The Death of IOT

[Thorvald of Lym]

What I am seeing here is an old-timer who can't handle the natural evolution of the game. Survival of the fittest.

I was anticipating 'reactionary' to come up at some point, but hell man, I thought we was mates..!


I don't know where the suggestion originated that new players be barred prima facie. As I've said elsewhere, I've known plenty of players that really blew me away with their overtures. As Sone states, the problem is with people who consistently demonstrate themselves to be troublemakers; the people who, no matter how many times you ask them to, refuse to fall in line. It's not something done on a whim; it's backed by evidence and experience.

With all due respect to BirdJag, I've repeatedly found the moderators' response to be insufficient to combat the problem, because they only have authority to focus on whether these individuals have committed specifically infractionable offences, not address how they ruin the general experience. It's a question of letter over spirit, and by the time it reaches the mods, the damage to the game is typically irreversible, because decorum and immersion have been destroyed. Short of appointing a mod to this board who "grew up" in the IOT culture (which I'm almost certain will never happen), GMs need the discretionary powers to police their own games.

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.

That's a problem I keep running into with Tani's games. Contrary to the image I may present, I can't, actually, write on demand, and when RP is too heavily commodified, I often feel it becomes a chore rather than an attraction, yet another statistic I have to keep floating above everyone else's.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Alas, it's a choice of poisons. If there is no RP bonus, from my experience, many players don't RP and just tend to post monotonous orders. It was what caused IOT V (which as memory serves, was the first attempt at a complex game)'s downfall, and I'm certain there's a reason the RP bonus idea was ever invented; it incentivises those who would otherwise just sit back and roll in fake currency to contribute something to the pool.

What happens, I notice, is that as players RP, they gradually fall more and more into the habit. It's also rewarding those who actively contribute.

 

[Mosher]

I was anticipating 'reactionary' to come up at some point, but hell man, I thought we was mates..!


I don't know where the suggestion originated that new players be barred prima facie. As I've said elsewhere, I've known plenty of players that really blew me away with their overtures. As Sone states, the problem is with people who consistently demonstrate themselves to be troublemakers; the people who, no matter how many times you ask them to, refuse to fall in line. It's not something done on a whim; it's backed by evidence and experience.

We are mates, I am just happening to disagree with your sentiment right here.

With all due respect to BirdJag, I've repeatedly found the moderators' response to be insufficient to combat the problem, because they only have authority to focus on whether these individuals have committed specifically infractionable offences, not address how they ruin the general experience. It's a question of letter over spirit, and by the time it reaches the mods, the damage to the game is typically irreversible, because decorum and immersion have been destroyed. Short of appointing a mod to this board who "grew up" in the IOT culture (which I'm almost certain will never happen), GMs need the discretionary powers to police their own games.

/sign

 

[NinjaCow64]

I'm not sure if this will get me infracted, but I really think it needs to be said. If you don't want someone playing your game, simply put them on your ignore list. It's that simple.

 

[Tani Coyote]

That's actually a question I've always wondered.

If someone is on the GM's ignore list, and the player joins the game, exactly what should the GM do?

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

Solution: No ignore list!

 

[Sonereal]

Solution: No ignore list!

I have more people on ignore than I have infraction points, so that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't know where the suggestion originated that new players be barred prima facie. As I've said elsewhere, I've known plenty of players that really blew me away with their overtures. As Sone states, the problem is with people who consistently demonstrate themselves to be troublemakers; the people who, no matter how many times you ask them to, refuse to fall in line. It's not something done on a whim; it's backed by evidence and experience.

I don't doubt that there are chronic problems. GMs banning them from games is not a solution.

With all due respect to BirdJag, I've repeatedly found the moderators' response to be insufficient to combat the problem, because they only have authority to focus on whether these individuals have committed specifically infractionable offences, not address how they ruin the general experience. It's a question of letter over spirit, and by the time it reaches the mods, the damage to the game is typically irreversible, because decorum and immersion have been destroyed. Short of appointing a mod to this board who "grew up" in the IOT culture (which I'm almost certain will never happen), GMs need the discretionary powers to police their own games.

Not true. We can act on anything that we feel is disruptive to the forums. Infractions are just the codified list of common problems we deal with. I may not have "grown up" in IOT, but I have been active in NESing for six years and have a personal roleplaying game history that goes back to Gary Gygax and Chainmail. I also solve problems for a living.

Your goal is have successful games that are fun to play. Mine is to have a forum where such games can happen routinely. You want to raise your odds of success by excluding those who you think will "ruin" your game. I want all interested members to be able to play. So how can we make this work?

You could send me a secret list of everyone who you want to be able to ban and evidence of their misbegotten behavior. Well, I'm not much of a fan of secret lists and I like public lynchings even less. That is not such a great solution.

How about this. When you launch a game and spell out clearly what the guidelines for play are, you accept all interested players into the game. If one of those who you fear will derail the game signs up, then you report his post and say that you fear this player will be a problem in the game. When I check the reported post thread, which I do each time I visit CFC, I will see the report and contact the player in question. I will remind them of their responsibility to play in the spirit of the game. If they do not, I will ban them from the game. Then I will watch the thread.

This will only work though if the expectations for appropriate play are clearly stated by the GM and everyone in the game adheres to them. You cannot have one set of play standards for those you like and a different set for those you don't.

By using the report system as a game begins or when those you fear join, you bring me into the game before it goes bad and not after the fact. that allows me to keep things from going downhill. It also allows everyone to play if they are willing to play by the rules.

I'm not sure if this will get me infracted...

Apparently it didn't.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I don't doubt that there are chronic problems. GMs banning them from games is not a solution.

Forgive me but forbidding banning is not a good idea. This is for community.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Forgive me but forbidding banning is not a good idea. This is for community.

Prima facie exclusion of people is not a benefit to the community.

 

[Mosher]

I actually like Bird's system, if we cannot just ban players out right. I will put my support behind it; it's a good compromise.

 

[SamSniped]

I actually like Bird's system, if we cannot just ban players out right. I will put my support behind it; it's a good compromise.

Agreed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

More thoughts:

One of the biggest differences between NESing an IOT is that in IOT orders seem to be posted publicly in the game thread. In NESing, they are private and sent via pm.

Are earlier orders considered to take precedence for the update? So if I were to post a province claim before another player, I would be more likely to gain it? Could/should/would adding structure or more formality to the order posting process improve the game play experience?

 

[Ailedhoo]

More thoughts:

One of the biggest differences between NESing an IOT is that in IOT orders seem to be posted publicly in the game thread. In NESing, they are private and sent via pm.

Alas many orders in IOT are also sent via PM.

Granted it is optional but for war plans especilly they tend to stick to secret orders.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Prima facie exclusion of people is not a benefit to the community.

I completely agree with you. People change and can become valuable players when they once were not, I can think of a few unnamed examples myself. Bannign them outright denies them the chance to improve.

More thoughts:

One of the biggest differences between NESing an IOT is that in IOT orders seem to be posted publicly in the game thread. In NESing, they are private and sent via pm.

That is generally true, but it isn't always. Any game with espionage, like IOTE II or any of the MP series, you were allowed to send your orders via PM. And indeed, it was much more beneficial to send at least a part of your orders via PM, it meant that the enemy had much less idea what you were doing.

Are earlier orders considered to take precedence for the update? So if I were to post a province claim before another player, I would be more likely to gain it? Could/should/would adding structure or more formality to the order posting process improve the game play experience?

I don't think so. At least none of the games I have played use that system to determine who gets what province.

 

[Patchy]

Orders by PM always take precedance over orders on the thread. I think if two players expand to the same province how the GM deals with that varies from GM to GM.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Orders by PM always take precedance over orders on the thread. I think if two players expand to the same province how the GM deals with that varies from GM to GM.

Yes, but if Player A and Player B claims province X and Player A sends it publically while Player B sends it privately, Player B doesn't automatically get the province because he sent it via PM. At least not in any games I have played.

 

[JohannaK]

Actually, if two players claim the same province on the same turn, the troops they've used to expand engage. Since most if not all IOTs use armies for expansion or the same kind of points for both military operations and expansion.

 

[Ailedhoo]

There are other cases like in IOT 9 where if you both claim the same province the area becomes contested. You either organise it diplomatically or a border battle occures. Still military clash but with the option of avoiding the blades. That said I did have Sinai joint contested with Tani's nation in IOT IX and it never came to combat... especilly due to a few turns after the game ended.

 

[Sonereal]

Are earlier orders considered to take precedence for the update? So if I were to post a province claim before another player, I would be more likely to gain it? Could/should/would adding structure or more formality to the order posting process improve the game play experience?

Usually no. It would be too biased towards players on the East Coast.