Poll Civic-Centric Idea?

[Provolution]

Should we try to test out CIVIC-CENTRIC election system in the next demogame, this is just a test election to see if someone want to test it out, to help develop the idea and in general try to craft a next generation CIV4 BTS demogame.


Options are

Yes
No

Poll lasts for a week, since we got so little traffic here.

 

[ravensfire]

No.

The idea has potential, but the current proposals are far, far too complex. They're currently expressed in a high-level, summary format and take significant space. Converting that rough idea into a full set of rules will result in easily the most complex ruleset we've ever seen. I draw attention back to He Who Must Not Be Named, and the convoluted ruleset for that game.

Change can be good, but change without a viable plan is bad. Based on the state of all current Civics proposals, I vote NO.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Joe Harker]

I abstain for now, in it's current form it isn't up to it, but with a few tweaks and simplfying i would vote for it.

 

[Provolution]

This was not for the complete idea, but to apply some concept.
Please test the idea like Locce did...

 

[ravensfire]

This was not for the complete idea, but to apply some concept.
Please test the idea like Locce did...

Okay, the initial question is to "... test out CIVIC-CENTRIC election system in the next demogame". That indicates to me that the results of this poll will be used to determine (or at least push the preference of one type over another) the type of ruleset the next DG will use. Based on that impression, I find it extraordinarily difficult to support an idea that is currently complicated, vague and still just a concept - certainly not anything that could be easily used as the basis for a ruleset. I believe there's potential in the idea, but its rather unwieldy at the moment.

Your comment seems to suggest that my impression of that question is incorrect. So if my impression is wrong, what is the purpose of this poll?

I would note that this would hardly be the first time that multiple ideas for running a DG have been proposed. Usually the ideas will get developed to a solid proposal (often just a summary), then presented to see what most people prefer. From there, the preferred proposal is developed.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

Yeah, it was to test to prospect of including it. I knew already there was some die-hard traditional demogame convention on the topic, which is why I would like more people to find what aspect of the civic-centric system that could work, and how. This poll was mainly targeted at staunch Civ3 supporters and traditional demogamers to see if they are still determined to run for civ3 and/or traditional. As we see from comments, people could like the trimmed down civic-centric version with government civics only, legal civics to be at the discretion of the elected leaders and finally let labor, economy and religious civics be the matter for non-official groups and individuals that would like to influence the cabinet.

However, this also means that there would be less democracy under despotism, hereditary rule and police state, and more democracy under representation and universal suffrage. The core idea is to leave the perpetual 90s behind, and allow for a more historical approach

 

[ravensfire]

I think I'm just going to hit the Judiciary's fridge for a cold one, and kick back for a while. I still don't really get the reason for this poll.

Honestly, I think you polled it too fast, Provo. The core idea is interesting, but it's hideously complicated and changing so fast it's impossible to know what's the current idea. You'll not get many votes in support that way.

I think you need to go through your idea and mentally run it through some actual game scenarios. Look at it from the perspective of the highly technical, highly perfectionist player, the lurker, the role-player, the relaxed player and most importantly, from someone who's just seeing things for the first time.

How will they react? Where will they get confused? How will this help them? How will this drive them away? Each of those groups will give different time to different aspects of the Civ game and the DG game - how will those variants affect you proposal?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

Thank you Ravensfire, I will look into it tomorrow. Seems we are shorthanded on people to drag this along, so I better be more emphatic on addressing all the interest groups. And yes, this is still in the works, but I had some remarks by a couple that tried to stop the concept dead cold for the benefit of the traditional demogame (for the average Joe some said, but Joe Harker, our only Joe, is way above average) and Civ3.

The core idea is to force ourselves to go along with government civics, and limit the change of civics (self-imposed) to term elections. This will make it easier for a new regime to put their fingerprint on the term they work in.

 

[Strider]

I like the civic central idea. It twists the game from the political-mess to the RPG element we need so badly. Is it completely finished? No.

I realized here that I made a mis-type. I didn't mean the idea was stupid and simple, but that it NEEDS to be stupid and simple... or appear to be anyway.

That, I think, is what makes it so hard for us to get new players. The entire game is just hugely complex. People look at it and think "Hell.. I don't have time for this."

 

[DaveShack]

Donsig made a similar plea for trying out the RPG-based game idea. We could unofficially start a game, with just the outline, and feel through what the rules need to be. If it flies, then add flesh and draw in the people. If it doesn't fly, then we toss it in the bin and try another idea.

I think the most likely path back to successful DGs is doing something fun. Talking about it won't do it by itself.

One other thing, looking back I think things go downhill when we take them too seriously. We do need conflict to hold interest, but it must be cordial and fun, not antagonistic and serious.

 

[Provolution]

Agreed DS, I think this is why we need the roleplay aspect, as we get the alter egos to clash, not us as persons. This is why insults fly so easily.

If we use demogame references by title, and even by faction and alter ego, things may get interesting, without making it a real life witchhunt.