General rules for All IOT Games
- Thread starter CivOasis
- Start date
Patriotic_Fool
The Mitt ©
Don't we have em done already? What more is there to discuss.
I'll sticky a final version, if someone posts it.
mayor
Heart & Mind
Questions one might have concerning the rules, amendments one might wish to propose, complaints on might have about the rules. To sum it up: General rules for All IOT Games
On TWC, we have local mods, or regular members who are given the power to moderate one subforum (generally the ones which have nothing to do with Total War games) and not much else. And if LMs can access sensitive forums, then
Hey everyone look I'm drawing attention to myself.
We don't need any global rules that aren't unanimously agreed upon by frequent hosts.
Gah? And double gah for the plus sign.
Against the rules and crap.
Why do you always show up when we're having meta conversations like this? Not that I want you to bugger off, I just think it's curious how you refuse to play IOTs but want to give us your opinion on everything. Also how you know these threads pop up... have you bookmarked IOT?
Instead of looking at a number, just look at the host.
It isn't, but I want to know how many posts I have actually made. Also makes it easier for the two people who register to play IOT every year - having to spam other sections is not an incentive of any kind.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
It is important to have PC. Not only will it force a cut down on spam but it will also lead IOT to have similiar standards like NES. The IOT community needs a good reconisition. Post count may also lead us to be empowered more, to ensure the enshrining of GM powers and of countering problems better.
Robert Can't
Éponine
Just to question rule 2 of the proposed great rule set. What would determine removing a player from the game? If say the player was defeated by an NPC or the like (As was Linkman during Spirit of Man) would that require GM approval? If so I think it detracts from NPCs as a whole in the more cooperative games (once again exemplified by Spirit of Man) as the NPC is present in the game to be a threat to players or add drama and tension. If the NPC can't destroy a player when that would be the realistic outcome then it reduces that tension and drama.
I understand that it wouldn't be totally removing the option of destroying a player if the situation is realistic and the destruction wasn't motivated by the player's style, person or abilities. But where would the mods draw the line between a player that is destroyed because it was realistic and a one that's just being annoying. What if they are being annoying and its realistic? Also if RP is heavily factored into the ruleset (as was also with Spirit of Man) and the player ends up losing a war because they were weakened by bad RP would that still be interpreted as realistic or as someone being wronged by the GM for their unique playing style?
I think this can be applied to rule 3 as well.
On a similar point for rules of this kind and the relationship with RP what about in the way that RP is factored into the rules? It is impossible to state in the ruleset all possible outcomes and RP yet still they take a key role. If a player RPs that an earthquake strikes their capital then I would subtract some infrastructure or something like that. That would make sense and be seen as reasonable even if I didn't declare in the ruleset that if you RP an earthquake you lose infrastructure. I might have used some sweepingly general sentence like "RP will have repercussions." Would the player still be able to appeal that my choice of removing infrastructure was incorrect. Or in the case of larger events like civil war would the player be able to protest if his empire was split in half with a NPC in control of the other half for the duration of the war?
I think its impossible to pin a hard and fast rule on roleplay repercussions and thus impossible to tie on rules for GM responses to player actions. I think it is near impossible to draw the line.
I understand that it wouldn't be totally removing the option of destroying a player if the situation is realistic and the destruction wasn't motivated by the player's style, person or abilities. But where would the mods draw the line between a player that is destroyed because it was realistic and a one that's just being annoying. What if they are being annoying and its realistic? Also if RP is heavily factored into the ruleset (as was also with Spirit of Man) and the player ends up losing a war because they were weakened by bad RP would that still be interpreted as realistic or as someone being wronged by the GM for their unique playing style?
I think this can be applied to rule 3 as well.
On a similar point for rules of this kind and the relationship with RP what about in the way that RP is factored into the rules? It is impossible to state in the ruleset all possible outcomes and RP yet still they take a key role. If a player RPs that an earthquake strikes their capital then I would subtract some infrastructure or something like that. That would make sense and be seen as reasonable even if I didn't declare in the ruleset that if you RP an earthquake you lose infrastructure. I might have used some sweepingly general sentence like "RP will have repercussions." Would the player still be able to appeal that my choice of removing infrastructure was incorrect. Or in the case of larger events like civil war would the player be able to protest if his empire was split in half with a NPC in control of the other half for the duration of the war?
I think its impossible to pin a hard and fast rule on roleplay repercussions and thus impossible to tie on rules for GM responses to player actions. I think it is near impossible to draw the line.
Because my NPCs are likely never to be powerful enough to take out a player, and RP doesn't determine wars in my games, I hadn't thought of that.
I would say all's good, for the NPC, if mechanics are followed, and either could follow other procedures if the decision was controversial.
Edit: Why is an emoticon affixed to my post?
I would say all's good, for the NPC, if mechanics are followed, and either could follow other procedures if the decision was controversial.
Edit: Why is an emoticon affixed to my post?
Robert Can't
Éponine
Because You're Awesome?
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
But I am more Awesome.
It happens to me a lot when I am posting from my phone. I accidentally click the radio button of a random emoticon when I am trying to get out of the text box and down to the submit button.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
It will though, at least at the symbolic level. But it is the symbolic level that will drive change.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
I would just say that I have lurked the IOT forums for...I dunno... ever since IOT VI: Aftermath. I mostly didn't play due to a mixture of lack of time, dislike of rulesets (many of them rub me the wrong way), or dislike of how the game is shaping up.
@ Robert Can't
In the end, some of the questions coming up are less Moderator/GM power and more GM/player power. Does the GM have power to outright kick a player? If so, what reasons? Does a player have the power to completely mold his nation with RP? If not, what are the limits? These questions, as I have continued to say, are best done this way. The GM explains his desired atmosphere and how things go down in his thread. Is it serious or silly? Are RP only positive, or have multiple consequences? ect. Then of course, if a player violates an individual GM's rule, the GM may react as he deem necessary- even contact moderators.
For example, I said in my NES:
Direct benefits are merely longer write ups and understanding. Indirect effects? Factions within nations, diverse NPCs, and dynamic control of a PC in his own nation. In fact, I have allowed several players write their own collapses into civil wars because they understand that as players, they have agency while I, as a moderator, will ensure their actions won't infringe on the enjoyment of any other player. Currently, a player is developing a story arc to completely subordinate an NPC under his interest, and I allowed him to do it if the arc is interesting enough and showed more about his nation. As the revelation of each nation's development and character is the primary goal of my NES and the stories within, having it show through civil war, assassination, warfare, drafting? All valid.
Having an definite course of action/the constitution of the correct process for moderator intervention is a step towards this, although whether it is the best step I will not comment.
@ Robert Can't
In the end, some of the questions coming up are less Moderator/GM power and more GM/player power. Does the GM have power to outright kick a player? If so, what reasons? Does a player have the power to completely mold his nation with RP? If not, what are the limits? These questions, as I have continued to say, are best done this way. The GM explains his desired atmosphere and how things go down in his thread. Is it serious or silly? Are RP only positive, or have multiple consequences? ect. Then of course, if a player violates an individual GM's rule, the GM may react as he deem necessary- even contact moderators.
For example, I said in my NES:
Direct benefits are merely longer write ups and understanding. Indirect effects? Factions within nations, diverse NPCs, and dynamic control of a PC in his own nation. In fact, I have allowed several players write their own collapses into civil wars because they understand that as players, they have agency while I, as a moderator, will ensure their actions won't infringe on the enjoyment of any other player. Currently, a player is developing a story arc to completely subordinate an NPC under his interest, and I allowed him to do it if the arc is interesting enough and showed more about his nation. As the revelation of each nation's development and character is the primary goal of my NES and the stories within, having it show through civil war, assassination, warfare, drafting? All valid.
Having an definite course of action/the constitution of the correct process for moderator intervention is a step towards this, although whether it is the best step I will not comment.
How about you (the IOT community) choose a member who can work with me to better understand the complex IC vs OOC interactions that happen in a game. This might prevent unnecessary intervention and provide a knowledgeable source for me in making decisions about the best course of action. this could be a rotated position if you all want. They would be an "unofficial" helper for now.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
I humbly nominate myself.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I'd suggest Thorvald of Lym. He's a fairly respected GM and player, is quick to speak out when games degenerate into fisticuffs, and has a sense of community obligation.
Patchy
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,350
I see nothing wrong with that.
