Scrap the Civic Exceptions

[Provolution]

Scrap the Civic Exceptions

I do think we should scrap the civic exceptions, and I am presenting the idea here so that we can give the factions more options to play with. The presented civic exceptions are unbalanced, removes choice and in some cases ahistorical as well as may reduce quality of roleplaying options.

These historical options would be impossible with the present exceptions:

1. Despotism, Free Religion and Bureaucracy:

Imperial Rome was like this for a period, where both Paganism and Christianity was there coexisting. Rome was indeed a Despotic Bureaucracy for large periods of time.

2. Hereditary Rule, Nationhood and Emancipation

Prior to World War One, Imperial Germany, Great Britain and to some extent the smaller kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and Netherlands all had hereditary rule by royal families, a sense of nationhood and emancipation.

3, Representation, Slavery and State Property

This is a rare combination, but may well have happened. Communism before Stalins centralization of power had these features, before the Police State kicked in under Iron-Felix. This era in Soviet Union had all Representation (Communist Congress), Slavery (Gulags) and State Property (Expropriation and Kulak massacres).

4. Police State, Free Speech and Free Market

This could very well be post 2001 America, which paradoxically has both free speech and free market coexisting with the Patriot Act and a heavily policed system, Zero Tolerance in New York could be one concept. This would definately apply to Singapore, where the Peoples Action Party got 96 % votes.

5. Universal Suffrage, Vassalage and Theocracy

Very unlikely, but this could well be todays Iran, where everyone can vote for a President, but the Clergy rules indirectly, and there are local strongmen each running their cities and provinces on their own.

 

[DaveShack]

I interpreted the original idea for "penalty civics" as a way to hold the ability to play a perfect civ game in check. Historically and RPG wise, there is no reason to have the limits.

 

[Provolution]

Police State and Free Market, for example, has nothing to do with keeping a perfect civ game in checks. Several other mechanisms to do the same job have been denied for minimalist reasons. I say we scrap them, as I am certain people would pick different factions anyways.

If there is going to be no membership limits and so on, and all these proposals were nullified for the same reasons, the most fair thing to do, would be consistent to the core message of "minimalistic rules" and get rid of these exceptions.

Personally, I intend to answer in-character, when someone very legal or statistical try to pin me on some metagame concept.

 

[AluminumKnight]

I, like Dave, was under the impression that the penalty civics were there to prevent us from simply adopting the best civics and then sitting there unchanging. However, I don't think it's that much of a problem if we don't change civics. Since we're allowing multiple factions per civic, we can switch factions without switching civics. I think that makes civic limitations more or less a non-issue.

The problem with instituting membership limits is that we are then saying that we WILL deny applications, which is something that we should definitely avoid. If there really is an overwhelming support for a certain system, then so be it; that's how the majority of members want the demogame to be run.

 

[Provolution]

Well then, we agree, no membership limit, no civic exceptions, that sounds fair, as long as people are consistent to their core message.

 

[Strider]

There were several reasons for the civic exceptions, but I can't remember all of them right now. Off the top of my head:

• Additional strategy in the later game.
• Helps to keep the in-game popular government options from being the "best." Allowing the lesser used police state, etc. to have a chance at a decent faction. Why would suffragist want to make war and why should we give them the ability (or aid) to do so?
• Should take focus away from playing a "perfect game" and more on factions
• Additional roleplay elements for non-leaders. That and it also makes much more logical sense. A faction change is meant to signify a major shift, but if the only thing that changes is our government how does that effect anyone but those in government positions? It really doesn't. The penalties will help to negate that stupidity. The average in-game citizen won't care if the only thing that changes is who is running the government instead of how it is ran.

Also.. this should not have been in a new thread. Think you can combine them?

 

[Provolution]

This can certainly stand as a separate thread, so it does not end up buried in the heap of the 7 page long Faction Forum Rules thread.

This is more of an had hoc thread made in order to avoid being ignored or buried. Police State should rather scrap emancipation and pacifism, than free market and free speech, if we were staying true to the same concept as presented for the game. Police State is being less than what it could be, due to the imbalances between exceptons. I suggest we either scrap the exceptions in full, or revise them for game balance. And how are we to judge what the average in-game citizen thinks? The only way we know what he/she thinks, is by observing a vote.

There will be plenty of strategy in the game, as BTS is complex as it is. Following the mantra of minimalism, simplicity and focus on core rules only, suggests the exceptions have to go.

 

[AluminumKnight]

Remember that we really have no idea how this is going to work out before we try it. In general, I'm more of a fan of the "ground up" doctrine (probably not the correct term), where we start with a minimal amount of rules, and as situations present themselves, we can revise and add. This is, after all, the first attempt at a demogame here using the faction system. Think of it as kind of a trial run

 

[Shattered]

I still agree with scrapping the civic restrictions, but if that's not the case, we need to alter them in some way. Either reducing or changing the choices to represent a more historical approach.

 

[ravensfire]

Poll this, please.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

Good one, at least the WOTP will prevail (Sorry new ones, but that was veteran jargon )

 

[croxis]

If you can type out that element in parentheses, then you could have typed out the full thing.

 

[Provolution]

Yeah, WOTP stands for Will of the People, an abused term I hope not to see again.

 

[DaveShack]

Will of the People just means that we're not going to allow some megalomaniac take over the game and turn us all into serfs and vassals.

 

[Provolution]

And you assume I am the megalomaniac from the way you put it ?

How would a megalomaniac call for a guaranteed quarantine of government positions from one regime to another?

 

[DaveShack]

How do you know I'm not referring to myself?

Now where's that ban stick gone to...

 

[Provolution]

How do you know I'm not referring to myself?

Now where's that ban stick gone to...

Ban stick? As a forum rule you mean? Well, I do not really expect much help there, so I take my lashes.

 

[DaveShack]

As a joke, hence the " ".

 

[Provolution]

As a joke, hence the " ".

I see, part of the "stick and carrot" argumentation only you can make...

But I still argue my case, within the forum rules, and I, as many others, want to have a ruleset we also can live with (the ones of us that happen to share some of my sentiments as I share theirs).


However, I have a few suggestions that may make it easier for the exceptions to remain, but slightly tweaked for game-balance reasons.