The Death of IOT

[Ailedhoo]

Well, acti is not as evil as EA is, but Steam has another kind of evilness.

What kind of evilness? It has benefited plenty. It has the united support of Something Awful. It has expanded Telltales influence. What is the dread from it?

 

[Sonereal]

I agree. That what made me hate IX IOT (The one with GM'ed by Tani with RP as economical points). Throvald and Ailedhoo just spammed RP and they won not because of planning but because of spam.

I think it is wrong to call it spam. I enjoyed reading every post about the Downfall Gang.

I believe that more mechanic based IOT's will lead to better games and the players will have to actually have a strategy.

I must admitt it, too much text. As I said before (and then replied in less than 10 minutes) more nukes nukes, less QQ.

Actually, nuclear weapons are another problem in general. On the player end, player's have less issues ordering a massed nuclear strike, despite the clear threat of mutual destruction, because they don't really have a stake in the lives of people that don't actually exist. On the other hand, mechanics wise, a GM either has to make them cheap to be realistic or expensive to deter their overuse.

In an equal-start game, it doesn't really work out that way. Plus, when they are used, there's the problem of no lasting economic damage.

Plus, Iron and Blood, one of the most popular IOTs of all time, was set in 1836. It didn't need nuclear weapons.

BTW I don't think IOt will die. And why is that alliances must be public? In this world there had been secret alliances, secret plots and such.

Alliances are usually forced to be public for A.) GM's sake and B.) Because of the way certain RR and Stability systems work.

Another thing is that I don't complain on the complexity of the game, so christos misunderstood me. I mean that IOT is more suitable for casual players (my butt hurts when sitting for more than 3 hours), and NES to the ones who has lot of creativity and time to spare.

Also, is there a "Encyclopedia de IOT"? There is wiki, but not a history of how it was born (If someone do it it would be great).

I have something on the beginning of IOT, but it's buried in the IOT Dev thread.

I think that there need be balance. Strategy is something I like, writing is something I like, reading lots of posts not worth a penny makes me cry. That's why I disapprove of Tani's judgement when it's time for RP bonuses.

That's why I've become extremely hesitant in handing our large RP bonuses lately. I think that some players who enjoy roleplaying will do it without a reward and tend to be of higher quality at that. The "reward" in that case would be to have written something to build up the world a tad and interest players.

 

[Patchy]

An image is worth more than 1000 words (is this translation is right?).

Yep.

Your using a translator? For what language?

 

[JohannaK]

He's Peruvian, you can guess.

 

[Osmowstroyer]

I am not using translator, but I thought I was not as good as I think on English.

 

[CivOasis]

A picture is worth a thousand words is the expression. So, close enough that everyone would understand it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

This article was one of my main motivators to kill MP2, besides my general apathy and disdain for how much anger, hatred and tension there was.

However, looking upon the comments, I must admit my initial reaction was inappropriate. While it was sad to see the Old Guard go, a new one has replaced them.

I also think some of them may have just simply gotten tired of the game after a few rounds, and naturally moved on.

Let us also discuss the irony that IOT V, even if it didn't really get off the ground, was pioneered by many of those same Old Guard. Granted, the reason they let it crash and burn was due to virtually no roleplay, which renders a game stale. This is why the RP bonus is genius - even in a mechanical world, players will put in effort to flavor the setting due to a tangible reward.

Let's look into things economically, too. No, not the mechanic. The principles. Demand creates supply. If Classic IOT is so desirable, why have there been so few? Logically if there were enough players behind the idea, there'd be far more than one running at any given time; even most numbered IOTs are still complex. I don't mean to brag, but IOT X is probably the closest thing we'll see to a Classic IOT for some time, since it practically stole every point from IOT IV.

Overall, while some of the older IOTers have left the community, some have remained and adapted, and countless new ones have also arrived. IOT may not be the peacenik, diplomatic paradise it always was, but I don't think that's bad: it makes the simulation ever more realistic. Above all, however, what's important is that the participants in a game have fun.

And, based on how the complex IOT system has yet to wither and die... it would seem quite a few are having fun with it.

On Nukes:

By eliminating WMD, I could eliminate FIVE technologies from MP3. Needless to say, I'm inclined to keep them out for the time being.

(Sorry RS )

I think that there need be balance. Strategy is something I like, writing is something I like, reading lots of posts not worth a penny makes me cry. That's why I disapprove of Tani's judgement when it's time for RP bonuses.

I don't care how sophisticated a person's vocabulary or originality is. I need to avoid being subjective, plus I'm not going to create yet another advantage between players.

Effort is what I reward more than anything else. Whether it's a page written by Stephenie Meyer or JK Rowling, a page is a page as far as I'm concerned (in the scope of IOT).

And by "it" I mean FaniciusTox, he who is more evil than EA, Activision and perhaps Steam together.

*does a bow*

 

[JohannaK]

A page of bashing my keyboard is a page too.

 

[Birdjaguar]

:Thread comes to a screeching halt:

Since when?

My objection to posting chat logs is related to using them to attack others here for opinions expressed there. I don't have a problem with their use as game tools or for game discussion that are moved here.

Sonereal has. For the most part, screencapping is a viable tactic. That is why I tell people in the chat, "first rule, no discussion of secret war plans". Because it is how they get screwed over. Someone will post war plans, discuss their secret politcking, and whatnot in the chat, resulting in !!fun!! for all parties involved when the discussion is posted.

We do end up having a period every few months where games look shockingly alike. It is why Shattered Europe and Valkyrie have a small to moderate sized player base that, for the most part, enjoy those games.

As for the topic of the thread, the problem is of course the idea of allowing any old player to enter a game. GMs that actually want to start classic IOTs need to be more restrictive in who they include.

Excluding people from playing games is not a good idea. If you want a private game, play it somewhere else.

Since when? We've been posting screenshots of chat since, like, last year.

As I said above, I will not allow chat postings to be used for personal attacks or to bolster incivility and mean spirited conversations. For game play they are fine.

 

[Mosher]

Most screenshots of chat are only game related.

 

[Sonereal]

Excluding people from playing games is not a good idea. If you want a private game, play it somewhere else.

I don't very well see how this is fair. All things considered, the rules say I can't keep someone out of the discussion.

Mind you, I'm not arguing to exclusion. The game Thorvald is talking about is cooperative, not competitive. In a way, it is a worldbuilding exercise. There are games in CivIV and V that are cooperatively created stories based on multiplayer games. No one is telling them that they have to include a newbie in their multiplayer game.

Likewise, I can't post my own little canon story in Princes of the Universe. If we take it that a cooperative game is a worldbuilding game, then it stands to be that exclusion based on the author's (GM's) wishes is justified.

Let's look into things economically, too. No, not the mechanic. The principles. Demand creates supply. If Classic IOT is so desirable, why have there been so few? Logically if there were enough players behind the idea, there'd be far more than one running at any given time; even most numbered IOTs are still complex. I don't mean to brag, but IOT X is probably the closest thing we'll see to a Classic IOT for some time, since it practically stole every point from IOT IV.

As I stated above, if we take that Classic IOT was a worldbuilding exercise, than we're left to the conclusion that Classic IOTs simply aren't run anymore because of a few people that would ruin the overall flow of the story.

I don't care how sophisticated a person's vocabulary or originality is. I need to avoid being subjective, plus I'm not going to create yet another advantage between players.

Effort is what I reward more than anything else. Whether it's a page written by Stephenie Meyer or JK Rowling, a page is a page as far as I'm concerned (in the scope of IOT).

Though, I think by not giving a reward, there is no incentive for "RPing for points" and hence, the RP you do get is from the heart, not for points.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Moderator Action: No it is not.

It is, unfortunteately, but it really shouldn't be. Chatrooms should be OT and never, ever discussing policy. Also, screenshotting just derails games into giantic OCC arguments of "NO U!" and general annoyance. I know I used to advocate screenshotting once or twice, but now I realise it is a bad idea. I propose that we ban all screenshots in every game everywhere and ban all IC talk in Chatrooms. This will fix a problem that has been plauging IOT more than the lack of RP IMO.

To the opening post, I have to agree that this new "regeme" as he calls it is strangling RP quite a lot. I know that I have played games where I didn't post nearly enough RP. But surely we can make a balance between "heartless numbers" and RPing. Looking to our Cousins at NES, I wonder how they manage it.

So I ask longtime NESers, specifically NESsers who play games of nations, like Birdjag, how do you maintain a RP rich environment with increasingly complex rules? Perhaps there is something that you are doing that we are not.

 

[Patchy]

Personally I think excluding players just because they are new is a bad thing. If Tani had taken that approach with MP2 I wouldn't have been able to join the IOT games. Excluding new players is a very elitist thing to do, rather you should be looking to bring players over and teach them the style of play so that you have more players to make a community out of.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm not quite sure why I would ban IC talk in my chat.

Or ban screenshots of it in my games. :|

Personally I think excluding players just because they are new is a bad thing. If Tani had taken that approach with MP2 I wouldn't have been able to join the IOT games. Excluding new players is a very elitist thing to do, rather you should be looking to bring players over and teach them the style of play so that you have more players to make a community out of.

I didn't mean newbie like that. Couldn't find a better word to use. I also was talking about the Classical IOT mold, not the Rule-based IOTs.

What is asked of players in one is very different from the other.

 

[Patchy]

I didn't mean newbie like that. Couldn't find a better word to use. I also was talking about the Classical IOT mold, not the Rule-based IOTs.

What is asked of players in one is very different from the other.

If what you mean is banning players that you know are going to not play by the Classical IOT mold then I can see your point. Of course i think that it is still flawed, take this scenario for example: player A might just really enjoy Rule-based IOT's, he's part of the New Gen of players that see IOT's differently and thus has lead to some conflict with the Old guard. Then he sees a new Classical IOT and wants to join to try it out and is denied because the Old Guard thinks he's just going to cause trouble when he actually wants to play.

In my opinion it is better to offer someone the benefit of the doubt until they do something to justify kicking them out of the game.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

I'm not quite sure why I would ban IC talk in my chat.

There's a difference between IC chat and normal chat. Not once was my "normal chat" taken for what it was, apparently all my jokes and fake plans (i.e. 'nuke Rome') were not serious. You guys insisted they were IC though.

 

[Sonereal]

Hmm.

That's a good point actually. I shall concede the point on that then.

 

[Patchy]

Me or P_F?

 

[Sonereal]

You, Patchy.

Darn x-posts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't very well see how this is fair. All things considered, the rules say I can't keep someone out of the discussion.

Mind you, I'm not arguing to exclusion. The game Thorvald is talking about is cooperative, not competitive. In a way, it is a worldbuilding exercise. There are games in CivIV and V that are cooperatively created stories based on multiplayer games. No one is telling them that they have to include a newbie in their multiplayer game.

Likewise, I can't post my own little canon story in Princes of the Universe. If we take it that a cooperative game is a worldbuilding game, then it stands to be that exclusion based on the author's (GM's) wishes is justified.

As I stated above, if we take that Classic IOT was a worldbuilding exercise, than we're left to the conclusion that Classic IOTs simply aren't run anymore because of a few people that would ruin the overall flow of the story.

You will not be allowed to screen players and prevent someone from playing. You can set up your game rules anyway you want and let players know what you expect in terms of "orders" or "posts". Then if a player deliberately goes against those guidelines in order to mess up your game, you need to let me know. The burden in on the GM to clearly state up front what his expectations for the game are. That way when you solicit players everyone knows how they are to play. If you want to ban wars, that's fine, just make sure it is in the rules. If you only want stories, make it clear at the beginning. It is then my job to deal with those who refuse to follow clearly stated guidelines and undermine the game.

So I ask longtime NESers, specifically NESsers who play games of nations, like Birdjag, how do you maintain a RP rich environment with increasingly complex rules? Perhaps there is something that you are doing that we are not.

One man's opinion:

The short answer is that players cooperate to help make the game fun.

I've run three very large, complicated NESes with 25-35 players each. In each case I terminated the games because I could not manage timely updates. Their success (such as it was), though, was because the players were committed and participated such that the game was successful even if their nation was less so.

A good NES is a ton of work for all concerned. An excellent current example is North King's End of Empires. Take a look at it and the huge investment NK has made to create a compelling world. The players have made it an outstanding story. When you ask players to learn and follow a complex rule set, you need to deliver a rich setting that makes the complexity worthwhile. Simple fast moving games will attract new people and can be great fun, but over time some players will want more. That is when things begin to get more complicated and more demanding for all concerned. Richer, more complicated games will go slower and the impatient will be disappointed. I know that it could take me 6 weeks (and 20 pages in Word) to update one of my games.