New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[jalapeno_dude]

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?

Why haven't we? That's a question for a sociologist. Inertia, primarily.

I don't know anything about forum based RPGs so I cannot speak to it.

I do, a fact from which you are free to draw your own conclusions.

Here are some "best practices":

-Separate IC and OOC threads. If every previous post in the thread is a well-written (or at least grammatically correct), in-character diplomatic communication or a story, the next post in the thread is more likely to share these characteristics. Short OOC questions should either be posted in the OOC thread or placed in spoilers and accompanied by something IC in the main body of the post.
-Applications for player-controlled entities. In a fantasy or fresh-start NES, this would entail submitting a worked-out culture, nation, government, etc. Taking the time to compose something in a fair amount of detail makes it more likely that the player will be invested in the game and not quit. In a historical or alternate history game, this would entail submitting a nation choice, what the player sees as that nation's motivations and agenda, and why and how they want to play that nation. This allows the mod to ensure the player knows what they're talking about, or to suggest another nation that might better fit their expressed play style. Again, a player who has taken the time to do this, and knows that the nation is one they would enjoy playing, is more likely to be involved and in-character.


Notice that these two suggestions are essentially concerned with book-keeping and procedure. I would suggest that the NESing community as it exists now has the potential to successfully combine complex rules with story-driven or in-character gameplay. It just requires players to be sufficiently interested and invested in the game, which in turn makes the mod less likely to kill a game out of frustration or boredom.

 

[Israelite9191]

Now, if you claim that you are sufficiently unbiased and knowledgeable enough to deliver that kind of performance on your own in every single imaginable field of human endeavors, from mechanics to theology and from military science to sociology on a daily basis, that's good for you. You'll have to excuse me if I don't trust your advertising and think applying some of our species' collected knowledge into a set of rules is superior, and if I resent you when you act like I want to stomp all over roleplaying and story-writing as a result.

Again, here's that tendency towards rudeness and escelation of tension. It's fine if you disagree with me, but why does every argument you make have to end with some rude, aggressive summary, rather than simply stating your position and why you adhere to it?

In any case, I can certainly see your point. Personally, though, I believe that NESing history has shown that the best solution is not increasingly complex rules, but having a dedicated Mod who is willing to do the necessary research to make reasonably realistic updates. Are NESes ever going to be perfectly realistic? No. As such, I think the best way forward is not to addopt faulty systems in the pursuit of the eventuality of achieving perfect realism, but to find the rules that contribute best to realism while allowing for people to enjoy the experience and have fun. I believe that highly complex rules fall into the former category (although, I have to say, the more I look at Dis' rules, the less I find myself diaproving of them) and minimalist orders, when managed by a good Mod, into the latter.

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.

And, once again, someone else puts my thoughts into words far more concisely than I could.

-Separate IC and OOC threads. If every previous post in the thread is a well-written (or at least grammatically correct), in-character diplomatic communication or a story, the next post in the thread is more likely to share these characteristics. Short OOC questions should either be posted in the OOC thread or placed in spoilers and accompanied by something IC in the main body of the post.

Personally, based on past attempts, I don't like this proposal (spoilers, maybe, though).

}-Applications for player-controlled entities. In a fantasy or fresh-start NES, this would entail submitting a worked-out culture, nation, government, etc. Taking the time to compose something in a fair amount of detail makes it more likely that the player will be invested in the game and not quit. In a historical or alternate history game, this would entail submitting a nation choice, what the player sees as that nation's motivations and agenda, and why and how they want to play that nation. This allows the mod to ensure the player knows what they're talking about, or to suggest another nation that might better fit their expressed play style. Again, a player who has taken the time to do this, and knows that the nation is one they would enjoy playing, is more likely to be involved and in-character.

This I like, a lot.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Personally, based on past attempts, I don't like this proposal (spoilers, maybe, though).

To which I can only reply that it works. It is somewhat of a given in the play-by-post community that OOC talk is to be kept wherever possible to a minimum and removed from the proceedings of the game as a whole, since it tends to ruin the immersion. Spoilers are the next-best thing, in my opinion.

It may be too late at this point to break the habit of excessive OOC posts, but I think it's worth the attempt. Speaking from experience, OOC posts tend to spawn others in reply and swamp actual in-game posts, which in turn tends to mean that in-game diplomacy, stories, etc. are neglected or done quickly.

This I like, a lot.

As do I. Honestly, I think putting this into use could vastly improve the longevity of the average NES (which I think everyone regards as a plus, whether or not it's the primary thing you're shooting for).

 

[Israelite9191]

Here is the latest version of the mercenary rules I've drawn up for YosefNES, based on Strategos' proposal. The map is of mercenary regions, with each regions having its own colour. There are a few overlapping areas in Europe, with bright-green Poland being both Central European and Northern European, purple northern Germany, western Norway, Denmark, and southern Sweden being both Western European and Northern European, and Orange Austria and Bohemia bein both Central European and Western European. I haven't done numbers yet, and know that I plan to list, in the list of sources, next to each source country those with good relations with said souce country and those with bad relations will be lsited (my Lord that's a contorted sentence).

Mercenaries

Mercenaries are cheap, generally of a high quality, and readily available. They are also unreliable and expensive to maintain. In times of war it is generally a very good idea to use mercenaries as an accompaniment to your national forces and levies. In fact, particularly in Europe, levies can easily provide the bulk of your war-time forces. As a general rule, assume that mercenaries will be better armed, trained, and led than national forces.

For the purposes of recruitment, mercenaries will be divided first by region, and then by country. The region will consist of some number of nations that are grouped geographically, with some overlap. Nations can recruit mercenaries from within their own region or regions, but not from others. Within each region there will be mercenaries in two groupings, region-wide and country-specific. Region-wide mercenaries are recruited from the roving bands and scattered populations while country-specific mercenaries are those who hold base in a specific territory. Rules for recruiting the two are slightly different. For the former, when purchasing mercenaries you submit in your orders how many you want, and you pray for luck. Generally, you can hope for seven thousands for eco, but if you are lucky you may receive more, and if you are unlucky fewer. For the latter, you must specify the country you wish to recruit from. If you have good relations with the country, you will have much improved luck in recruiting mercenaries, while if you poor relations you will have less luck.

The regions are:
Atlantic America, Mesoamerica, Andean America, Brazil, Caribbean, Western Europe and Mediterranean, Central Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, West Africa, Kongo, Swahili Coast, Near East, East Africa, Central Asia, Afghanistan and Northern India, Southern India, Indochina, Malaya, East Asia

Spoiler :

 

[Azale]

Woo, two regions. Suck it world. Is there any variance with the separate regions?

 

[Israelite9191]

Woo, two regions. Suck it world. Is there any variance with the separate regions?

Variance in what way?

 

[Azale]

Variance in what way?

Overall quality of mercenaries in a certain region vs. those in another region?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

In times of war it is generally a very good idea to use mercenaries as an accompaniment to your national forces and levies. In fact, particularly in Europe, levies can easily provide the bulk of your war-time forces.

Do you mean to say mercenaries rather than levies in the second quoted sentence? Otherwise I don't see the logic in connecting the two with "in fact".

Nations can recruit mercenaries from within their own region or regions, but not from others.

I don't agree with this. Why can't Hungary hire Swiss mercenaries? Why can't France hire Hungarians? Why can't Alexander the Great use elephants?

There are two solutions to this:
-Make the regions broader.
-Allow the hiring of mercenaries from neighboring regions.

I think I like the latter solution, as the use of exotic units always seems fun.

For the former, when purchasing mercenaries you submit in your orders how many you want, and you pray for luck.

Really? A three-year update isn't long enough to hire whatever (reasonable) amount of mercenaries you want?



I do approve of the idea in general, though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Gee, I don't know, maybe because the NES forum has proven itself chronically unable to look beyond its own boundaries for solutions to any number of problems, instead favoring glacial, undirected progress directly opposed at every step by a bunch of reactionaries wearing the rose-tinted lenses of nostalgia? You tell me.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." --Gandhi

If you want faster change then start producing it. You like to rail at everyone for sticking with what has worked in the past and not moving NESing forward. You are also big on theory and how things could be done better. I think if you actually produced more rules sets (even if you didn't run the games) you would gain credibility among those not already supporting you and you would improve NESing at the same time. The only way things will get better here is by people actually running games that have new featurres and ways of doing things. That RL testing fixes unexpected problems and shows people that new ways can be better.

Your simulation thread is a great idea, but I'd rather you build and test it a piece at a time. Finish the combat simulator and get someone to use it. See if it actually works in a game. If you wait to get a complete rules system finished before you use it, I know we'll never see any of it. If not that, pick another aspect of a game and build a finished piece for someone to use. It doesn't matter which part.

Stop complaining about how ******** and lazy we all are and give us something useful that moves us forward.

I'm not saying that PnP RPG systems are superior. Pay attention. I have not said it, I am not saying it, I will not say it. I'm saying they demonstrate that complex rule systems have no impact on creative player feedback to the scenario, ie: roleplaying and stories. Regardless of their format, their composition, or their presentation, they are built solely to do those two things. And they have done it well, and they have done it for about thirty years depending on the system.

Rule scale, complexity, and composition DO NOT IMPACT creative contributions by players.

You are correct that rules can be written that are complex and do not inhibit creativity. But that is only half the story. Rules should be written to encourage specific behaviors that fulfill the game's purpose. In some cases the rules need to restrict creative action or the game gets derailed. While storytelling and complexity do not necessarily work against one another, they also do not inherently support one another. Someone has to write the rules in such a way to support both goals. I think that many players here fear that overly complex rules will not support what they like about NESing, and your presentation of the complexity side of the equation does nothing to help your cause among them.

BTW, Chainmail was first published in 1971 and D&D in 1974. At that time you had lots of similar competing games (Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls etc) all speeding the development of the system. In 1979 D&D split into a simple rules set and a complex one (AD&D). It took 8 years, hundreds of thousands of dollars and an enormous fan base to create AD&D. We are a few score people, and we spend no money.

As to the limits on player capacity, since we're playing Show and Believe here, I'll tell you what I believe. With all due respect, most moderators other than das (self included) are extremely slow. das's greatest achievement was the One-Week Update. Everybody else tends to need two, three, four... sometimes more! A lot of time and effort can be saved by increasing moderator focus, by cutting out unnecessary or trivial actions, by placing realistic limits on the actions a government can take in one turn, and by increasing automation in statistics and resolution of events. I see no reason why the limit for a NES's players could not easily double with sufficient confluence of events, tools, and will.

I agree. Now can you come up with a simple model that mods can use to speed up current games even if the tend to be lazy, ignorant and weak willed? Why don't you build a MESing model for less practiced mods that will speed updates and improve their modding?

However that is not the issue being discussed here. The issue is whether or not rule complexity degrades player involvement. Nobody has presented any evidence that it does. I am still waiting for it.

At a theoretical level it doesn't have to. In practice it can easily. Other than myself, has anyone here ever had a game published? It is easy to spout how easy things should be to do. It is more difficult to actually produce the work. I am waiting for you to produce the NESing rules that do both and people will play.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Other than myself, has anyone here ever had a game published?

Does that mean you have? If so, could you post/pm a link to it?

BTW, I'm curious as to what you think of the PbP best practices I posted.

 

[Israelite9191]

Do you mean to say mercenaries rather than levies in the second quoted sentence? Otherwise I don't see the logic in connecting the two with "in fact".

You're quite right, that's an editting mistake from a previous version. Ignore the 'in fact.'

I don't agree with this. Why can't Hungary hire Swiss mercenaries? Why can't France hire Hungarians? Why can't Alexander the Great use elephants?

There are two solutions to this:
-Make the regions broader.
-Allow the hiring of mercenaries from neighboring regions.

I think I like the latter solution, as the use of exotic units always seems fun.

As a matter of fact, the Hungarian Empire can hire Swiss mercenaries (Italy is part of Western Europe and Mediterranean). Also, I do not intend for regions to stay the same over time. Regions in the Ancient Era would have been different than they are for the early 16th Century time fram of Yosef NES. As to the latter, I'm nervous about the idea of, say, allowing Hungary to hire Cossacks or Kalmar to hire Egyptian mercenaries. Enlarging/unifying European regions, on the other hand, might be an option. My main concern is with giving countries, like the Ottomans, access to units from very far afield by consequence of their having small bits of territory in overlapping regions, like Greece giving the Ottomans access to units from across Europe.

Really? A three-year update isn't long enough to hire whatever (reasonable) amount of mercenaries you want?

The point is unpredictability, especially with changing circumstances. I would think that the long-term nature of updates would only heighten unpredictability.

I do approve of the idea in general, though.

Thankyou, although I should say that the general concept of hiring based on regions is Strategos'.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why haven't we? That's a question for a sociologist. Inertia, primarily.

I do, a fact from which you are free to draw your own conclusions.

Here are some "best practices":

-Separate IC and OOC threads. If every previous post in the thread is a well-written (or at least grammatically correct), in-character diplomatic communication or a story, the next post in the thread is more likely to share these characteristics. Short OOC questions should either be posted in the OOC thread or placed in spoilers and accompanied by something IC in the main body of the post.
-Applications for player-controlled entities. In a fantasy or fresh-start NES, this would entail submitting a worked-out culture, nation, government, etc. Taking the time to compose something in a fair amount of detail makes it more likely that the player will be invested in the game and not quit. In a historical or alternate history game, this would entail submitting a nation choice, what the player sees as that nation's motivations and agenda, and why and how they want to play that nation. This allows the mod to ensure the player knows what they're talking about, or to suggest another nation that might better fit their expressed play style. Again, a player who has taken the time to do this, and knows that the nation is one they would enjoy playing, is more likely to be involved and in-character.


Notice that these two suggestions are essentially concerned with book-keeping and procedure. I would suggest that the NESing community as it exists now has the potential to successfully combine complex rules with story-driven or in-character gameplay. It just requires players to be sufficiently interested and invested in the game, which in turn makes the mod less likely to kill a game out of frustration or boredom.

I like both of them. But implementation can be a serious obstacle. Certainly cleaning up the game threads would be a huge plus. I have tried to use OOC threads and they do help.

The player application is a mixed bag. In a historical NES, as much as it may encourage a bit of learning before playing, it might discourage new NESers or discourage players taking up a new nation about which they don't know much. I do agree that some committment up front is a good idea. I am planning my preview thread for BirdNES 3 and will try to come up with some sort of player statement for at least the major nations.

Does that mean you have? If so, could you post/pm a link to it?

BTW, I'm curious as to what you think of the PbP best practices I posted.

Yes I have. In the early 80s I wrote the rules and developed a grand tactical Napoleonic game that was designed to be used for a series of battles. On a 1-10 complexity scale it was about a 7.5. My publisher was financially weak and closed before the second game was done. It was an innovative system for the time, but did not make me rich.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

As a matter of fact, the Hungarian Empire can hire Swiss mercenaries (Italy is part of Western Europe and Mediterranean).

My mistake. For some reason I thought that country borders corresponded to regional borders, despite the evidence of the map.

As to the latter, I'm nervous about the idea of, say, allowing Hungary to hire Cossacks or Kalmar to hire Egyptian mercenaries.

Kalmar hiring Egyptians does sound seedy, but I don't see the problem with Hungary hiring Cossacks. I suppose, though, that you could just make it so that all such hires would have to be through governments rather than to individual mercenary bands.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, what's to keep Bohemia from hiring Central European mercs and reselling them at a markup to Western European nations and vice-versa, or nations with American colonies hiring out native forces? I'm not sure if this is actually undesirable, but it could affect game balance and should be considered carefully.

Enlarging/unifying European regions, on the other hand, might be an option. My main concern is with giving countries, like the Ottomans, access to units from very far afield by consequence of their having small bits of territory in overlapping regions, like Greece giving the Ottomans access to units from across Europe.

Isn't that at least semi-historically accurate? The Ottomans ruled a diverse empire, so they could have diverse troops. See, for example, the list of various Persian troops in Herodotus, which if memory serves is highly diverse.

The point is unpredictability, especially with changing circumstances. I would think that the long-term nature of updates would only heighten unpredictability.

It depends. If you need mercenaries at a specific time, than yes. But if you're hiring them defensively or building up your forces in preparation, than doesn't more time preparing=greater choice?

Thankyou, although I should say that the general concept of hiring based on regions is Strategos'.

Oh. Well, in that case it's terrible.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

In a historical NES, as much as it may encourage a bit of learning before playing, it might discourage new NESers or discourage players taking up a new nation about which they don't know much.

I'm not sure this is a strong argument. The internet was practically invented for gaining a minimum level of competency in subjects you knew nothing about an hour ago. If someone isn't willing to take even that amount of time, then it doesn't bode well for them staying involved. To go back to the RPG example, you have to invest some time in learning the system to be able to play the game, and if you don't invest the time you're not going to know what's going on or enjoy yourself.

I do agree that some committment up front is a good idea. I am planning my preview thread for BirdNES 3 and will try to come up with some sort of player statement for at least the major nations.

I've always thought it would be interesting to have players submit only the type of nation they want to play (in terms of aggression, culture, etc.) in broad terms and then to assign them "randomly" based on their submissions.

Yes I have. In the early 80s I wrote the rules and developed a grand tactical Napoleonic game that was designed to be used for a series of battles. On a 1-10 complexity scale it was about a 7.5. My publisher was financially weak and closed before the second game was done. It was an innovative system for the time, but did not make me rich.

You can't just leave me hanging. Certainly references exist somewhere on the internet that you can link to, right? Is it one of those listed here or here?

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Israelite9191]

I've always thought it would be interesting to have players submit only the type of nation they want to play (in terms of aggression, culture, etc.) in broad terms and then to assign them "randomly" based on their submissions.

Wouldn't that decrease player investment?

Kalmar hiring Egyptians does sound seedy, but I don't see the problem with Hungary hiring Cossacks. I suppose, though, that you could just make it so that all such hires would have to be through governments rather than to individual mercenary bands.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, what's to keep Bohemia from hiring Central European mercs and reselling them at a markup to Western European nations and vice-versa, or nations with American colonies hiring out native forces? I'm not sure if this is actually undesirable, but it could affect game balance and should be considered carefully.

Actually, that doesn't sound bad. I'm not sure how (close to being) historically accurate it would be though.

Isn't that at least semi-historically accurate? The Ottomans ruled a diverse empire, so they could have diverse troops. See, for example, the list of various Persian troops in Herodotus, which if memory serves is highly diverse.

The Ottomans did have European troops, but they were Albanians and Greeks, not Scots (and, of course, Hungary in OTL controlled most of Central Europe, as opposed to just most of Greece). Also, note that the Classical era references are really not applicable. As I said regions would have changed dramatically between the Classical period and the early 16th Century.
[It depends. If you need mercenaries at a specific time, than yes. But if you're hiring them defensively or building up your forces in preparation, than doesn't more time preparing=greater choice?[/QUOTE]
I suppose, but that's way things vary. I'm going to take into concideration multiple factors, including if you are hiring in peace time or in war time.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Wouldn't that decrease player investment?

Ideally, no, because players would be getting nations they wanted to play--and, probably, ones they hadn't played before and would want to do research on.

In practice, yes, which is why it will probably remain an untried experiment.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You can't just leave me hanging. Certainly references exist somewhere on the internet that you can link to, right? Is it one of those listed here or here?

Of course I can. This is the internet and I can just go away for a while and hope you forget all about it.

 

[North King]

Actually, that doesn't sound bad. I'm not sure how (close to being) historically accurate it would be though.

I think Hungarians should have access to Eastern European mercenaries, however, the stereotypical Cossack doesn't hire himself out as a mercenary. Especially not to Catholics.

Maybe you should have access to regions that you have territory in or territory adjacent to? Or perhaps the latter only in times of peace with said bordering regions...