New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Israelite9191]

... and simultaneously don't defend it one whit against the large mountain of evidence demonstrating that there is no correlation between detailed rule systems and inhibition of player action in roleplaying, story-oriented games. Ho-hum.

Did you happen to notice which part of Stormbringer's post I quoted? My point was that I believe a NES should be focused on stories, not statistics. I prefer minimalist rules that force players to focus more on creativity and story development than on stats building. I believe firmly from my own experience that once you start having more and more stats, players focus more and more on the stats, to the detriment of stories. In any case Symphony, your tone is incredibly rude and entirely unwarented. If you disagree with me, disagree with me, even do so bluntly, but do not talk down to me with that silly, arrogant attitude that just makes you look like a jackass.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Of course game developers can add as much complexity as they like to things players will never see or interact with. That aspect of developing a new NES can be as much fun as actually running the game. This is a perfect example of such an add-in:

My bolding.

A infinite number of rolls will average to 0, but a single sample from a normal distribution means that players will see growth rates like 1.3% or 0.8%, but (and this is important) more extreme outcomes are less likly, offering a considerable improvement over the uniform distributions you've used.

It would be exceedling rare to see a 5% growth roll, just like in the economy it would be exceedingly rare to strike the motherload of some gold bed. This is the essence of a stochastic system, with the interative growth a string of bad years will leave a nation less wealthy than a string of good years would have.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

I are dim. Missed what you were on about, lets say the value is...0.7 .

Which was precisely the point of my question. 0.7 what? It seems totally arbitrary. I recommended using a percentage scale, where something like 0.7 has an easily understood meaning.

I'd disagree, as people may need to move more than troops (and it makes say "the german U-boats have destroyed 10% of your shipping capacity!" much easier to work out).

Makes sense.

I'll have a matrix of tuple relationship strengths hidden somewhere as factors of the receiving economy. The changing outputs as each economy grows will be automatically calculated, and I'll update the matrix from time to time.

For the example it look like this:

	Importers
Exporter	Germany	France	Britain
KoSFN		0.01	0.005	0.006

With the current relationships the value KoSDN from trade with Germany is 1% of Germanies sum of internal regions take a randomising factor (1% being the max possible). These are just example values, and the relationship matrix will not be player accessible I think.

Sounds good. I assume the randomizing factor changes each year.
Is there a formula to determine how the matrix changes over time, or is it decided entirely by the mod?

Something of a good catch, you both spotted somethign thats wrong and misinterpreted (which is my fault for bad explanations ). it should be N(0,0.5) meaning a value is sampled from a normal distribution of mean 0, and standard deviation 0.5. On average it shoudl have no effect, but can year by year move things up or down.

Ah, okay. Should have figured out that N() was a distribution like Pois().

Entirely out of curiosity, what are the reasons for using a normal distribution for that factor and a Poisson distribution for the policy multiplier? Obviously one is discrete and one is continuous--but I don't know enough statistics to know why you'd use one versus the other here, hence the question.

 

[Israelite9191]

Did you happen to notice he was framing that in an argument which stated the two could not co-exist? By identifying himself with those words and then putting it as an "us and them" equation, he was denying that we could lay claim to those concepts. See, what he was doing is saying that he believes in stories and roleplaying, whereas we do not. That is fallacious.

I did not, however, quote those sections. I was quoting him to endorse the statement that, much like him, I view NESes as primarily story oriented, not statistics oriented, which based on previous discussions seems to be the positions you and certain others take. I can understand how you would misinterpret my position, though, so I'll let the issue rest.

As is this, implied in Stormbringer's arguments, which was the very reason I pointed out those examples, which you have now overlooked twice. There exists a large body of evidence, in the form of the entire PnP RPG industry, that large numbers of rules and statistics have no bearing on roleplaying or story crafting. This point lies unaddressed. You are quite free to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether it's right or not. And your arguments fall flat in light of the evidence. Most people when challenged with evidence usually try and at least offer some sort of tangible defense instead of repeating the exact same thing over again in the hopes it will stand on its own. That is what you have elected to do. It is not convincing.

I have no experience with Dungeons and Dragons or any similar enterprises. I do, however, have experience in NESing, and that experience has shown that the most successful, most story-oriented NESes have been those with the most minimalist rules. Das' NESes, RTOR, StKNES5, all of those used minimalist orders. The one exception to the rule I can think of is Birdjaguar's NES (the first one at least, I am not familiar with any successors), which I believe is largely due to Bird's aptitude at story-based Moding.

What amusing hypocrisy from the man who decided to cast the first epithets. Jackassery indeed, sir. Maybe the one who should be watching his tongue and tone is you.

... and simultaneously don't defend it one whit against the large mountain of evidence demonstrating that there is no correlation between detailed rule systems and inhibition of player action in roleplaying, story-oriented games. Ho-hum.

Am I the only person who finds such arrogance incredibly offensive? EDIT: You are correct though that using the phrase 'jackass' was very much uncalled for. I allowed my anger to get the better of me and for this I appologise.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As is this, implied in Stormbringer's arguments, which was the very reason I pointed out those examples, which you have now overlooked twice. There exists a large body of evidence, in the form of the entire PnP RPG industry, that large numbers of rules and statistics have no bearing on roleplaying or story crafting. This point lies unaddressed. You are quite free to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether it's right or not. And your arguments fall flat in light of the evidence. Most people when challenged with evidence usually try and at least offer some sort of tangible defense instead of repeating the exact same thing over again in the hopes it will stand on its own. That is what you have elected to do. It is not convincing.

You are correct in that RPGs were very complex games and did involve a huge element of storytelling, but you neglect to see that the play mechanism of those games is not at all like NESing. They are 3 to 8 person, face-to-face, sit around a table, games with every player consulting the rules regularly and discussing outcomes and alternatives in real time. NESing is not like that at all. We ahve 12-30 players set apart by time and distance with little happening in real time. Your comparison is not valid.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

You are correct in that RPGs were very complex games and did involve a huge element of storytelling, but you neglect to see that the play mechanism of those games is not at all like NESing. They are 3 to 8 person, face-to-face, sit around a table, games with every player consulting the rules regularly and discussing outcomes and alternatives in real time. NESing is not like that at all. We ahve 12-30 players set apart by time and distance with little happening in real time. Your comparison is not valid.

Indeed, the comparison between tabletop gaming and NESing is not strictly valid. But there are many websites devoted to forum-based play-by-post roleplaying games, which use various editions of D&D, GURPS, etc. And the non-real-time format allows more detailed descriptions and more intense roleplaying than what typically goes on in real-time sessions. So the lack of real-time discussion and face-to-face interaction doesn't hurt storytelling in this case, and this comparison seems valid.

EDIT: Symph and I are clearly on the same page about this. Hooray crossposts!

 

[Birdjaguar]

A infinite number of rolls will average to 0, but a single sample from a normal distribution means that players will see growth rates like 1.3% or 0.8%, but (and this is important) more extreme outcomes are less likly, offering a considerable improvement over the uniform distributions you've used.

It would be exceedling rare to see a 5% growth roll, just like in the economy it would be exceedingly rare to strike the motherload of some gold bed. This is the essence of a stochastic system, with the interative growth a string of bad years will leave a nation less wealthy than a string of good years would have.

I cannot out do your math or reasoning; I just see such small changes as generally immaterial to game play and the attention of players. I see them more as the kind of elegant complication I would add for my own benefit as opposed to an important element of the rules and stats. I think that the "thinking process" about how to develop rules benefits from a full spectrum of ideas and inputs including those who prefer the simplist of rule sets.

 

[Israelite9191]

Your objections are not valid.

Your numbers are routine but are by no means the maximum strain on either system, due simply to local interest being tapped out. It is easily possible for either system to accommodate many more players in a more plentiful environment, and a difference of a mere factor of 3 is not a significant impediment whatsoever. It is also a relatively trivial to set up and common occurrence for PnP RPGs to be played online in play-by-post format.

The lack of face-to-face communication and more players has no effect upon the utilization of a rule-intensive structure to coordinate player efforts. If anything, extended time amplifies the ability of a rule-intensive structure because the moderator has time to think and consult resources rather than constantly being pressured to come up with decisions immediately to ensure gameplay flow.

Perhaps, but actual NESes are a far better comparison.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Which was precisely the point of my question. 0.7 what? It seems totally arbitrary. I recommended using a percentage scale, where something like 0.7 has an easily understood meaning.

0.7 times strength of the putative global reserve currency, which as my NES starts is the gold-backed pound stirling. Naturally having your currency displace the global reserve is an huge economic victory .

Sounds good. I assume the randomizing factor changes each year.
Is there a formula to determine how the matrix changes over time, or is it decided entirely by the mod?

It'll be resampled from a distribution. Since its changing textual information on imports and exports it'll be done by mod, but I personnal won't do it that often except for massive and obvious changes.

Ah, okay. Should have figured out that N() was a distribution like Pois().

Entirely out of curiosity, what are the reasons for using a normal distribution for that factor and a Poisson distribution for the policy multiplier? Obviously one is discrete and one is continuous--but I don't know enough statistics to know why you'd use one versus the other here, hence the question.

Normal is continious as well. Normal is two-tailed whilst Poisson has but one tail. Normal is useful for putting a Gaussian blur on a value you want to randomise, Poisson is good for large spreads of possibilities each quite rare while still weighting the small values - which I feel matches the benefits from good policies. Half a normal distribution could be substitued for the Poisson distributions, but I prefer the numbers I get from Pois() better.
Normal: <-Randomising->

Poisson: Most likily 0-1 but small chance of higher numbers anywhere up to really high.

(note all Pois lamda values used are less than 1, and therefore is more peaked than the red line.)

I cannot out do your math or reasoning; I just see such small changes as generally immaterial to game play and the attention of players. I see them more as the kind of elegant complication I would add for my own benefit as opposed to an important element of the rules and stats. I think that the "thinking process" about how to develop rules benefits from a full spectrum of ideas and inputs including those who prefer the simplist of rule sets.

This is why I intend to have multi-year turns, so that every time the stats update you should have >5% changes, which are going to be reported. The year-by-year stuff I'm not even going to look at as it chuggs away in the background.

Plus 1% growth rate per annum is much more realistic, than the doubling of IC in a turn you can sometimes see .

 

[Birdjaguar]

Your objections are not valid.

Your numbers are routine but are by no means the maximum strain on either system, due simply to local interest being tapped out. It is easily possible for either system to accommodate many more players in a more plentiful environment, and a difference of a mere factor of 3 is not a significant impediment whatsoever. It is also a relatively trivial to set up and common occurrence for PnP RPGs to be played online in play-by-post format.

The lack of face-to-face communication and more players has no effect upon the utilization of a rule-intensive structure to coordinate player efforts. If anything, extended time amplifies the ability of a rule-intensive structure because the moderator has time to think and consult resources rather than constantly being pressured to come up with decisions immediately to ensure gameplay flow.

Indeed, the comparison between tabletop gaming and NESing is not strictly valid. But there are many websites devoted to forum-based play-by-post roleplaying games, which use various editions of D&D, GURPS, etc. And the non-real-time format allows more detailed descriptions and more intense roleplaying than what typically goes on in real-time sessions. So the lack of real-time discussion and face-to-face interaction doesn't hurt storytelling in this case, and this comparison seems valid.

EDIT: Symph and I are clearly on the same page about this. Hooray crossposts!

I have no experience with forum based RPGs and cannot comment on how closely they resemble NESing. I stand by my statements on table-top gaming. If forum based RPGs are such an excellent combination of stories and complexity, why haven't their systems been applied to NESing? Why are we neglecting those much better systems that are so similar?

Sym, I have to laugh at your statement that number of players is not a strain on NESing. I can only recall one of your games and it lasted just a few turns, so my data is limited. I have modded two games with over 30 players in each and the number of players is a huge constraining factor in running a game. NESes are not easily scalable beyond a few dozen players. With my limited experience in modding, maybe das, Nk or Iggy could weigh in on whether or not the number of players in a game has an impact on the mods ability to guide the game.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

0.7 times strength of the putative global reserve currency, which as my NES starts is the gold-backed pound stirling. Naturally having your currency displace the global reserve is an huge economic victory .

That works. Obviously displacing the currency doesn't just mean making its strength > 1.0 (e.g. the 2009 pound is worth more than the dollar, but the dollar is still the global reserve). You know this, I know this, but it should probably be made clear.

It'll be resampled from a distribution. Since its changing textual information on imports and exports it'll be done by mod, but I personnal won't do it that often except for massive and obvious changes.

Okay.

Normal is continious as well. Normal is two-tailed whilst Poisson has but one tail. Normal is useful for putting a Gaussian blur on a value you want to randomise, Poisson is good for large spreads of possibilities each quite rare while still weighting the small values - which I feel matches the benefits from good policies. Half a normal distribution could be substitued for the Poisson distributions, but I prefer the numbers I get from Pois() better.
Normal: <-Randomising->

Poisson: Most likily 0-1 but small chance of higher numbers anywhere up to really high.

(not all Pois lamda values used are less than 1, and therefore is more peaked than the red line.

Thanks! Very helpful.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

If forum based RPGs are such an excellent combination of stories and complexity, why haven't their systems been applied to NESing? Why are we neglecting those much better systems that are so similar?

Because their systems focus on playing groups of individuals, not assemblies of nations. You already know this. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make--if we can simulate nations in the same complexity as RPGs simulate heroes (and most RPGs have rulesets far more complex than anything we've yet tried or proposed), than there's no reason we can't get a similar combination.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post. Assumed someone else would have posted by now.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Because their systems focus on playing groups of individuals, not entire nations. You already know this. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make--if we can simulate nations in the same complexity as RPGs simulate heroes (and most RPGs have rulesets far more complex than anything we've yet tried or proposed), than there's no reason we can't get a similar combination.

My point is that if those games are sufficiently comparable to NESing and they have found a way to incorporate both complex rules and fancy stats into a rich storytelling environment, why haven't we adopted their "best practices" into NESing? I don't know anything about forum based RPGs so I cannot speak to it.

But if those games are not sufficiently similar for us to actually use what they know and practice to our advantage, then I would say the comparison is not really valid.

At a theoretical level you may be correct: complexity with good storytelling can be combined in NESing like they do in RPGs. But I'm a pragmatist and you have to show me how the theory translates into practice. That is why I support discussion about complex ideas and using programs like Excel to run the behind the scenes work. It is the only way to push the envelop into new and less frequently explored directions. If only a tenth of what gets discussed turns up in a game, we are all better off, even if it is only because of the discussions.

So we should try to keep them civil.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Stormbringer]

Oh my god I cannot believe that you guys just did that. Again.

People have different preferences. I like NESes that have almost no rules. Other people like NESes that have a lot of very detailed rules. Both types have pluses and minuses. Can we get over this as a community now?

Dis, again, I apologize if you took my original response to mean that you did not do a good job with the rules, you most certainly did. They are just more complicated than I like.