Styles of NESing

[Chandrasekhar]

This is a small project I've felt compelled to work on, regarding the differences in perspective between NESers on how a NES should be run. There are lots of odd variations on the basic NES concept that can be seen around the forum - games with mathematically driven, calculated stats; games that run like some complex board game, rather like CIV itself; games where orders don't matter at all, and stories drive the plot; and some say that my own Pre-ChaNES might as well be a NES of its own, despite its relatively low temporal resolution and detail compared to what I plan to include later.

After some discussion with other NESers on what separates these viewpoints from each other, I've come to the opinion that the differences in preferred NESing styles can be represented on a square graphic, similar to a political compass, and generalized into two main axes - the degree of freedom, or power, given to players in choosing what their nation does, and the degree of detail, or "realism," that the mod incorporates into the game's setting and mechanics. This can be charted as in the following graphic (courtesy of Symphony D.):


For use with this diagram, I've made a short quiz which can be used to determine where you'd be plotted on it. It's far from perfect, but it should get the gist across. Note your answers to the following questions:

Spoiler :

1: Which NES would you be more likely to join?

(a) One with detailed updates, but very limited stats.
(b) One with detailed stats, but very short updates.​

2: If a player spends significant funds on a plan that, in real life, couldn't be accomplished just by spending a lot on it, how should the mod respond?

(a) Waste the spending, or bank it for next turn
(b) Have the plan be carried out​

3: If two players give orders that lead to conflict, how should a mod resolve the situation?

(a) In favor of the nation with an in-game advantage.
(b) In favor of the player that sent the better orderset.​

4: What is the function of an update?

(a) To describe what events have happened since the previous turn.
(b) To describe how the situation in this turn is different from the previous one.​

5: Should the majority of player actions be categorized into defined categories with pre-determined costs?

(a) Yes
(b) No​

6: If a player spends on researching a technology that wasn't discovered until later in our time line, how should the mod respond?

(a) Award the player research in related fields
(b) Award the player the technology he was spending on​

7: Is it more important that games be consistently updated in a timely fashion, or consistently informative of minute details?

(a) Timely updates are more important
(b) Consistently reported details are more important​

8: What's more important when choosing the setting of a NES?

(a) An interesting situation.
(b) A believable situation.​

9: If a player of a democratic government implements unpopular policies, what should the penalty be?

(a) The action should be vetoed by the NPC legislature
(b) The action should be carried out, possibly with a penalty to the confidence/popularity stat​

10: Should a player be able to enact policies that, realistically, would be too extreme for a single ruler to implement?

(a) Yes
(b) No​

And here is an "answer key," for use with these questions. Starting from the middle of the graph, this key shows which direction you should move for each question, along the diagonal axis indicated.

Spoiler :

1: (a) +1 Detail, (b) -1 Detail
2: (b) +1 Freedom, (a) -1 Freedom
3: (a) +1 Detail, (b) -1 Detail
4: (a) +1 Detail, (b) -1 Detail
5: (b) +1 Freedom, (a) -1 Freedom
6: (b) +1 Freedom, (a) -1 Freedom
7: (b) +1 Detail, (a) -1 Detail
8: (b) +1 Detail, (a) -1 Detail
9: (b) +1 Freedom, (a) -1 Freedom
10: (a) +1 Freedom, (b) -1 Freedom

Feel free to post your own answers here, vote in the poll, and discuss the quiz and the concept behind it. For the record, my own answers are (aaaabababb), putting me in the "Simulationist" corner.

 

[Abaddon]

Initially I am annoyed you only give two options to questions an I feel neither option is how I feel!



It tells me I am a Storyist.. and that is completely wrong!

 

[Yui108]

Right leaning centrist here.

 

[Abaddon]

1: Which NES would you be more likely to join?

(a) One with detailed updates, but very limited stats.
(b) One with detailed stats, but very short updates.
(c) Short updates and stats please!

2: If a player spends significant funds on a plan that, in real life, couldn't be accomplished just by spending a lot on it, how should the mod respond?

(a) Waste the spending, or bank it for next turn
(b) Have the plan be carried out
(c) Re-examine their rule set which allows for significant funds to be spent on a project within one turn.

[I mean seriously, a project is meant to take several turns, one shouldn't be trying to invest so heavily upon its beginnings, especially if you have not confirmed it with the mod.

3: If two players give orders that lead to conflict, how should a mod resolve the situation?

(a) In favor of the nation with an in-game advantage.
(b) In favor of the player that sent the better orderset.
(c) Value both

[In game advantage should be weighed more, but orders should be relevant]

4: What is the function of an update?

(a) To describe what events have happened since the previous turn.
(b) To describe how the situation in this turn is different from the previous one.

5: Should the majority of player actions be categorized into defined categories with pre-determined costs?

(a) Yes
(b) No

6: If a player spends on researching a technology that wasn't discovered until later in our time line, how should the mod respond?

(a) Award the player research in related fields
(b) Award the player the technology he was spending on
(c) Re-examine their rule set which allows for technology to be researched in an inprobably way

[If the player is researching something written within the rules, and can "legally" research that tech, good for him. Your rules should not allow it.

7: Is it more important that games be consistently updated in a timely fashion, or consistently informative of minute details?

(a) Timely updates are more important
(b) Consistently reported details are more important

8: What's more important when choosing the setting of a NES?

(a) An interesting situation.
(b) A believable situation.

9: If a player of a democratic government implements unpopular policies, what should the penalty be?

(a) The action should be vetoed by the NPC legislature
(b) The action should be carried out, possibly with a penalty to the confidence/popularity stat

10: Should a player be able to enact policies that, realistically, would be too extreme for a single ruler to implement?

(a) Yes
(b) No

don't know what this means

 

[Azale]

Right leaning centrist, I stepped into and out of the Simulationist corner twice

 

[BananaLee]

a
a
a
a
b
a
a
a
b
b

D +1
F -1

Pretty damned centrist.

 

[Dachs]

A firm Simulationist I am.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Vertinari118]

I am a Centrist with Simulationist leanings and like Azale dipped in and out a few times of the Simulationist corner. Also I did not answer a couple of quesions because like Abby I did not like the answers provided. Maybe you could add one or two answers more to each quesion?

 

[Dachs]

Abaddon: this test is more of a "choose the best answer", not a "choose the answer that is always right in every circumstance" one. It's asking you to list preferences.

(c) Short updates and stats please!

We in DipNES and those in RiskNES are missing you.

(c) Re-examine their rule set which allows for significant funds to be spent on a project within one turn.

Believe it or not, players often do not read the rules. Hence this may not be a problem of the ruleset, it may be a problem with the player failing to care sufficiently (or being too lazy or whatever) to check to make sure that he can do that. That doesn't change the fact that the situation has arisen.

In addition, like I said before, this is a 'choose the best answer'. You can't bloody well map somebody's position with a short quiz by listing all of the possible answers a person could give, many of which are not conducive to putting somebody down on a plot and labeling them.

[I mean seriously, a project is meant to take several turns, one shouldn't be trying to invest so heavily upon its beginnings, especially if you have not confirmed it with the mod.

Most NESers also do not ask questions of the mod on a regular basis either.

(c) Value both

[In game advantage should be weighed more, but orders should be relevant]

Choose the best answer. In your case this would be in game advantage.

(c) Re-examine their rule set which allows for technology to be researched in an inprobably way

[If the player is researching something written within the rules, and can "legally" research that tech, good for him. Your rules should not allow it.

If your 'ideal rules' do not allow a situation but a player puts it in his orders anyway, what is your response as mod?

don't know what this means

Let's say you are playing as the President of the United States. You have a good deal of influence in the Senate and the House, but you can't just pass whatever legislation you want. You require the support of members of those legislative groups to first propose a bill and then get it through both House and Senate to your desk where you can approve it. Players can't just make up whatever laws they want and have them automatically come into force of law by fiat in that position.

Similarly, let's say you, as the ruler of Austria, want to raise troops from your vassals the Hungarians in order to fight a war with the Prussians and French who are invading you. You can't just order the Hungarians to give you the men, and you can't just spend the money on raising and arming the troops without being permitted to do so by your vassals. It follows that you must appeal to their interests somehow in your orders. In OTL, this was done by the relevant monarch making a personal, impassioned appeal to the assembly and emphasizing her legal rights, which had a good deal of pull with many people back in the days before kings were guillotined and emperors were executed by firing squad. You would have to make your vassals, over whom you do not have total control, see your side of the issue in order to do anything.

Alternatively, you can wave your hand and just say "sure what the hell".

What do you mean by in-game advantage?

More men, better troops, better leaders, terrain advantage, better supply situation, that sort of thing.

 

[Dreadnought]

I am a storyist. Cool!

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[bestshot9]

I'm a centrist, like some simulation but don't like it to be to the point where its just not fun and you can't get anything done. Also, stories are nice.

 

[Ninja Dude]

I'm just barely a storyist. It took forever for me to leave the Centrists area.

 

[LightFang]

Detail
III
Freedom
-III

This makes me...a simulationist? Funny...I think my ideals and my ability to carry them out have a significant gap.

Darn, I wanted to be a trendy centrist too. I heard that fence-sitting is all the rage.

Answers here, spoilered for your convenience.

Spoiler :

1: Which NES would you be more likely to join?

(a) One with detailed updates, but very limited stats.
(b) One with detailed stats, but very short updates.

2: If a player spends significant funds on a plan that, in real life, couldn't be accomplished just by spending a lot on it, how should the mod respond?

(a) Waste the spending, or bank it for next turn
(b) Have the plan be carried out

3: If two players give orders that lead to conflict, how should a mod resolve the situation?

(a) In favor of the nation with an in-game advantage.
(b) In favor of the player that sent the better orderset.

4: What is the function of an update?

(a) To describe what events have happened since the previous turn.
(b) To describe how the situation in this turn is different from the previous one.

5: Should the majority of player actions be categorized into defined categories with pre-determined costs?

(a) Yes
(b) No

6: If a player spends on researching a technology that wasn't discovered until later in our time line, how should the mod respond?

(a) Award the player research in related fields
(b) Award the player the technology he was spending on

7: Is it more important that games be consistently updated in a timely fashion, or consistently informative of minute details?

(a) Timely updates are more important
(b) Consistently reported details are more important

8: What's more important when choosing the setting of a NES?

(a) An interesting situation.
(b) A believable situation.

9: If a player of a democratic government implements unpopular policies, what should the penalty be?

(a) The action should be vetoed by the NPC legislature
(b) The action should be carried out, possibly with a penalty to the confidence/popularity stat

10: Should a player be able to enact policies that, realistically, would be too extreme for a single ruler to implement?

(a) Yes
(b) No

Notes:

2: If a player spends significant funds on a plan that, in real life, couldn't be accomplished just by spending a lot on it, how should the mod respond?

I say bank it at first, and then if this sort of thing becomes a problem then start having the money be wasted with accompanying drops in stats such as popularity and confidence and stuff.

3: If two players give orders that lead to conflict, how should a mod resolve the situation?

But of course order quality is important too...but I realize that this is not intended to be a rule to be followed dogmatically.

4: What is the function of an update?

I don't get the point of this question...

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Abaddon: this test is more of a "choose the best answer", not a "choose the answer that is always right in every circumstance" one. It's asking you to list preferences.

. . .

In addition, like I said before, this is a 'choose the best answer'. You can't bloody well map somebody's position with a short quiz by listing all of the possible answers a person could give, many of which are not conducive to putting somebody down on a plot and labeling them.

If your 'ideal rules' do not allow a situation but a player puts it in his orders anyway, what is your response as mod?

. . .

Let's say you are playing as the President of the United States. You have a good deal of influence in the Senate and the House, but you can't just pass whatever legislation you want. You require the support of members of those legislative groups to first propose a bill and then get it through both House and Senate to your desk where you can approve it. Players can't just make up whatever laws they want and have them automatically come into force of law by fiat in that position.

Similarly, let's say you, as the ruler of Austria, want to raise troops from your vassals the Hungarians in order to fight a war with the Prussians and French who are invading you. You can't just order the Hungarians to give you the men, and you can't just spend the money on raising and arming the troops without being permitted to do so by your vassals. It follows that you must appeal to their interests somehow in your orders. In OTL, this was done by the relevant monarch making a personal, impassioned appeal to the assembly and emphasizing her legal rights, which had a good deal of pull with many people back in the days before kings were guillotined and emperors were executed by firing squad. You would have to make your vassals, over whom you do not have total control, see your side of the issue in order to do anything.

Alternatively, you can wave your hand and just say "sure what the hell".

More men, better troops, better leaders, terrain advantage, better supply situation, that sort of thing.

Firstly, this.

(c) Re-examine their rule set which allows for significant funds to be spent on a project within one turn.

[I mean seriously, a project is meant to take several turns, one shouldn't be trying to invest so heavily upon its beginnings, especially if you have not confirmed it with the mod.

I mean not just projects, here - I mean stuff like "bribing a group of government-employed scientists in a rival country to share their secrets." Say a player spends 3 EP on it. If it's possible in the first place, it shouldn't take even a single EP to pay the scientists well enough to betray their countrymen, and if it's not possible, then no amount of funding is going to change that.

Yet at the same time, 3 EP is a substantial investment, and from a balance perspective, it's probably worth the technology that's being stolen. So, the question relates to one aspect of how "realistic" a game should be at the expense of balance.

3: If two players give orders that lead to conflict, how should a mod resolve the situation?

(a) In favor of the nation with an in-game advantage.
(b) In favor of the player that sent the better orderset.
(c) Value both

[In game advantage should be weighed more, but orders should be relevant]

You just said "in game advantage should be weighed more." Doesn't that give you your answer?

5: Should the majority of player actions be categorized into defined categories with pre-determined costs?

(a) Yes
(b) No

Judging from your other answers, this should be "yes" for you.

6: If a player spends on researching a technology that wasn't discovered until later in our time line, how should the mod respond?

(a) Award the player research in related fields
(b) Award the player the technology he was spending on
(c) Re-examine their rule set which allows for technology to be researched in an inprobably way

[If the player is researching something written within the rules, and can "legally" research that tech, good for him. Your rules should not allow it.

How many NESes have an explicitly defined tech tree? If you think that every NES should have one, then I think you're an (a) here.

5. a (How is this taking away Freedom? I start investing in something and you tell me how much I'll need to spend to get what I want, how does that limit freedom?)

You might be able to design a really good, comprehensive list of everything that you can imagine a player spending EP on, but someone will always come up with an idea you didn't consider. This question is also supposed to reflect opinions on NESes where you can build or do different things in your country with explicit, defined effects, rather than customized projects that the players design (and the mods assign value to).

+ Detail
- Freedom
Im actually in favour of player freedom?

Keep in mind that player freedom isn't automatically a good thing. There's a reason that games have rules in them.

I do worry that my quiz is somewhat biased, though. Maybe we all just have more similar NESing philosophies than I had thought. Keep in mind that only answering a few of the questions is likely to land you closer to the center, though.

 

[LightFang]

I do worry that my quiz is somewhat biased, though. Maybe we all just have more similar NESing philosophies than I had thought. Keep in mind that only answering a few of the questions is likely to land you closer to the center, though.

Might there not be some sort of stigma against appearing too recreational and stuff? I mean, doesn't being one of those simulationists make you, like, intelligent and stuff, since you love realism? I dunno.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I don't get the point of this question...

It's meant to bring out your subconscious attitude by a subtle change in wording. For example, for a Storyist/Simulationist, it's not just the current situation that matters - the way that it was brought about is also vital. For a Boardgamer/Arcader, it doesn't matter how the army got into a hostile city, as long as it's there this turn. A game run by a Storyist/Simulationist might feature that city revolting to aid a counterattack if the city was a victim of a biological weapons strike or a particularly nasty backstab, but a game run by a Boardgamer/Arcader wouldn't make the distinction.

Might there not be some sort of stigma against appearing too recreational and stuff? I mean, doesn't being one of those simulationists make you, like, intelligent and stuff, since you love realism? I dunno.

While a Storyist loves interesting situations, however they come about, an Arcader loves matching wits and strategy against his fellow NESers, and a Boardgamer loves crafting a perfect ruleset and watching it all play out in front of him. I myself was a Boardgamer when I first arrived here from Forum Games - only recently have I begun sliding upwards on the game detail aspect.

 

[Gelion]

Boardgamer on the border with Centrist.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I would consider myself a storyist, in your system of classification- but let's see what the quiz says. Here are my answers:

1. A
2. I can't answer this well, it really depends on the specific situation. If it's utterly impossible, I'll waste it, but with some result- IE, a primitive civilization trying to make a spaceship will just end up with a religious monument of vaguely similar appearance or something like that. However, if it is just around the limits of possibility, like early gunpowder or seafaring, I tend to be more generous. I suppose I'm closest to B, with some limitations.
3. A, but ordersets naturally will affect the outcome.
4. Both, but I lean towards A. The events create the new situation, not the other way around.
5. B
6. Typically A, but sometimes I choose B.
7. A. I'm an utter hypocrite when it comes to this.
8. A.
9. Depends on the severity of the action, but I tend towards B.
10. A. Yes, as the player is a figure superior to rulers, and has a great amount of in-game time on their side to act.

1: (a) +1 Detail
2: (b) +1 Freedom
3: (a) +1 Detail
4: (a) +1 Detail
5: (b) +1 Freedom
6: (a) -1 Freedom
7: (a) -1 Detail
8: (a) -1 Detail
9: (b) +1 Freedom
10: (a) +1 Freedom

Thus, I'm +1 Detail, and +3 Freedom. That puts me in the Storyist area, one line up and to the right of the arcader/centrist/storist intersection.