If we had a "roleplay focus" game, what rules would need to change?
I have a strong opinion but will hold off to see what shows up.
I have a strong opinion but will hold off to see what shows up.
If we had a "roleplay focus" game what rules?
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Any rules we might have are implicitly a change from the current ones, whether built from scratch or adjusted from what we have.
So regardless of method, what rules?
So regardless of method, what rules?
"No Decision" would actually be quite characteristic of our nation. 
Look at Clinton and Bush. As many as 80% of Americans would probably say that one or the other did things that were uncharacteristic for the nation. But it's a nice sentiment to think we could legislate it in the DG.
Look at Clinton and Bush. As many as 80% of Americans would probably say that one or the other did things that were uncharacteristic for the nation. But it's a nice sentiment to think we could legislate it in the DG.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Well, we can't make rules about what our nation's character is supposed to be. That would have to evolve and be the actually roleplaying. For good role playing we need antagonists and protagonists for a good story. There will be those who want to build a great civilization with libraries everywhere and great cathedrals. Then there will be warmongers who want to build nothing but armies.
I think the rule set for this game would need only specify Civ game play mechanics. When and how often the save is played and by who it is played. Other than that it should be open to evolution. We can start with a tribal government - toughest guy is chief and he runs things. (Who knows how we'd figure out who the toughest guy is.) Later we could have kings, then later a representative government and maybe later a fascist dictatorship. Who knows.
We should also allow for local government. Maybe all citizens must choose where they live and then each city picks it's own tough guy or elects it's own representatives. Maybe until nationalism we have to rely on local politics.
We could make a broad outline of guidelines for what should be allowed when. We come up with some mechanism for power allocation and we just have some fun.
I think the rule set for this game would need only specify Civ game play mechanics. When and how often the save is played and by who it is played. Other than that it should be open to evolution. We can start with a tribal government - toughest guy is chief and he runs things. (Who knows how we'd figure out who the toughest guy is.) Later we could have kings, then later a representative government and maybe later a fascist dictatorship. Who knows.
We should also allow for local government. Maybe all citizens must choose where they live and then each city picks it's own tough guy or elects it's own representatives. Maybe until nationalism we have to rely on local politics.
We could make a broad outline of guidelines for what should be allowed when. We come up with some mechanism for power allocation and we just have some fun.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I'm also thinking along these lines - having our DG government match the
![[civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif "Civ4 [civ4]")
civics. We don't necessarily have to match history though. Our Rome could be whatever we want it to be within the context of the civics we have at any given time.The snag is, how do we have a dictatorship? That goes against DG tradition. We can't very well elect a dictator for a fixed term and then make him subject to citizen polls. Unitil we adopt representation we need a new (roleplaying) way of picking leaders.
Any ideas anyone?
At the start of this game Ice2k4 did some very nice work attempting to make a rpg work for this game. I just read through the thread about it (near the bottom of the RP and games forum) and found the ideas in there very interesting. I'd suggest that everyone considering making the next DG an RPG should read that thread to borrow some ideas.
For the question of how to find the 'toughest guy' I would think we could manage that using a character stat system. Candidates for the office of chieftain would be pitted against one another in a duel, rather than an election, the winner would be appointed chieftain.
For the question of how to find the 'toughest guy' I would think we could manage that using a character stat system. Candidates for the office of chieftain would be pitted against one another in a duel, rather than an election, the winner would be appointed chieftain.
I don't think there's any way to make a pure toughest guy thing work. Why not? Because all the other people need a reason for being here, and having a way to influence events is that reason.
Even though elections don't directly model ancient history, consider them as metaphors for the kinds of things which did happen. For example, when the king wanted to go to war, he still needed the people to follow his lead, by agreeing to fight, or provide resources, etc. In peace, a village chieftain going against the wishes of the people might be ignored, or they might refuse to barter. Heavy disagreements might be decided with fists, or weapons.
Since people can't use real ancient age tactics in the forum, some mechanism which is available has to stand in for those activities. Polls, like them or not, are what we have.
Even though elections don't directly model ancient history, consider them as metaphors for the kinds of things which did happen. For example, when the king wanted to go to war, he still needed the people to follow his lead, by agreeing to fight, or provide resources, etc. In peace, a village chieftain going against the wishes of the people might be ignored, or they might refuse to barter. Heavy disagreements might be decided with fists, or weapons.
Since people can't use real ancient age tactics in the forum, some mechanism which is available has to stand in for those activities. Polls, like them or not, are what we have.
donsig
Low level intermediary
C'mon DaveShack use your imagination here. We're talking about roleplaying. grant2004 is on the right track with a character stat system. We don't have do just use duels. That's not how things worked in real life anyway. People became leaders because they had other people following them. We could simulate the same thing here and it will work nicely in the forum without polls. Here's an example of how it can work:
First, I'm assuming there is some sort of character stat system worked out. Whoever wants to be leader (or DP) has to post that they want that office. If there are no challengers then that person gets the office. (So far not different from the traditional elections we're all used to.) If someone challenges for the office then they have to fight it out. The form of the fight depends on the civic we have chosen as well as available techs. Let's assume that we don't have representative government nor the constitution tech and so we use the tough guy selection system rather than elections. Let's say this is a king of the hill type selection process. So our challengers battle it out for the top spot and who ever holds the hill gets the office. We'd need some randomization along with the character stats. But there can be more. Say I don't want an office. I can still get up on that hill and help the guy I want to have the office. We can't really use a poll for that since we'll all have slightly different character strengths and so (until we have real elections with universal suffrage) our votes are not equal. I think we''d also want a bit of randomization in there to spice things up.
Now we'd have to develop this further. King of the hill might work for tribal but it can't be the sole power mechanism until we're a republic. Money will will eventually play a part in the power structure but we shouldn't add that into the mix until we get currency. We'd need a system of land ownership, etc. Half the fun could be making this stuff up as we go.
The big stumbling block as I see it is roleplaying games work best with a gamemaster. The best DG RPG we had was in the second CIV III DG where Shaitan was running the show. It might be possible to do this all without a gamemaster but I'm not sure how we'd go about doing that. Any suggestions from anyone?
Well I've never been involved in an RP but I think a GM seems necessary. Keeping track of stats, wealth, land owner-ship, simulating fights, elections, etc etc seems like a lot of work that can't be expected to just happen without a designated person to do it.
I know a GM is supposed to be impartial, so we either have to have someone who isn't participating in the game do it, but that's quite a lot of work for very little gain. I think we can manage to have the GM be an elected official, I know that other jobs in the DG require impartial actions, and they have worked in many DGs. A GM should be elected by traditional polls, and should be subject to recall, as keeping a fair GM will be an absolutely necessary part of this game and we don't want to restrict the citizen's ability to do that in any way.
I know a GM is supposed to be impartial, so we either have to have someone who isn't participating in the game do it, but that's quite a lot of work for very little gain. I think we can manage to have the GM be an elected official, I know that other jobs in the DG require impartial actions, and they have worked in many DGs. A GM should be elected by traditional polls, and should be subject to recall, as keeping a fair GM will be an absolutely necessary part of this game and we don't want to restrict the citizen's ability to do that in any way.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I hear your concerns grant2004 but having a GM running things will be a lot of work for the person. Do you really think we can find someone dependable who will want to do all that work out of the goodness of his heart? I doubt we can get anyone. Electing someone runs the danger of the electee not doing the job. In the traditional DG we could have deputies or rely on citizen polls or let the DP make the decision. We can't really do that with a GM can we?
I think we're better off if we rely on the players to do the gm work. Hopefully that will be part of the roleplaying as well. Whoever likes doing maps can help with tracking who owns land and that sort of thing. We will need someone to handle the various randomizations and your idea to use regular elections for that sort of thing is great. We should try to keep the workload down for these things though. Another idea would be to pay the elected gms for good work performed. We'd pay them in roleplaying currency (whatever that is at any given stage of the game). That gives people a little incentive to help run things. We'd just have to do this without unbalancing the game.
We could eliminate randomizing the original character stats but allowing people to make their own. We could use a system where everyone gets x points to distribute amongst the skills any way they want. We'd all have the same number of skill points so we'd be equal in that respect but we'd all be different since we'd allocate them in our own ways. We'd need a way to allow characters to grow and we'd need a way for people to start a new character if theirs died or they just wanted a different type of character.
I think we're better off if we rely on the players to do the gm work. Hopefully that will be part of the roleplaying as well. Whoever likes doing maps can help with tracking who owns land and that sort of thing. We will need someone to handle the various randomizations and your idea to use regular elections for that sort of thing is great. We should try to keep the workload down for these things though. Another idea would be to pay the elected gms for good work performed. We'd pay them in roleplaying currency (whatever that is at any given stage of the game). That gives people a little incentive to help run things. We'd just have to do this without unbalancing the game.
We could eliminate randomizing the original character stats but allowing people to make their own. We could use a system where everyone gets x points to distribute amongst the skills any way they want. We'd all have the same number of skill points so we'd be equal in that respect but we'd all be different since we'd allocate them in our own ways. We'd need a way to allow characters to grow and we'd need a way for people to start a new character if theirs died or they just wanted a different type of character.
Oh, you're talking about a RPG which uses civ as the backdrop. I see that as different from a democracy game with a strong roleplay element.
I think it's a myth that a GM can't be a player. A good GM must be honest, reasonably mature, reliable, and proficient. Anyone with these qualities that the players find acceptable is likely to be the type of person who can handle a dual GM and player role. Two such people would be even better equipped for the dual role. Pure GMs are rare, so the game would have a better chance of success if a player role is possible.
I think it's a myth that a GM can't be a player. A good GM must be honest, reasonably mature, reliable, and proficient. Anyone with these qualities that the players find acceptable is likely to be the type of person who can handle a dual GM and player role. Two such people would be even better equipped for the dual role. Pure GMs are rare, so the game would have a better chance of success if a player role is possible.
donsig
Low level intermediary
You're just now getting that?
I think the job is even too big for two GM's. I'm all for designing a system where we can play and help run the game, too.
So, any ideas for what character stats we want? We need strength for sure for king of the hill games..
Falcon02
General
Honestly that's the kind of RPG I'd prefer to avoid.
The Civ III DG2 RPG (which worked much as described) was cool for a while but eventually it grew into a seperate beast. As Daveshack said, it became an RPG (or more specifically an economics simulation) with the Civ game as a backdrop. Not a Civ game with an RPG story, or RPG based Civ decisions (ie. how I view Civ III DG1 RPG).
The problem with the later is it requires individual citizens to be more creative, coming up with stories based on events in the game, on which other people can work off of. And not everyone has that sort of creativity.
The RPG with DG backdrop turns into, who can amass the most money to amass the largest army, most land, toughest character, etc. One reason why DGII I just about abandoned the RPG section after a month or two. It also tends to add up to who can spend the most time looking after their RPG assets to help make them grow. This in my opinion tends to lack the creativity, the "fun" of the other RPG style.
The Civ game should be the center, in my mind. But the RPG should add flavor to that Civ game and guide decisions.
The Civ III DG2 RPG (which worked much as described) was cool for a while but eventually it grew into a seperate beast. As Daveshack said, it became an RPG (or more specifically an economics simulation) with the Civ game as a backdrop. Not a Civ game with an RPG story, or RPG based Civ decisions (ie. how I view Civ III DG1 RPG).
The problem with the later is it requires individual citizens to be more creative, coming up with stories based on events in the game, on which other people can work off of. And not everyone has that sort of creativity.
The RPG with DG backdrop turns into, who can amass the most money to amass the largest army, most land, toughest character, etc. One reason why DGII I just about abandoned the RPG section after a month or two. It also tends to add up to who can spend the most time looking after their RPG assets to help make them grow. This in my opinion tends to lack the creativity, the "fun" of the other RPG style.
The Civ game should be the center, in my mind. But the RPG should add flavor to that Civ game and guide decisions.
me said:
There have been so many comments like this one over the past several years that I couldn't believe anyone would even try a Civ3 DG2 type setup again. If you're serious about going that far, you might want to have another preference poll.
donsig
Low level intermediary
There have been so many comments like this one over the past several years that I couldn't believe anyone would even try a Civ3 DG2 type setup again. If you're serious about going that far, you might want to have another preference poll.
I'm not suggesting we redo that. While that was alot of fun we don't have Shaitan here to run it. For one thing, the RPG was a separate and distinct beast from the civ game that was it's backdrop. While the civ game had an impact on the RPG, the RPG had no influence at all on the civ game. (As much fun as the Asphynxian Ball was it also had no influence on the civ game.) I'm proposing a more inter-twined game where the RPG determines some civ moves and visa-versa.
There have been complaints that the old RPG was just an economic simulator. It was also derided because we had stock markets before we had currency. Yet, we try to simulate a civilization in despotism by holding regular elections.
I'm proposing a despotism with a despot. A kingdom with a king, etc. In short a game where the power to make civ moves is tied to the type of civics we have chosen for our country. A game where this power is divided in different ways as the game progresses.I wish I had time to explain these ideas further - but I have homework to do.
Falcon02
General
When I think of the RPG Game influencing the civ game I think of the Destroyer that was hurried to launch a rescue mission to save Ehecatl who had gotten caught in the cross fire between the Iroquois and he crippled Greeks. And the Forest preserves.
However, these were very minor impacts to the actual civ game, ideally I would like to see much more. I'd also like to see more of the stories like the Asphynxian Ball.
I personally was not one of the people who had a problem with the stock exchange before currency (though I did have a problem with being allowed to build/sell items a few techs ahead of the game). Though, I understand the argument about Dictatorship (in game) + Democracy (in forums) does not exactly add up to a true, complete RPG. The problem though is I have a problem of finding a "fair" way of going about that. As much as I enjoy the RPG I feel like giving everyone the ability to participate and a say is inherent to the demogame. This goes beyond the ability to "revolt" and depose a leader. And with a Dictatorship there's no way I can think of to ensure that.
However, these were very minor impacts to the actual civ game, ideally I would like to see much more. I'd also like to see more of the stories like the Asphynxian Ball.
I personally was not one of the people who had a problem with the stock exchange before currency (though I did have a problem with being allowed to build/sell items a few techs ahead of the game). Though, I understand the argument about Dictatorship (in game) + Democracy (in forums) does not exactly add up to a true, complete RPG. The problem though is I have a problem of finding a "fair" way of going about that. As much as I enjoy the RPG I feel like giving everyone the ability to participate and a say is inherent to the demogame. This goes beyond the ability to "revolt" and depose a leader. And with a Dictatorship there's no way I can think of to ensure that.
I think we're starting to make progress.
One way to handle the duality of having a democracy game but not having "democracy" would be to make different people's votes count differently, depending on their "stats" and the type of decision. Someone with a high value for a "strength" stat might get more votes on wartime questions, and less votes for research. An organization stat might give more influence over city builds, and a spiritual stat more influence over religion and perhaps research.
The tough guy approach with winner takes all isn't as appealing to the masses (that concept turns me off instantly if you didn't notice), but an overall influence game might work. Relatively balanced powers and the ability to specialize would help the game, and so would the need to actually participate, since merely voting without participation might give the least influence. And it's quite realistic for ancient societies.
Some way would be needed for people to change their stats. Random events could be one way. Another is to reward accurate predictions about the civ game. Yet another way would be to hold civ related contests and give proportional numbers of points based on results in the contest. We could even hold the occasional election, where the results of the election don't choose the official, but rather they modify the influence parameters.
Donsig, hope my post doesn't steal your thunder. I'm getting
enough that if I don't write it down today, it might be gone tomorrow. 
One way to handle the duality of having a democracy game but not having "democracy" would be to make different people's votes count differently, depending on their "stats" and the type of decision. Someone with a high value for a "strength" stat might get more votes on wartime questions, and less votes for research. An organization stat might give more influence over city builds, and a spiritual stat more influence over religion and perhaps research.
The tough guy approach with winner takes all isn't as appealing to the masses (that concept turns me off instantly if you didn't notice), but an overall influence game might work. Relatively balanced powers and the ability to specialize would help the game, and so would the need to actually participate, since merely voting without participation might give the least influence. And it's quite realistic for ancient societies.
Some way would be needed for people to change their stats. Random events could be one way. Another is to reward accurate predictions about the civ game. Yet another way would be to hold civ related contests and give proportional numbers of points based on results in the contest. We could even hold the occasional election, where the results of the election don't choose the official, but rather they modify the influence parameters.
Donsig, hope my post doesn't steal your thunder. I'm getting
enough that if I don't write it down today, it might be gone tomorrow. 
ice2k4
Emperor
I don't think Donsig's idea is too far fetched, however I don't think it should be used in that way. Now I haven't had time to think anything through yet, so excuse me if I'm just giving broad ideas as suggestions, but instead of this fight for the throne type thing, a battle could be used for a coup d'etat, and it wouldn't be personal stats (not sure if you were implying this) that would be used, but a sort of power ranking in followers, money and maybe other categories that usually affect how well one can seize power of government and maintain it.
I strongly believe that the key to a successful game of this nature is to develop a Constitution in the beginning of the game, and then a very loose government defining article. The Constitution must allow us to change governments quickly and effectively. Government types could be defined early in the game, with a set of rules, or they could be developed as the game goes on by the citizens, possibly a hybrid of both.
In the spoiler, here is an example of a sketch of how government systems can work.
Example:
Now while using a model like that, we can have roleplaying governments other than democracies, but we would be able to ensure there would be no abuse of power. Peaceful coups can be lead easily if they feel that the leader is not including everyone or is making poor decisions, and violent coups can be made at any time by anyone (or any party that may combine there power.) However, violent coups go back to a start power system.
I strongly believe that the key to a successful game of this nature is to develop a Constitution in the beginning of the game, and then a very loose government defining article. The Constitution must allow us to change governments quickly and effectively. Government types could be defined early in the game, with a set of rules, or they could be developed as the game goes on by the citizens, possibly a hybrid of both.
In the spoiler, here is an example of a sketch of how government systems can work.
Example:
Spoiler :
Now while using a model like that, we can have roleplaying governments other than democracies, but we would be able to ensure there would be no abuse of power. Peaceful coups can be lead easily if they feel that the leader is not including everyone or is making poor decisions, and violent coups can be made at any time by anyone (or any party that may combine there power.) However, violent coups go back to a start power system.
Similar threads
