Indefinite preNES: Fantasy

[LDiCesare]

I didn't catch, did you prefer multiple worlds or one world? I understand that you don't like the mirrored worlds

I like two worlds as in MoM. I've been thinking to make a MoM NES for a while.
One concern with worlds startign as mirror is you need a reason for them to start this way, since they'll eventually diverge. Why would worlds be similar?
However, I disagree with Masada on the idea that having separate worlds would as well mean playing in 2 different NESes.

I'll reiterate. We might as well play two different NESes. And how does that work in terms of game-play? How do you reconcile that? I can move faster... well what does that actually mean in concrete terms.

One of the examples was: If you die in one world, you pop in the other. This means a fight won in one world would mean many fighters would spawn in the other, but mostly the losers. They'd probably keep fighting there and win the day, so most wins in one world would be losses in the other. That's actually a mirror when I think of it.
Moving faster means if you control two towers/gateways in one world you can more or less teleport all armies from one to the other as long as you control the roads between them in the faster world. If you ever played MoM, this has real and important effects.
There can also be a lot of things which can be done only or better in one world than in the other, which means trade between the worlds will be a must.
Finally, there can be effects of crossing the worlds that are not known to the players.

 

[Masada]

However, I disagree with Masada on the idea that having separate worlds would as well mean playing in 2 different NESes.

Well, what your suggesting is really not that we have two worlds, but two separate continents effectively which you can can pop in and pop out off at a whim. That's not unfair when you consider how people rationalise this kind of thing. If that happens it becomes a fairly worthless conceit which we've seen any number of times in fantasy NESes here.

One of the examples was: If you die in one world, you pop in the other. This means a fight won in one world would mean many fighters would spawn in the other, but mostly the losers. They'd probably keep fighting there and win the day, so most wins in one world would be losses in the other. That's actually a mirror when I think of it.

Consider just how painful that would be to moderate. Let alone, how messy that would get from a player perspective.

Moving faster means if you control two towers/gateways in one world you can more or less teleport all armies from one to the other as long as you control the roads between them in the faster world. If you ever played MoM, this has real and important effects.

I'm not a big one for instantaneous travel and that's a matter of taste but I don't see why this would make the game all that much more interesting.

There can also be a lot of things which can be done only or better in one world than in the other, which means trade between the worlds will be a must.

*shrug* Trade is a pain in the ass to model and even when its done most people won't use it. Its something of a dead game mechanic for driving interaction. War is far easier and has far less uncertainty. Its unfortunate, but its just how NESing works.

Finally, there can be effects of crossing the worlds that are not known to the players.

That will end up being some derivation of: "The ways between the worlds is closing! There is much danger now." Its a pretty tired trope.

 

[LDiCesare]

Trade is a pain in the ass to model and even when its done most people won't use it. Its something of a dead game mechanic for driving interaction. War is far easier and has far less uncertainty. Its unfortunate, but its just how NESing works. .

This hasn't been my experience in DominionNES nor the FfH NES's.
In DominionNES in particular, the nations that grew to be powerful (Mictlan, Arshnoc) were those that traded most. When nations lost some trade routes, it could hurt them a lot.
Furthermore, war is only a means to an end. Trade goods, riches, fertile land, are what people fight for. Having goods and riches that only exist in the other world mean you will want to go there. Trade or fight, it's your choice.

That will end up being some derivation of: "The ways between the worlds is closing! There is much danger now." Its a pretty tired trope.

Absolutely not. I ment that when you have travelled, if you stay in the other world for a while, you may change. In ways unknown. It's got nothing to do with the closing of a gate.

 

[Masada]

This hasn't been my experience in DominionNES nor the FfH NES's.

I'm still left to conclude that you haven't dealt with any of the issues I raised. And tacking rules on top to simulate trade badly doesn't solve the issue.

Absolutely not. I ment that when you have travelled, if you stay in the other world for a while, you may change. In ways unknown. It's got nothing to do with the closing of a gate.

It still doesn't sound all that interesting. It 'changes' you, in ways 'unknown'. This kind of set-up is pretty much stock material in bad pulp fantasy.

 

[LDiCesare]

I'm still left to conclude that you haven't dealt with any of the issues I raised. And tacking rules on top to simulate trade badly doesn't solve the issue.

The issues you raised were:

pain in the ass to model and even when its done most people won't use it.

PITA may be true but it's the mod's problem. "Most wouldn't use it" is irrelevant if some people do use it and benefit from it. If some players don't build an army and get crushed, then it's bad for them. If some players don't use trade and get a disadvantage, it's bad for them.

And tacking rules on top to simulate trade badly doesn't solve the issue.

Which issue? That people don't use it? How do you define badly in the first place concerning a simulation? If the result is that people who trade get a benefit over those who don't, that those who stop trading get a hit to their economy, then it's simulated well enough to my taste.

It still doesn't sound all that interesting. It 'changes' you, in ways 'unknown'. This kind of set-up is pretty much stock material in bad pulp fantasy.

it might be found that sacrificing virgins is actually giving horrors shape and form and that they've been slowly assimilating our society.

Ok, so in your example, your society is 'changed' into an horror-based society, and this was 'unknown' because it's been foudnd out later. What's different here? That you decided to blood sacrifice in one case, that you decided to settle another world in another case. The blood sacrifice is a player's decision, the existence of the other world is not, but that's about all the difference I can see.

It might be the case that the mod doesn't even tell us what the mechanics are. We might just start, be given a few hints and sent on our merry-way in true fresh-start style.

Ok, so not knowing what happens when you travel to another world is not interesting, but not knowing why you travel to another world is.
We'll have to disagree on what's cliché, or interesting, I'm afraid.
(I think Ragnarok is terribly cliché and uninteresting by the way.)

 

[Masada]

PITA may be true but it's the mod's problem. "Most wouldn't use it" is irrelevant if some people do use it and benefit from it. If some players don't build an army and get crushed, then it's bad for them. If some players don't use trade and get a disadvantage, it's bad for them.

In sum, you agree that mods can't model it/account for it and that players don't tend to use it. I'm left only to conclude that trade in NESing doesn't have an intrinsic value of itself. Its an afterthought. That's problematic.

Which issue? That people don't use it? How do you define badly in the first place concerning a simulation? If the result is that people who trade get a benefit over those who don't, that those who stop trading get a hit to their economy, then it's simulated well enough to my taste.

Yeah, cool. But if you think that the use of model/simulation necessarily implies simplicity you would be wrong. It might be that your tastes lie in doing homage's to a video-game mod. I don't mind. That's fine. Boardgames are fun. But you can't blame for pointing an objectively bad representation of trade. We can disagree with the specifics but X * ( 1 - Y ) isn't going to fool anyone.

Ok, so in your example, your society is 'changed' into an horror-based society, and this was 'unknown' because it's been foudnd out later. What's different here? That you decided to blood sacrifice in one case, that you decided to settle another world in another case. The blood sacrifice is a player's decision, the existence of the other world is not, but that's about all the difference I can see.

I don't actually get what your saying here.

Ok, so not knowing what happens when you travel to another world is not interesting, but not knowing why you travel to another world is.

Or really what the point of this is.

We'll have to disagree on what's cliché, or interesting, I'm afraid.

Sure.

(I think Ragnarok is terribly cliché and uninteresting by the way.)

I guess the salient point is that we shouldn't really know any of this at the start. If there is in-fact some war in the heavens and we're some sort of gestalt consciousness that's just sprung into being we should only be aware of the things that they would be aware of. Personally, having an evolving dynamic meta narrative the fundamentalist of which were not certain about would be awesome. Conversely, if we're the survivors of the previous age it might be the case that we only remember what actually happened to a limited extent. If we're the chosen of the Gods fighting it out then we can probably know more. Nutranurse's NES is a pretty cool example of the kind of this kind of meta-narrative. Its also a horrible cliche, yes, and makes for something of an inevitable conclusion doesn't it, no?

 

[The Strategos]

Rules should evolve. They shouldn't be static.

This is something I've been working on, except the rules don't evolve as much as players use different rule modules based on their government, economy, tech, etc.

 

[Immaculate]

I would just like to declare an intention to play in your NES once its ready.

Regarding the discussions, in my opinion, the single greatest aspect to any decisions involving game setting or mechanics is "Does it excite and motivate the moderator?" These games live and die by their moderators, not the players and if the moderator isn't motivated or excited to maintain the NES, the NES will die. So ultimately, the moderator needs to consider everything the players have suggested and make a decision based on what they want to play.

 

[bombshoo]

I just stumbled upon this again while looking for another thread. A lot of good brainstorming was done in this thread and it would be a shame to go to waste. Was any of this ever put to use?

 

[Angst]

The NES was really all about creating a fantasy world; I felt it got out of hand eventually for my own interests.

If you want the world, you may take it.

 

[Ninja Dude]

I just stumbled upon this again while looking for another thread. A lot of good brainstorming was done in this thread and it would be a shame to go to waste. Was any of this ever put to use?

Go back to slaving on BombNESIII. Grrrrrr.