New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[Dachs]

Of course, but I'd also like some way for the player themselves to decide what Author A) means and also how Author A) will affect a nation 500 miles away twenty years later. (Yes I know very very difficult).

No kidding. Dude, you can't even really do that nowadays. What kind of effect has Ben Jonson had on Germany?

 

[bombshoo]

No kidding. Dude, you can't even really do that nowadays. What kind of effect has Ben Jonson had on Germany?

Heh. Well I was aiming more for the effects Voltaire or John Locke had on the American Revolution for example....Something that can be correlated well, and where an approximation is possible...And do you mean the runner or the writer?

 

[Dachs]

Heh. Well I was aiming more for the effects Voltaire or John Locke had on the American Revolution for example

But, see, you can do that with what das has been suggesting.

 

[bombshoo]

But, see, you can do that with what das has been suggesting.

Oh I agree. I even said I liked Das's ideas. I know I want to go down that road to an extent, but there is still a lot of blanks to fill in...I'm going to think about this a lot...More suggestions are always welcome as well.

Edit: I'd also really appreciate it if sometime in the future someone would sit down with me over AIM or the NES chat and actually try to come up a concrete way of doing some of what has been discussed with me, given this was more a shooting down of ideas then formulation of new ones (minus das), which of course is just as important part of the process of development so I have no qualms.

 

[das]

I would not want to integrate it into player stats as much as I would into some kind of World Stats, that details demographics and economic trends to an extent. Actually the "Macrocultural" updates was something that did come to mind, perhaps at the end of every decade in a more modern NES; more of just a recap of some of the significant cultural developments of the time...My problem with this was I didn't know a way to make it have any real meaning to the players and not just writing for my own enjoyment (which I suppose is fine, but not quite what I was looking for).

How is that really different from the stats, except inasmuch as this is a far superior medium for describing unquantifiable cultural trends? As for the players, a lot depends on what spheres you want them to focus on (I was going more for politics than for culture, myself; obviously if you want to center on culture or on no one sphere of social existence this is going to be different), but as long as you also make the cultural factors have plausible, specific yet (up to a point) subtle influences, and make this known to the players, the astute should be able to work with the updates just as well if not better.

This is more of a modern phenomena where the popularity of certain aspects of one's culture actually do contribute somewhat to the economy (though the two play off each other to an extent), such as the United States with music, television and movies, or Japan with video games, and to an extent television and music as well, especially in Asia.

It's relatively minor. Culturally-specific exports have always been there (see: Russia's wax trade with Orthodox countries), but the primary advantages of culture, other than in other spheres of culture, lie in the sphere of politics. That said, the export of American movies (or, in the Middle Ages, of Greek icons into Russia) can ofcourse be a viable mechanism of cultural influence.

You just need to tie it firmly to the happenings in the updates. If you have a musician who turns out prodigious pro-Imperialist content that might shape the context of the period such that the nations affected might be induced to do some conquering.

If you have been paying attention, you will know that I utterly hate that. Besides, if you're talking about Kipling you will notice that he either sung odes to that which has already happened or made warnings of menaces (some of which eventually happened and some of which didn't) that were duly ignored; and as for the spirit of imperialism, it was already there and probably would've worked as fine without him; likewise with the Russian revolutionary movement sans Mayakovsky.

Anyway, I will not deny the influence of "cultural figures", but this influence is usually much more subtle and to track things back to them makes for a way too contrived-sounding narrative. With regards to the whole Hu'ut slave rebellion (do not consider this criticism or trying to revive that old argument again, NK; it's just a pretty good example for us to work with here, and discussions work better when grounded in specific examples), I would've handled it rather differently: the "main" update would've mentioned some specific incident between the slaves and the taskmasters (murder or a particularly cruel punishment are always nice) and how it all got out of hand, whereas the macrocultural summary for the century would've mentioned that playwright and how his plays gained renown in Hu'ut in particular and even helped prepare the tensions that ultimately resulted in the slave uprising. That would've worked so much better, in my humble opinion ofcourse.

Meh, sometimes. While a lot of literature can be on important social/political/etc. trends (The Octopus, Fathers and Sons, The Jungle, Lysistrata, and so forth...a whole host), some of it doesn't have a very obvious connection at all.

But the Soviet historian will never be deterred by such difficulties and will always bravely point out how Porfiry Petrovich is an allegory for the cynicism of the reactionary authorities!

Seriously, though, yes, sure. Although, even the others will usually contain have some not insignificant cultural trends. Again, a lot depends on the primary focus of the NES.

But, see, you can do that with what das has been suggesting.

If you mean the macrocultural updates, then sure. Unofficial popular ideology definitely goes there (official popular ideology as seen in, say, Chinese imperial edicts is one of the things that still ought to be left to the players and so the main updates, ofcourse, and the players are encouraged to pick up and modify the unofficial popular ideology whenever convenient).

 

[Masada]

If you have been paying attention, you will know that I utterly hate that.

Your not unique here

But remember this is NESing. If A hints at B then A therefore must lead to B (at least in the players mind). I dislike them myself, but they can certainly be emblematic of the age and the trend. It's a thorny issue in general.

 

[bombshoo]

How is that really different from the stats, except inasmuch as this is a far superior medium for describing unquantifiable cultural trends? As for the players, a lot depends on what spheres you want them to focus on (I was going more for politics than for culture, myself; obviously if you want to center on culture or on no one sphere of social existence this is going to be different), but as long as you also make the cultural factors have plausible, specific yet (up to a point) subtle influences, and make this known to the players, the astute should be able to work with the updates just as well if not better.

All good points. Again, now it just down to a concrete way of deciding what would exactly be the best way for these subtle influences to effect overall game play. I know I want to include several cultural mediums such as art, music etc in a way that we have not quit seen before, and this seems to best work with the "macrocultural" updates you were describing. (Even if I can't find exact effects this would have on nations, the pure amount of flavor it would add to a game might make it worth doing on its own...).

It's relatively minor. Culturally-specific exports have always been there (see: Russia's wax trade with Orthodox countries), but the primary advantages of culture, other than in other spheres of culture, lie in the sphere of politics. That said, the export of American movies (or, in the Middle Ages, of Greek icons into Russia) can ofcourse be a viable mechanism of cultural influence.

I suppose given you are right and it is minor, overall short term economic benefits can be ignored. I do agree that the use of certain products as a way of exporting cultural influence is very important. I also think it is probably ignored in most NESes. I would still like some light shined on whether this would better be implemented into an NES as specifically player controlled or a natural process to a certain degree (Implemented via the macrocultural updates for instance)

If you mean the macrocultural updates, then sure. Unofficial popular ideology definitely goes there (official popular ideology as seen in, say, Chinese imperial edicts is one of the things that still ought to be left to the players and so the main updates, ofcourse, and the players are encouraged to pick up and modify the unofficial popular ideology whenever convenient).

I like this thought a lot. The ability for the leadership of a nation to choose "official" and "unofficial" ideology and cultural elements would be something fairly simple to implement once a way of working out exactly how the culture spread through a macrocultural update works.

 

[das]

Even if I can't find exact effects this would have on nations

Effects are indeed difficult to figure out, but various "cultural" elements have often been used for specific political goals (mostly it's what I called grandeur and the ideological support for various actions, but it can be subtler, like the way the best Assyrian king ever pacified Babylonia); the updates will give players a good opportunity to try and do so, and this kind of creative thinking should definitely be encouraged inasmuch as it would realistically indeed lead to the wise Prince player's benefit.

I like this thought a lot. The ability for the leadership of a nation to choose "official" and "unofficial" ideology and cultural elements would be something fairly simple to implement once a way of working out exactly how the culture spread through a macrocultural update works.

Well, technically, it's bit difficult to choose an unofficial ideology most of the times. It's defining trait is, after all, that it explicitly develops outside of (direct, explicit) government control, and can easily get out of control later on as well (see: Taoism, and the Yellow Turban Rebellion).

 

[Angst]

This is the draft introduction to my potentially upcoming NES. Do you guys like the concept? Why/why not? Should I just throw it online? Initial rules aren't really required.

Spoiler :

ljNES – Oars of a World Ship

Introduction
When hearing of a specific NESing theory of style preference, I was intrigued. See, I noted myself what I heard of, and it explained to me the militaristic mongering of NESers. Apparently, NESers preferred waging war over playing culture because they could simply see their borders expand. Therefore, I thought: How to fix this issue? Not all ancient empires prefered conquest. Given, they had warfare integrated, but it was more about preserving the interests of the king before the nation.
Another issue I've always been concerned about was culture. Traditionally, culture in NESing has always been an alternate way to conquer, slowly changing another ethnicity until they have become your people instead. I want to alter this, which is why I am thrusting such a story-focused NES at you.

Beginnings
This NES will begin somewhere before empires began developing. The players do not know the specific century, or even the millenium – at this point, the world's ethnic groups are widespread, but they are unaware of the world around them. Some minor chiefdoms are present though – bronze has spread throughout the world as well as agriculture, and the first states are very slowly emerging. However, the map, the calendar, states and warfare does not exist yet. That means that the first turns will be played without maps, without years index (The time passing isn't noted either and can variate), formal armies don't exist, and there is no diplomatic code. This will be done to enforce the initial storyist approach at the NESers and make it feel more like a developing world

I know it's very teenie compared to other rulesets in here, but that's somewhat how the rules will look initially (Some technical parts added in the next section ). Would you join as it is, or would you require additional work?

Oh, and the title is only a draft.

 

[carmen510]

Shameless plug, please help me by commenting on the ruleset and any suggestions you may have: CarmenNES04 Development

Also, lord_joakim: It seems like a sound idea, and I would be interested in such an NES, although I cannot guarantee any such quality in my nation's culture.

 

[Angst]

I didn't originally post in it, since I thought you were doing your modern NES, and I don't care much about them I like it. I want to have the eco system simplified though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Effects are indeed difficult to figure out, but various "cultural" elements have often been used for specific political goals (mostly it's what I called grandeur and the ideological support for various actions, but it can be subtler, like the way....the updates will give players a good opportunity to try and do so, and this kind of creative thinking should definitely be encouraged inasmuch as it would realistically indeed lead to the wise Prince player's benefit.

I was chatting with Bombshoo about this last night and I think it can be done. First, you need a way to track or score culture and second you need to have that score create effects.

The first is pretty easy. I'm just piling up all spending, policy initiatives, patronage, stories and other cultural related efforts into a gross score for each nation. This allows me compare nations numerically. Scores can go up or down as apporopriate.

The effects are the tricky part and I could use some input here. ATM I have culture feeding into Prestige (das's grandeur?) and Prestige affects both Initiative points and some factions. Over time a significant investment in culture will yield real benefits.

I'd like ideas on other internal effects that might be appropriate. In addition, this discussion has stirred the idea of creating a regional influence for culture and perhaps have it affect the factions in neighboring nations, but I'm not sure just how much effect a strong French culture would have on its neighbors in game terms and what those effects would actually be.

So far my ideas are, if nation A has a significantly stronger culture than Nation B then...
Create pro nation A factions in nation B
Reduce the loyalty of some nation B factions
Reduce the culture score of the weaker nation
Reduce the prestige in nation B (with all the implications of that)

 

[Angst]

Latest draft of my NES' rules.

Spoiler :

ljNES – Oars of a World Ship

Introduction

When hearing of a specific NESing theory of style preference, I was intrigued. See, I noted myself what I heard of, and it explained to me the militaristic mongering of NESers. Apparently, NESers preferred waging war over playing culture because they could simply see their borders expand. Therefore, I thought: How to fix this issue? Not all ancient empires prefered conquest. Given, they had warfare integrated, but it was more about preserving the interests of the king before the nation.
Another issue I've always been concerned about was culture. Traditionally, culture in NESing has always been an alternate way to conquer, slowly changing another ethnicity until they have become your people instead. I want to alter this, which is why I am thrusting such a story-focused NES at you.

Beginnings

This NES will begin somewhere before empires began developing. The players do not know the specific century, or even the millenium – at this point, the world's ethnic groups are widespread, but they are unaware of the world around them. Some minor chiefdoms are present though – bronze has spread throughout the world as well as agriculture, and the first states are very slowly emerging. However, the map, the calendar, states and warfare does not exist yet. That means that the first turns will be played without maps, without years index (The time passing isn't noted either and can variate), formal armies don't exist, and there is no diplomatic code.

How do you run a NES until that point?

The idea is that players will be focused on stories initially, they must write myths and stories of their people, shaping the culture of whom they control. There will be some kind of national movement throughout the first number of updates, but it will not be obvious to players. Then, as time goes by, more responsability comes to the players, as their cultures develop into small states. And then, civilization begins developing, and the conquest for the world begins...

 

[das]

How to fix this issue?

Personally (and I am aware that this is derailing a bit) I have come to believe that this is no issue at all. Technological and socio-economic foresight is an issue; wanting to paint the map red is perfectly good roleplaying. I agree that this attitude was more characteristic for some states than others, and had various limitations, but there scarcely was a state or at least polity type that was exempt of people with ambitions for conquest. It's just that in, say a Greek city-state, this was both entirely impractical due to limited resources (to generalise) and politically hazardous; didn't stop people from trying every now and then.

I think the real issue is that empire-building, while widespread, is actually covered rather poorly in its many interesting aspects. Quantity over quality. It is to be fixed by the introduction of various historical complicated factors both during conquest and in subsequent administration. Empire-building must not be externally encouraged or discouraged; it must rather be made realistic and challenging, both in military and political regards; that's one of the things I hope to achieve when I get around to launching IANES.

As for your "ruleset", there really isn't much to talk about there, now, is it? Except inasmuch as not having states in the Bronze Age might damage immersion, but that's more a setting question. Also, what do you mean by "formal armies"?

I am willing to agree on the "no maps" part, as it is close to one of the more fresh start-type projects far in the back of my head, but keep in mind that you still will have to describe the terrain in question in some detail.

You might want to specify the enforcement mechanism in particular, i.e. the limits of reality and how you intend to enforce them in avoidance of world-ruining nonsense.

EDIT:

Again:

national movement

What do you mean by that, exactly? Migrations?

The idea is that players will be focused on stories initially, they must write myths and stories of their people, shaping the culture of whom they control. There will be some kind of national movement throughout the first number of updates, but it will not be obvious to players. Then, as time goes by, more responsability comes to the players, as their cultures develop into small states. And then, civilization begins developing, and the conquest for the world begins...

This seems somewhat lopsided; possibly a false impression, but still, I must voice my concerns: culture does not stop developing after civilisation begins, but rather becomes much more varied, complex and generally interesting; likewise, prehistoric socio-economic developments are arguably as important if not more so than the prehistoric cultural developments; besides, all is intertied; but right now this might be read as to imply that all of culture is to be defined early on, and then the focus shifts more towards military and political matters. Which, ofcourse, makes no sense. Arguably, developing prehistoric culture much is a waste anyway, since it's going to undergo some really major changes in civilised times before reaching some measure of solidity (compare what we know of Shang Chinese culture, Han Chinese culture, Qing Chinese culture and relative differences between them).

EDIT EDIT:

I'd like ideas on other internal effects that might be appropriate. In addition, this discussion has stirred the idea of creating a regional influence for culture and perhaps have it affect the factions in neighboring nations, but I'm not sure just how much effect a strong French culture would have on its neighbors in game terms and what those effects would actually be.

Yes, that's a wild card, isn't it? But the idea of grandeur is that your word will carry more weight in general. It would make it easier to influence a country's government or to overthrow it and set up a more friendly one, and would make it more difficult to go to war against France in most circumstances (but not too much more difficult, and remember that (widely-perceived) political necessity+diplomatic continuity tend to override). It should probably also make integration of conquered territories easier. It always helps to have a reliable group of Afrancesados! But yes, the short-term effects are difficult to measure, and culture seldom has any solid and irrefutable effects.

Still, neglecting it should be rather perilous in the terms of both domestic stability and international prestige.

Also, I must insist on grandeur depending on more than just culture, but also on "decisive battles". Poltava netted Peter the Great as much if not more as the construction of St. Petersburg, at least in the short term. An effective show of military force or diplomatic finesse would always go a long way in asserting pan-European hegemony.

 

[Dachs]

Also, I must insist on grandeur depending on more than just culture, but also on "decisive battles". Poltava netted Peter the Great as much if not more as the construction of St. Petersburg, at least in the short term. An effective show of military force or diplomatic finesse would always go a long way in asserting pan-European hegemony.

I love you p) and would like to inquire as to the result of Stănileşti.

 

[das]

It set this back somewhat, I suppose, but not too significantly; beating Sweden in an all-out war is much more noteworthy than being beaten by Turkey in a minor border war, or so the changes in the appraisal of Russia by the great European courts would seem to indicate. The opportunities for extended cooperation (political, but by extension also commercial) received in this way would be some of the main benefits of grandeur, I think. Ofcourse, the "cultural" significance of individual battles is very difficult to judge, especially inasmuch as it often will not correspond with their actual military/geopolitical significance. A lot would probably depend on how the victor uses it, i.e. on propaganda measures such as edicts, parades, commemorative coins and medals and suchlike, and a proper diplomatic offensive to drive the point home.

And ofcourse the weight of battles vis-a-vis everything else contributing to grandeur need not be exaggerated. That dastardly "Malbrouck" and all his victories probably did not make Louis XIV shine any less, though I'd say Britain did get something of a boost from it all (nothing comparable to Trafalgar or Waterloo, though; Trafalgar was great because it was a culminative naval victory and Waterloo was great because it wrapped up a long war in a satisfying way).

 

[Angst]

Personally (and I am aware that this is derailing a bit) I have come to believe that this is no issue at all. Technological and socio-economic foresight is an issue; wanting to paint the map red is perfectly good roleplaying. I agree that this attitude was more characteristic for some states than others, and had various limitations, but there scarcely was a state or at least polity type that was exempt of people with ambitions for conquest. It's just that in, say a Greek city-state, this was both entirely impractical due to limited resources (to generalise) and politically hazardous; didn't stop people from trying every now and then.

I think the real issue is that empire-building, while widespread, is actually covered rather poorly in its many interesting aspects. Quantity over quality. It is to be fixed by the introduction of various historical complicated factors both during conquest and in subsequent administration. Empire-building must not be externally encouraged or discouraged; it must rather be made realistic and challenging, both in military and political regards; that's one of the things I hope to achieve when I get around to launching IANES.

I agree about most of this, but remain unable to really reply... I accept every point thouhg.

Expanding will be horrifyingly difficult in my NES however, but fun. The workload of assimilating cultures is underrated in most NESes imho.

As for your "ruleset", there really isn't much to talk about there, now, is it?

Except if critics expect me to make some definite rules

Except inasmuch as not having states in the Bronze Age might damage immersion, but that's more a setting question.

It's non-earth, so I allowed myself to have some freedom They will pop up soon though.

Also, what do you mean by "formal armies"?

That no military stats will be present in the beginning of the NES. Same goes for stability, fx.

I am willing to agree on the "no maps" part, as it is close to one of the more fresh start-type projects far in the back of my head, but keep in mind that you still will have to describe the terrain in question in some detail.

Of course

You might want to specify the enforcement mechanism in particular, i.e. the limits of reality and how you intend to enforce them in avoidance of world-ruining nonsense.

Well, I didn't really think about that. The idea is to scrap all cultural values from our own world, essentially restarting another one. That means that initially, no casus belli or alliances should be present. Of course, players can cooperate, but those terms are mostly ideas from our heritage of the ancient world. They will probably automatically come as time goes on.

However, how I myself was supposed to interfere, I didn't give much thought into it. I'm no CFCmod, therefore I can't edit players' posts, and what the mod really does is to provide a suitable environment for the players to rule in, otherwise it's mostly up to them. Any ideas?

What do you mean by that, exactly? Migrations?

EDIT: No, I was tired when writing it. National development. As in, technologies invented, buildings completed, the old Civ hazards.

This seems somewhat lopsided; possibly a false impression, but still, I must voice my concerns: culture does not stop developing after civilisation begins, but rather becomes much more varied, complex and generally interesting; likewise, prehistoric socio-economic developments are arguably as important if not more so than the prehistoric cultural developments; besides, all is intertied; but right now this might be read as to imply that all of culture is to be defined early on, and then the focus shifts more towards military and political matters. Which, ofcourse, makes no sense. Arguably, developing prehistoric culture much is a waste anyway, since it's going to undergo some really major changes in civilised times before reaching some measure of solidity (compare what we know of Shang Chinese culture, Han Chinese culture, Qing Chinese culture and relative differences between them).

Well, you misunderstood. The idea was to develop culture before civilizations arose, then civilizations rise from that culture.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, that's a wild card, isn't it? But the idea of grandeur is that your word will carry more weight in general. It would make it easier to influence a country's government or to overthrow it and set up a more friendly one, and would make it more difficult to go to war against France in most circumstances (but not too much more difficult, and remember that (widely-perceived) political necessity+diplomatic continuity tend to override). It should probably also make integration of conquered territories easier. It always helps to have a reliable group of Afrancesados! But yes, the short-term effects are difficult to measure, and culture seldom has any solid and irrefutable effects.

Still, neglecting it should be rather perilous in the terms of both domestic stability and international prestige.

Also, I must insist on grandeur depending on more than just culture, but also on "decisive battles". Poltava netted Peter the Great as much if not more as the construction of St. Petersburg, at least in the short term. An effective show of military force or diplomatic finesse would always go a long way in asserting pan-European hegemony.

Nice overview thanks. And I do have it linked to war and success in non cultural ways.

 

[das]

Expanding will be horrifyingly difficult in my NES however, but fun. The workload of assimilating cultures is underrated in most NESes imho.

See, that would be the difference between the "focus spheres" that I have been talking about. I tend to think more of assimilating elites and polities.

That no military stats will be present in the beginning of the NES. Same goes for stability, fx.

Then what will be present?

Well, I didn't really think about that. The idea is to scrap all cultural values from our own world, essentially restarting another one. That means that initially, no casus belli or alliances should be present. Of course, players can cooperate, but those terms are mostly ideas from our heritage of the ancient world. They will probably automatically come as time goes on.

However, how I myself was supposed to interfere, I didn't give much thought into it. I'm no CFCmod, therefore I can't edit players' posts, and what the mod really does is to provide a suitable environment for the players to rule in, otherwise it's mostly up to them. Any ideas?

The Strategos had a post about Storyist doctrine ("the Storyist manifesto"); look it up, it's linked on the Notice Board, and it deals with this issue which is inherent in all Storyist NESes. Basically, where do you draw the line as far as player freedom in developing cultures (and elsewhere) is concerned? What is "realistic" and what isn't?

Well, you misunderstood. The idea was to develop culture before civilizations arose, then civilizations rise from that culture.

Wait. Do you mean "culture" as in what people have been discussing on the previous page, a sphere of social existence, or do you mean "culture" as in "the Urnfield culture"? I got the impression that it was the former, since you mentioned myths and such; in which case all that I have said still applies.

 

[Angst]

See, that would be the difference between the "focus spheres" that I have been talking about. I tend to think more of assimilating elites and polities.

Not to be rude or appear dumb, but could you please elaborate in simpler English? I'm very tired.

Then what will be present?

Stories However, stats will appear eventually.

The Strategos had a post about Storyist doctrine ("the Storyist manifesto"); look it up, it's linked on the Notice Board, and it deals with this issue which is inherent in all Storyist NESes. Basically, where do you draw the line as far as player freedom in developing cultures (and elsewhere) is concerned? What is "realistic" and what isn't?

I'll look it up, thanks

Wait. Do you mean "culture" as in what people have been discussing on the previous page, a sphere of social existence, or do you mean "culture" as in "the Urnfield culture"? I got the impression that it was the former, since you mentioned myths and such; in which case all that I have said still applies.

Players are allowed to write stories for both