IOT Organisational and Discussion Thread

[christos200]

Christos, for God's sake, use the revised map I posted above.

I had not see it. Thanks for the map.

what of horsemen, spearmen and other warriors that will be in the game?

This is just an early ruleset. I am still developing it.

what of the Emperor?

The Emperor has no power.

 

[Ailedhoo]

The Emperor has no power.

Being a symbolic head of Japan is of not power?

 

[christos200]

Well, I know that, but for gameplay reasons, we will have to ignore that part of history.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

You made a game with a freakin' genocide mechanic with success odds of 60%. Don't talk to me about gameplay.

 

[christos200]

It was to represent the ethnic violence and genocides in Africa after the creation of independent African states.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

And you couldn't think of a better way to handle such a delicate subject?

 

[Ailedhoo]

It was to represent the ethnic violence and genocides in Africa after the creation of independent African states.

Actually it was a racist take since the way you did was... questionable.

As for the Emperor of Japan: your ignoring is going to the make a mear risk game. You may as well just have a world map since your ignoring the nature of Japan, just as you focused primally in the negative sides in Africa. The... occurences that occured in Africa is more complex then your mechanics suggest. I am afraid your GMing needs serius improvement.

 

[JohannaK]

The actual GMing seems to be decent. Its the game design that fails.

 

[Ailedhoo]

The actual GMing seems to be decent. Its the game design that fails.

Alas ChristosIOT 1 had a problem in the management of the NPCs, especilly as they were given to threaten players by the GM instead of players setting with each other. For what Tani is reguarded in NPC management he at least did not do what happened in ChristosIOT.

 

[Civ'ed]

I might attempt an IOT around this map which I colored in some day:

Spoiler :

It would revolve a lot less around combat, and allow players a lot more choice in diplomacy.
Would anyone be interested in such a premise?

 

[christos200]

And you couldn't think of a better way to handle such a delicate subject?

Well, it was not the best choice, I agree, but I was using the game as an expirament for some ideas I had. For example, the idea that a parliament could Veto your spending. The genocide mechanic was just an another idea I had and I wanted to try.

Actually it was a racist take since the way you did was... questionable.

What do you mean by saying questionable? I had no intention of being racist.

And the genocide mechanic existed to actually avoid wars. It was the only way for a player to take over a country without destroying his economy, but it would give cassus belli to everyone to invade the nation that commited the genocide.

As for the Emperor of Japan: your ignoring is going to the make a mear risk game.

As I already said, the game has not been fully developed yet. Also, the Emperor was mainly a symbolic figure at that time. The Shogun had all real power. If I will add an Emperor mechanic, then it would just give a small bonus.

just as you focused primally in the negative sides in Africa.

I did not try to focus on the negative side of Africa. Because there is a genocide mechanic, it does not mean that you have to use it. You could as well develop your nation to become a powerful economy.

The... occurences that occured in Africa is more complex then your mechanics suggest.

This is a game. I tried to make it simple for gameplay reasons.

Alas ChristosIOT 1 had a problem in the management of the NPCs, especilly as they were given to threaten players by the GM instead of players setting with each other.

In ChristosIOT, the Human NPC's were created when I decided to NPC the nations of in-active players. So, I tried to develop them and make them like the PC nations. They would have their own personality, goals and will want to win the game.

And just because 2 NPC's were against you, it does not mean that the NPC mechanic is wrong. let's not forget that you were allied with 2 or more NPC's.

As a GM, I prefer if NPC's try to actually win the game and compete with the players. Otherwise, what is the reason for NPC's? This is at least my opinion as a GM.

I am afraid your GMing needs serius improvement.

I never said that I was a very good GM. The only IOT that I GM'ed and lasted for some time was ChristosIOT that lasted 11 turns.

Would anyone be interested in such a premise?

It seems interesting.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I've just enacted a stimulus every turn in my games so players don't need to worry about being overtaken by minor NPCs. As for majors - well, that's a chance for politicking on a player's part. Get your friends to take over the biggest one, as happened to Italy in MP3.

I'm also proud to announce my next game will have no secret stats. Instead you'll be given a ranking - S, A, B, C, D or E.

The less hard numbers involved the more difficult it becomes to game the system.

 

[Ailedhoo]

What do you mean by saying questionable? I had no intention of being racist.

Forgive me but the way you portrey Africa (and the "Ottomons" in ChristosIOT) were... charactures...

And the genocide mechanic existed to actually avoid wars. It was the only way for a player to take over a country without destroying his economy, but it would give cassus belli to everyone to invade the nation that commited the genocide.

There are ways to take over a country without destroying one's ecomony that does not involve killing the population there. Plus war plans should seek how a people treat the populace, not a mechanic in stone. Flexibility is the way.

As I already said, the game has not been fully developed yet. Also, the Emperor was mainly a symbolic figure at that time. The Shogun had all real power. If I will add an Emperor mechanic, then it would just give a small bonus.

Symbolic does not mean powerless. Also I suggest to talk to JoanK on the way Japan was.

I did not try to focus on the negative side of Africa. Because there is a genocide mechanic, it does not mean that you have to use it. You could as well develop your nation to become a powerful economy.

The mechanics were too simple for a ecomonic game.

This is a game. I tried to make it simple for gameplay reasons.

If you want a simple game then just get a risk map and let only basic IOT style settings. You set it in a alterative history of World War One.

In ChristosIOT, the Human NPC's were created when I decided to NPC the nations of in-active players. So, I tried to develop them and make them like the PC nations. They would have their own personality, goals and will want to win the game.

So they play to win? That is not a IOT style. Their personalities were "we will nuke you if you do not do as we say!" They had not their own personalities but were also like basic Civ AIs on easy. Also the "play to win" mindest if something you should avoid in setting in a IOT game unless you wanted a pure risk, especilly from the minds of your NPCs!

And just because 2 NPC's were against you, it does not mean that the NPC mechanic is wrong. let's not forget that you were allied with 2 or more NPC's.

You think I am against your NPCs because of that? I am commenting on how you try to force the players to do stuff instead of making the players form. By that look at even Tani's MP3: the NPCs do act with power but they do not dominate above the NPCs. Your drones provided a challange (although the Ottomans, apart from possible a racist characture, were not a way to provide challange). Anyway your human NPCs were not well enforced.

As a GM, I prefer if NPC's try to actually win the game and compete with the players. Otherwise, what is the reason for NPC's? This is at least my opinion as a GM.

NPCs are there to add to the expereince, not to try to win the game. They are purpose to serve the game. They are there for characture, not to be players!

 

[Tani Coyote]

Of course we all know Enerjak was glorious.

That aside.

The stimulus system is really the easiest way to compensate for player mismanagement and keep them ahead of NPCs. It's the goal of the governing powers to correct market failure, and market failure doesn't even begin to describe what tends to happen in IOT at times. If I had a nickel for every time orders have shot a player in the foot...

Fortunately I've always been ready with bandages. Ready to compensate others when a zerg rush occurs, or ready to raise everyone's industry to keep them ahead of the approaching NPC horde. After MP1 I discovered that if there are to be NPCs there needs to be some method to keep players ahead of them, the minor ones anyway.

 

[christos200]

The mechanics were too simple for a ecomonic game.

I have to disagree in this. The mechanics allowed players to develop their economy and play an economic game if they wanted so.

So they play to win? That is not a IOT style.

Nope.avi

I am commenting on how you try to force the players to do stuff instead of making the players form.

I do not try to force anyone to do certain stuff in my games.

Your drones provided a challange (although the Ottomans, apart from possible a racist characture, were not a way to provide challange).

I do not see how the Ottomans in ChristosIOT were racist.

NPCs are there to add to the expereince, not to try to win the game. They are purpose to serve the game. They are there for characture, not to be players!

My opinion is that they should act like players and try to win.

Forgive me but the way you portrey Africa (and the "Ottomons" in ChristosIOT) were... charactures...

I do not understand the meaning of this.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I have to disagree in this. The mechanics allowed players to develop their economy and play an economic game if they wanted so.

"Insert money for factories to make money" is hardly a ecomonic game.

Nope.avi

So why do we not call IOT Risk then? Seriusly: "play to win" is a annoying mentality, drawing away from the fun of it, especilly if the game has RP in it.

I do not try to force anyone to do certain stuff in my games.

"DONT CLAIM OR I WILL ATTACK YOU!" is one, especilly in note of the genozidel drones.

I do not see how the Ottomans in ChristosIOT were racist.

A Ottoman Empire somehow emerges, headed by not a drone but not a human either? The past (especilly how you in MP2 kept using the term "Turk" as a insult) does suggest...

My opinion is that they should act like players and try to win.

Then again: why not make a simple game titled Risk? Games are not all about winning. How you played Dwarf Fortress or the games of Paradox Interactive? Winning is not the name but instead building your society. The NPCs should act like proper nations, not "play to win."

I do not understand the meaning of this.

They were steortypes most questionable.

 

[christos200]

A Ottoman Empire somehow emerges, headed by not a drone but not a human either?

It was just a cool sounding name.

especilly how you in MP2 kept using the term "Turk" as a insult

I did not use the term Turk in MP2 as an insult. Because I wanted to expand in China, and also because Thorvald's nation was in Xinjiang (Eatsern Turkestan), I tried to convince the world that they were Turks for political reasons. I did not use the term Turk as an insult but as a political tool to make the world to view the Union not as Chinese but as a Turkish State.

And I do not see how calling a state in Xinjiang Turkish is an insult. In MP1, when I had control of only Xinjiang, I promoted Turkish Nationalism in my RP's.

"DONT CLAIM OR I WILL ATTACK YOU!" is one, especilly in note of the genozidel drones.

You could have just said to them: I will claim this territory and if you want me to not do so, face my army.

Then again: why not make a simple game titled Risk?

I disagree with your definitation of IOT. An IOT must have a victory type, in order to give to the players a goal.

Seriusly: "play to win" is a annoying mentality, drawing away from the fun of it, especilly if the game has RP in it.

It is annoying to you, not to everyone. And what stops you from RPing in a game that has victory conditions? When I play games like Civ 5 and I try to win, I do not feel that the fun is drawing away because I want to win.

 

[Ailedhoo]

It was just a cool sounding name.

That was your reasoning? Why would drones with hatred of humans take the name of a human empire? You could have made a original title for a empire.

I did not use the term Turk in MP2 as an insult. Because I wanted to expand in China, and also because Thorvald's nation was in Xinjiang (Eatsern Turkestan), I tried to convince the world that they were Turks for political reasons. I did not use the term Turk as an insult but as a political tool to make the world to view the Union not as Chinese but as a Turkish State.

It made no sence (especilly as your Chinese powers tended to be ruled by not Chinese figures) and the choosing of Terk... it made no sence and logic. At the least it was a case of very bad RP.

And I do not see how calling a state in Xinjiang Turkish is an insult. In MP1, when I had control of only Xinjiang, I promoted Turkish Nationalism in my RP's.

Can someone tell how he played this out? I need a third party to take in considerations. Plus you did use Turk as a insult in MP2 and by reguards to the Ottoman Empire in your IOT...

You could have just said to them: I will claim this territory and if you want me to not do so, face my army.

That is a abuse of NPC powers. If you wanted to stop me claiming then join the game yourself... once you found a GM to replace your GMing. In the end you were not providing the game but instead causing tention for the sake of tention; not a good way to GM.

I disagree with your definitation of IOT. An IOT must have a victory type, in order to give to the players a goal.

Does Britain, China, the USA and others have a "vitory goal?" No. IOT can be without a victory type; see MP3 or Iron and Blood 2. RP is a life energy for IOTs, making it more than a simple risk. A "play to win" mentality underminds said RP.

It is annoying to you, not to everyone. And what stops you from RPing in a game that has victory conditions? When I play games like Civ 5 and I try to win, I do not feel that the fun is drawing away because I want to win.

This is not Civilizations. Heck the games the IOTs take note of are the Paradox games, games without victory conditions. Even CK2 with a score and "survive to the end" is set on how yoy play without any special goals. March of the Eagles has victory notions but that is because its specialised around the Nepeolonic Wars. People who come with a play to win in a game about setting your nation to power is drawing away from the purpose of IOT.

 

[Mosher]

I'm going to side with Christos here. Playing to win is not a detriment to the game; and Christos can GM his NPCs the way he wants to in his games. I, personally, enjoy having NPCs that are competitive with the human players.

 

[Terrance888]

I actually am siding with Christos.

MY NPC's play to way; that is to say, achieve their goals. And they can be quite aggressive about it. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk to them.

In the end you were not providing the game but instead causing tention for the sake of tention; not a good way to GM.

IMHO that is one part of a GM/Mod's role; to provide possible "plot threads" to be chosen by the player, even if it is with an NPC. Unless you are offered with a do or die A or B choice, diplomacy should be possible (this is @ christos as well).