mentioned the idea of a roleplay 'critical mass', and the 'Living World' is the intended if then-undefined endpoint. I've said it before but it's always worth repeating: Multipolarity was horribly broken and dubiously managed, but the universe miraculously kept it running past its due date.

I contest the allegation that I am diametrically opposed to statistics. What troubles me is how what began as a support mechanism to ground the universe became an end in itself (not unlike the financial sector huehuehue), and how it's fostered an attitude amongst several GMs past and present that all they have to do is make a fully-automated algorithm and they've fulfilled their existential purpose. This aforementioned article-in-planning is meant to explore the balancing act the rest of us do.
 
In fairness, making a "fully-automated algorithm" to the end of modeling global politics and economics is not a soulless, mechanical process. It requires in-depth understanding of the subject matter.

I have seen this many times, and I am not necessarily accusing you of this (@Thorvald), but people who aren't interested in mathematics frequently misunderstand the endeavors of the so-called "simulation/stats" corner. Maths is just a language for relating patterns, and a person fluent in mathematics can construct models and simulations that are, in fact, analogous to theses such as these that are trying to advance our understanding of the hobby.

It seems that none of these games can truly prosper if it is purely one or the other. A pure Story game constructs a collaborative narrative, but one that becomes fueled by the strongest influences in the group, and so is inconsistent as it is a slave to their impulses. I suppose the "living world" is the theoretical point where stats* are no longer necessary to maintain consistency, as every player has internalized in themselves the true nature of the world, but in all other cases I think there exists a minimum amount of stats that are absolutely necessary to maintain consistency. And consistency is very important, especially as we grow and become more mature as gamers, and we become less satisfied with less detail and resolution.

As I say in Blackened Skies, my primary motivation is creating a believable world where people can pretend to be policy makers on a national scale, and I think stats improve that beyond measure.

*Perhaps more appropriately termed as calculable mechanics.
 
I myself enjoy both stats centered IOTs and story IOTs. In my opinion it is the GM and the players who make the game good and enjoyable, not if it is based on stats or story.
 
In fairness, making a "fully-automated algorithm" to the end of modeling global politics and economics is not a soulless, mechanical process. It requires in-depth understanding of the subject matter.
Again, that's not what I'm saying. In fact I once mentioned to Sone that if I could figure out the numbers behind Crisis in the Kremlin, I of all people might very well fast-track this alleged Holy Grail of game mechanics.

My criticism these days isn't stats ipso facto, it's that some GMs think their primary duty is to the rules and not the players. The implication I've read in several arguments by people pushing heavy stats, particularly Sone's since-redacted polemic, is that the be-all and end-all of the game moderator is to come up with one all-encompassing formula, and then sit on one's hands except to keep the machine running. (There's also a distressing cliquish attitude toward complexity for complexity's sake, but that's an essay in itself.) The takeaway point of Megs' essay is that GMs have a responsibility to cultivate the game world beyond just updating the spreadsheets, and this requires them to think beyond pure numbers.

I'm often invoking economics metaphors (intentionally and incidentally) when waxing philosophical on IOT, and there's a reason my next op-ed will be titled "G.M. Keynes".
 
It is thus fitting that the GMs who engage with their players will make more engaging games; I may be sinful in how much I hail Fallen Star but tis is to me a great example of a game which played well, for its mechanics served well with the world and the stories helped in keeping the world alive but also the GM provided the engagement to keep us active, especially with the event system which allowed reward for creative responses. I love Decamper's work.
 
The takeaway point of Megs' essay is that GMs have a responsibility to cultivate the game world beyond just updating the spreadsheets, and this requires them to think beyond pure numbers.

I have done zero things to cultivate the world of Empires of Joy beyond the changes and revisions I make to the ruleset and spreadsheets, and the game has generated more activity in the last ten days than anybody could have possibly expected. The biggest flaw comes when you don't have these hard rules and rely on player interaction via RP. The game becomes bogged down in boring, ideological conflict with no real basis in hard reality.

Edit: This isn't to say there aren't some mild things a GM can do to "cultivate the game world". Naming my claims thread the "Conference of Bombay" and calling claim points "negotiation points" do set a mood that is different from "Claims Thread" and "Claim Points"
 
A fully-automated algorithm is literally a PC game. I don't think anyone would argue PC games are soulless.

Edit: This isn't to say there aren't some mild things a GM can do to "cultivate the game world". Naming my claims thread the "Conference of Bombay" and calling claim points "negotiation points" do set a mood that is different from "Claims Thread" and "Claim Points"

You also said the setting was based on the best Civ V scenario and heavily stacked the rules to favor autocracy with emerging democracy over time.
 
Again, that's not what I'm saying. In fact I once mentioned to Sone that if I could figure out the numbers behind Crisis in the Kremlin, I of all people might very well fast-track this alleged Holy Grail of game mechanics.

My criticism these days isn't stats ipso facto, it's that some GMs think their primary duty is to the rules and not the players. The implication I've read in several arguments by people pushing heavy stats, particularly Sone's since-redacted polemic, is that the be-all and end-all of the game moderator is to come up with one all-encompassing formula, and then sit on one's hands except to keep the machine running. (There's also a distressing cliquish attitude toward complexity for complexity's sake, but that's an essay in itself.) The takeaway point of Megs' essay is that GMs have a responsibility to cultivate the game world beyond just updating the spreadsheets, and this requires them to think beyond pure numbers.

Yeah, I think you are straight-up misunderstanding the Stat-ists. They believe that improving the rules improves the experience for the players, so it's not a trade-off situation at all. In fact...

I'm often invoking economics metaphors (intentionally and incidentally) when waxing philosophical on IOT, and there's a reason my next op-ed will be titled "G.M. Keynes".

...I guess you could say the principle at work is "protecting the players from themselves," which I think you can argue for (ignoring the metaphor) because what's at stake isn't the players' life, liberty, property, etc., but their investment in the game. The fewer rules a game has, the more responsibility for investing players in the game is placed on individual interactions and the players' own personal initiative, which is objectively a larger-effort affair than playing a soi-distant video game, where the rules do the work of investing players automatically without the game running the risk of falling victim to their outrageous whims, e.g. by having the New Empire of Rome in 2007 A.D. Of course, rules don't always protect from ridiculous outcomes, but the important thing is that players feel like there is a logical reason for what happens. To an extent I think we all enjoy telling stories together, but I also think there is a fierce spirit of competition that underscores the entire hobby that requires us to think of the hobby in terms of a game and make efforts to standardize it as such. The good news is there is an established tradition of games where you also roleplay. And a lot of established theory related to the same.

I might not actually be saying anything disagreeable so I'll make my point very clear: I think IOT/NESing is a form of roleplaying game akin to Dungeons & Dragons, and as theorists and practicioners of the hobby we would do well to study roleplaying games and pillage their theory and best practices for our own use.
 
If we're statists, does that mean thor is an orangeist?
 
You also said the setting was based on the best Civ V scenario and heavily stacked the rules to favor autocracy with emerging democracy over time.

To be fair, democracy is a lot more versatile right out the gate given new ruler traits popping up every other turn.
 
Right, I can't lie; I've been heavily depressed the past week so I never got around to responding to the points raised here. I'm going to do it now so that it doesn't look like I posted a hit and run.

This is an interesting read. I appreciate your thoughts and feedback on IdIOT, I tried really hard to make that a fun an enjoyable game. As the GM of IdIOT I think I can provide a unique perspective on the game, I'll do that once exams are over.

Thank you for the kind words and feel free to write your perspective in this thread once your exams are over c:

Interesting essay.



I'm pretty sure this example was inspired by my RP in IdIOT. :p

No comment. :mischief:

Stats tell stories. That's always been my view. Even though I don't RP or even post IC, I actually get into character in my head quite a lot. I don't really care about sharing that because I want everyone to find their own fun.

I disagree with this notion that stats tell stories. Stats can be the cataclysm for stories to be made, that much I agree with, but numbers on their own are just that: numbers. It is our ability to assign and rationalize these numbers value, and interact with them, is how the story unfolds.

To best explain this, think of a board game. I'm going to go with Monopoly. At the core of the experience, monopoly is a game about rolling dice. With the exception of property trading and auctioning (which most people don't even do), there isn't any core gameplay mechanics involved besides rolling a pair of dice and seeing what result you get from it.

If we conceptualized Monopoly as an IOT, the stats would be money; property; and on your turn, the value of the dice you rolled. All that alone does not tell a story, and it never will tell a story. No one remembers the exact sequence of their rolled dice, because that is utterly meaningless outside of resolving the action of your turn. But say if you are the lucky bastard who just landed on his third orange property JUST as another player was about to land on it, and you built up property just right afterwards and screwed him over? THAT is a story that will be told in your gaming group for years. But in the end, it was the human interaction which caused the stats turn from into an event into a masterful play that is worthy of the ages.

So maybe in a reductionist outlook you'd be correct (you could say, to various degrees of accuracy depending on the specific scenario, that the stats caused the human interaction), but I don't think that really accurately reflects the situation. It is the story of the players which makes any stat iot worthwhile, not the ruleset.

A wonderful essay megan, well thought and well written.

I agree with you 100%, its the setting, and its reactions to the players, that makes or breaks a game.

Thank you for the kind words :D

Very thoughtful essay.

Thank you for the kind words :D

I believe in robust stats mainly for this reason. Even when people get excited about stats/gameplay, they're also getting excited about something which the gameplay is an abstraction of. Getting more EPs, for instance, is an abstraction of a growing economy, which is what people really care about. Stats are there to communicate facts about the world to the player. There is a "game" involved but honestly there is no way to create a multi-agent simulation without it being a game, because that structure is very central to games in general. Remember Clausewitz said "In all of the range of human activities, war most resembles a game of cards." But it's not just about the cards you're dealt, it's where you choose to play them - and why - that makes the difference. Hence why diplomacy, as Megs identifies, is the core mechanic of IOT/NESing.

I think this was a more succient response to what I said to AA. I still perfer the libertarian "as little stats as possible to make the game run" philosophy of game making, so I will disagree with the framing of this paragraph, but the core point I think is what I was trying to say in the analogy.

All in all I agree with your thesis, and had in fact been planning a similar article, although you've answered the question much more precisely than I would've managed. In my letter to CivOasis for the podcast way back when, I'd mentioned the idea of a roleplay 'critical mass', and the 'Living World' is the intended if then-undefined endpoint. I've said it before but it's always worth repeating: Multipolarity was horribly broken and dubiously managed, but the universe miraculously kept it running past its due date.

Heh, "Preciesly". And others were saying that I rambled on too much about XIV... :mischief:

I do think your concept of a critical mass and my concept of a living world is related, no doubt. However, I do want to clarify there is more to a living world than simply having a "critical mass" of RP by the players and the mod. It's also the ability to create an internally logical and consistent world that both the mod and the player like, and can use as a resource and guide when constructing interactions with the outside world. Like, despite my efforts to engage with my players in FemIOT, it ended up not working because most players either didn't like or get the setting, and that I was so desperate as a first time mod that I accepted nations that in hindsight should not have, which in turn ruined the universe for /me/ as well.

Now, FemIOT never obtained a critical mass, true (in fact one of my complaints near the end was how I thought most players weren't doing much besides expanding), but could it have ever with the issues I was having building a world that everyone (including myself) actually enjoyed? I think the answer would be no to that question.

I contest the allegation that I am diametrically opposed to statistics. What troubles me is how what began as a support mechanism to ground the universe became an end in itself (not unlike the financial sector huehuehue), and how it's fostered an attitude amongst several GMs past and present that all they have to do is make a fully-automated algorithm and they've fulfilled their existential purpose. This aforementioned article-in-planning is meant to explore the balancing act the rest of us do.

This paragraph I agree with 100% percent. I might have led my own perception of the situation (I was always a bit more radical than you were in the role of story vs stats, I will admit) cloud how I thought you thought of it, so if I put words in your mouth, I apologize.

But this paragraph by Thor, read it everyone. Please. I agree that this is a huge issue with what some people believe is the proper, and some cases only, duty of a mod for an IOT. This quest for complexity, for the sake of complexity, and only worried about the complexity, has led to the ruin of what were pretty great concepts.

We all played civ IV, right?


Link to video.

4:03. Just 4:03.

This should be the mantra of all mods.

Snip, including her third post along with this one

I really think you're missing a lot of context in Thor's posts, which makes you two really arguing over rather than with each other.

From Blackened Skies, I think everyone can see that, even if you like complex mechanics as a framework for world building and diplomacy, you hold that the former is behooved to the latter. The only reason that you care, at all, for the mechanical framework, is that it gives an output for the thing you actually care about; the world that you are actually building. And that's fine! I think that's actually great! It's not how I would approach the situation, but different strokes for different folks.

What Thor (and by extension I) are railing against, is the mindset that the creation of the mechanics is the end-all be-all, that nothing actually matters besides the actual framework, and any output that it produces are merely incidental to the situation at hand. These people want to make games, but they couldn't care less about the story within the game. They are just there to make sure everything runs smoothly and the turns are done and the game is played.

And that's an issue because the story and the world building is the collaborative glue that keeps this community together. Sure, I can and have played games with little story to them (I'm in Joy right now in fact!) but to be honest, and with all due respect to sone not trying to trash talk him, I'd be amazed if Joy actually makes it to three turns. I'm a bit worried because I didn't fully realize the complexity of the game until after I joined, and to be honest I don't think I would have if I actually did.

I will gladly admit the Conference of Bombay is unique and in a step in the right direction in terms of generating meaningful animosity and perhaps conflict between players before turn 1 even begins (and sone doing this conference is the main reason I did join tbh), but at the same point, the way it has been handled is also pretty arcadey and not realistic at all, which can detract from the atmosphere as well.

But in either case, will Joy be even remembered in 2017? It's not impossible, and I hope nothing but it that it will for sone's sake. However, if I was betting, I would bet that no one will really remember the Islamic Republic of Tagalog, or Oceania, or Unity, or the conflicts they're in, because I don't feel that the world has hit that point where it feels alive even with the Conference. And that is largely because of the lack of any world building besides with the mechanics itself. Perhaps that will be alleviated once the game proper starts, and I hope it will, but who knows.

I myself enjoy both stats centered IOTs and story IOTs. In my opinion it is the GM and the players who make the game good and enjoyable, not if it is based on stats or story.

Almost like if that's the foundation of my point or something. :mischief:

Again, that's not what I'm saying. In fact I once mentioned to Sone that if I could figure out the numbers behind Crisis in the Kremlin, I of all people might very well fast-track this alleged Holy Grail of game mechanics.

Would play, as a BTW. :p

My criticism these days isn't stats ipso facto, it's that some GMs think their primary duty is to the rules and not the players. The implication I've read in several arguments by people pushing heavy stats, particularly Sone's since-redacted polemic, is that the be-all and end-all of the game moderator is to come up with one all-encompassing formula, and then sit on one's hands except to keep the machine running. (There's also a distressing cliquish attitude toward complexity for complexity's sake, but that's an essay in itself.) The takeaway point of Megs' essay is that GMs have a responsibility to cultivate the game world beyond just updating the spreadsheets, and this requires them to think beyond pure numbers.

:agree:

I have done zero things to cultivate the world of Empires of Joy beyond the changes and revisions I make to the ruleset and spreadsheets, and the game has generated more activity in the last ten days than anybody could have possibly expected. The biggest flaw comes when you don't have these hard rules and rely on player interaction via RP. The game becomes bogged down in boring, ideological conflict with no real basis in hard reality.

Edit: This isn't to say there aren't some mild things a GM can do to "cultivate the game world". Naming my claims thread the "Conference of Bombay" and calling claim points "negotiation points" do set a mood that is different from "Claims Thread" and "Claim Points"

I already addressed this post in my response to Crezth, unintentionally, but I will clarify further some things.

Pre-activty hype is not really a good indicator of a game succeeding or not. A lot of projects (like pretty much every Tyo IOT in recent memory, or a lot of your own IOTs) generated a lot of interest and hype to it, and in each case it really ended up going nowhere.* I will admit the situation in Joy is different because you are doing a pre-game to your game, and thus you could say the game is walking the walk. But I will still reserve judgment until the game itself starts and the complex mechanics you built have to be put to the test. Because, with the exception of Cold War (which was intentionally less complex to be a homage to an earlier game), they have failed every time.

"boring, ideological conflict" is exactly what makes IOT, well, IOT! The influential games, the ones we still talk about to this day, we remember them preciesly because of the conflicts and world building that we shared with each another, and not "oh crap, this ruleset was tiiiiight". I couldn't even tell you what the hell NC's stats even did in IdIOT without having to look at the thread again, but I can tell you all about how christos trolled the world with his supercarrier while espousing the most strawman version of communism you will ever find, or terra faced actual racism from other nations for simply being ponies, and having a particular long spat with nova terra over it, etc, etc. That's the stuff people actually care about.

I don't think the /names/ are what makes the Conference of Bombay so interesting. Honestly the terminology you use has little, if any, effect in how people look at it or Joy as a whole. What I commend you for it, is finding a way for people to bicker and banter at each other trying to claim areas around the world, and are naturally setting up the first conflicts in the Joy universe. As I said before, that's actually pretty genius, and I might even consider adapting what you did there in my next IOT.

*On the flipside, if I remember correctly, there was a christos IOT that barely got any player interest but he still ran it for like a IRL year. So it works both ways.
 
I've said so in IOT chat but I'll repeat it here, you've done a wonderful job explaining what goes into an IOT to make it successful and memorable. Very nicely written. :D

Edit: As a strong proponent of stories over chat, I think you put into words what the storyist side of the argument has been trying to say for a while, we've just been thinking about it the wrong way. Myself included.
 
I believe that one of the main issues in this discussion is that both proponents of story and stats are arguing that there must be either only stats, or only narrative. I think that (and I believe it's been already said) there exists a place for both under one IOT. What matters is moderation, in my opinion. You need to create a flexible ruleset and an an interesting setting, if you would want to run a "successful" IOT. Too much story would be anarchic, but too much stats would choke down the game's creativity. Of course, different strokes for anyone, but if you manage to accomplish "flexible ruleset + interesting setting", you can expect to have a decent, engaged playerbase.
 
I believe that one of the main issues in this discussion is that both proponents of story and stats are arguing that there must be either only stats, or only narrative. I think that (and I believe it's been already said) there exists a place for both under one IOT. What matters is moderation, in my opinion. You need to create a flexible ruleset and an an interesting setting, if you would want to run a "successful" IOT. Too much story would be anarchic, but too much stats would choke down the game's creativity. Of course, different strokes for anyone, but if you manage to accomplish "flexible ruleset + interesting setting", you can expect to have a decent, engaged playerbase.

I think that is one of the foundations for my OP as well, so I don't find this controversial.

It's not a dichotomy, but you definitely need some story within the game to get the living world effect. Like think of a pizza. You need the bread (the story) for it to even be a thing. Most people expect sauce and/or cheese on the bread (stats), some people may even like their pizza extra saucy and/or cheesy, but if you really wanted to, you could forgo the sauce and/or the cheese on the pizza. People will complain, may even question if your pizza is in fact a pizza, but it still is one. But of course, the other toppings (world building) is what makes or break it. Of course, some people might eat just a cheese pizza, but people like flavor in their pizzas, and thus like to pile their favorite toppings on the pizza!

Thus, you can have an IOT with just story and world building (bread and toppings), but you really can't have the world building with just stats. You're making more of a salad (I guess a computer or board game in this anaology) than a pizza in that scenario, which is ok if you meant to make one, but you didn't.
 
Top Bottom