The Death of IOT
- Thread starter Thorvald of Lym
- Start date
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Yes I joined IOT X. Why? because there are ZERO unrealistic economic game mechanics. There is no economic component in the game so therefore its entirely roleplaying, if I chose to be realistic economically I am not penalized but nor do I get a benefit for doing so. Thats fine by me.
Its the IOTs like yours that bug me because you implement game mechanics which try to add strategy and realism to the game but turns into a focus on strategy at the expense of realism. I also addressed this here:
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
When one considers there's more than one school of economic thought (though some such as supply-side are bankrupt based on historical evidence but let's not get into that), I think it's bizarre to call economics unrealistic myself.
Then again I've never really cared for realism to begin with. I believe in selective science.
Then again I've never really cared for realism to begin with. I believe in selective science.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Because, as we all know, economies in real life are determined a hundred percent by roleplaying.
Not saying that you're wrong for liking IOT X or unrealistic games like it. I'm just saying that I can make up reasons too.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
There is more then one, however the schools are for the most part similar enough that you can narrow them down to three different schools Saltwater (Center-Right economically. Contains all the various branches and spinoffs of Keynesian Economics), Freshwater (Far-Right economically, contains virtually every school of economics, which doesn't necessarily mean they are right as the largest school (Keynesian) isn't ine of them) and Marxist (Far-Left economically)
But I have yet to see an IOT (the ones I created included) that actually implement economic mechanics coherent to an economic school of thought, however that is not what I meant. The problem is whenever someone has implemented game mechanics it has been (to my knowledge) either more territories = better economy, more technology = better economy or an industrial score entirely dependent on your capital or one of those where each territory has a score. Each of them creating more problems then solutions. In the past I have tried to either create multiple industrial provinces, or start with larger province scores as a way of curbing unrealism, but both of them ending with the players finding loopholes in the system and easily abusing it. Since then I have tried to keep as many game mechanics as possible hidden (just have lots of hidden modifiers) to prevent abuse but those have seen no popularity. We then get into the problem of technological development being based on the GMs perception. This I can't really complain about must when its a futuristic IOT, because lets face it, nobody knows the future, however this is more directed at IOTs set in the past (and specific reference to the popular industrial era IOTs such as Iron and Blood, IOT V, and others) where the GM doesn't have a perfect perception of history and creates an unrealistic technology tree (or doesn't have a tech tree)
Not making up reasons, if you bothered to read the past discussion, I made this complaint, with less detail, earlier in the thread and somebody RECOMMENDED IOT X for me, and after a brief discussion with the GM, I decided it was worth joining (and I am glad I did, however its a shame that everyone else is now pulling out.)
And TK finally replies to this thread...
Don't expect any illuminating thoughts however.
Oh boy, if so I'd hate to see what a world war would have looked like.
I admit to failing with IB2. It was just way too ambitious.
Because it's just too much work. It's quite simple. Same goes for implementing more complex economic systems, realistic combat, believable world, etc. Even updating the map becomes a significant chore when you have 30+ players.
Iron and Blood was a conscious effort on my part to create a type of IOT that was above all a game, with a clearly-defined ruleset and (initially) victory conditions, where stats and mechanics and calculations play a central role; in short, a game that stood in opposition to everything Thorvald believe in. However, I also wanted it to be a believable game world, hence the insistance on detailed country backstories, and the introduction of "events". It turned out rather better than expected even after I left, with by far the most successful GM transition in IOT history. Towards the end I rejoined the game as a player, and I found it highly enjoyable.
I did have a gripe against Iron and Blood, and that was I didn't think it was detailed or immersing enough. It was something I wanted to address in IB2. As had been my approach since IOTV, I added more rules, more game mechanics, and encouraged more players to play. It was overly ambitious; though less so in some respects than what kiwitt and I had planned initially. When I couldn't handle the game anymore, I thought I'd relaunch the game as a "classic" IOT; that is, no game mechanics, just roleplaying, but by that time interest in the game had died and, I guess, the idea of a pure-RP IOT was considered so absurd by this time that people weren't willing to even give it a shot.
Probably not dissimilar to what kiwitt did. If anything it might have been more chaotic with me keep adding or removing rules to try to balance out everything.
Like kiwitt said, espionage was really overlooked. And IIRC, practically no one touched the espionage feature in IB2.
With IB1 and IB2 I did not intend to model a realistic or even a semi-realistic economy; my goal was to present the illusion of a believable world while keeping GM workload down. I admit that my grasp of economics is shaky, and my grasp of history is not as solid as some in this community would like to think, thus the aversion to implementing any game mechanic that goes in-depth into the minutiaes of economics, political ideologies, military tactics and strategies, etc. In Iron and Blood I get around the problem of economy being based on the number of territories, industrial score or technology by introducing random events and events and factions that grant various modifiers depending on player roleplaying. It's not perfect, but it makes the world that much more engaging, and that's the important thing in my opinion.
Don't expect any illuminating thoughts however.
Oh boy, if so I'd hate to see what a world war would have looked like.
I admit to failing with IB2. It was just way too ambitious.
Because it's just too much work. It's quite simple. Same goes for implementing more complex economic systems, realistic combat, believable world, etc. Even updating the map becomes a significant chore when you have 30+ players.
Iron and Blood was a conscious effort on my part to create a type of IOT that was above all a game, with a clearly-defined ruleset and (initially) victory conditions, where stats and mechanics and calculations play a central role; in short, a game that stood in opposition to everything Thorvald believe in. However, I also wanted it to be a believable game world, hence the insistance on detailed country backstories, and the introduction of "events". It turned out rather better than expected even after I left, with by far the most successful GM transition in IOT history. Towards the end I rejoined the game as a player, and I found it highly enjoyable.
I did have a gripe against Iron and Blood, and that was I didn't think it was detailed or immersing enough. It was something I wanted to address in IB2. As had been my approach since IOTV, I added more rules, more game mechanics, and encouraged more players to play. It was overly ambitious; though less so in some respects than what kiwitt and I had planned initially. When I couldn't handle the game anymore, I thought I'd relaunch the game as a "classic" IOT; that is, no game mechanics, just roleplaying, but by that time interest in the game had died and, I guess, the idea of a pure-RP IOT was considered so absurd by this time that people weren't willing to even give it a shot.
Probably not dissimilar to what kiwitt did. If anything it might have been more chaotic with me keep adding or removing rules to try to balance out everything.
Like kiwitt said, espionage was really overlooked. And IIRC, practically no one touched the espionage feature in IB2.
With IB1 and IB2 I did not intend to model a realistic or even a semi-realistic economy; my goal was to present the illusion of a believable world while keeping GM workload down. I admit that my grasp of economics is shaky, and my grasp of history is not as solid as some in this community would like to think, thus the aversion to implementing any game mechanic that goes in-depth into the minutiaes of economics, political ideologies, military tactics and strategies, etc. In Iron and Blood I get around the problem of economy being based on the number of territories, industrial score or technology by introducing random events and events and factions that grant various modifiers depending on player roleplaying. It's not perfect, but it makes the world that much more engaging, and that's the important thing in my opinion.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Oh, btw, will I&B4 feature I&B upgrade system?
Unit upgrades? Probably.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
I mean that army upgrades scaled system that was schematised in I&B rules with a horribly drawn picture. Because I read I&B rules recently and I couldn't resist making a version that looks thousandfold better, but of course, I don't have anything to use it.
Yet you joined MP3 and called my nation stupid. Both you and mosher "preferred" to play with "realistic" nations.
Is this realistic enough for you?
Ah, hypocrisy at its finest
Moderator Action: My thoughts exactly.
As long as the world war didn't involve me there probably would have been less work
All wars that I get into involve so many layers of backstabbing and betrayal it isn't even funny. I mean in like the two updates the game got I sent over 600 PM's to players (and that effort worked out marvelously, if the game didn't end we would have won the war).
And it wasn't the fact that it was too ambitious, I think its the fact that you just gave yourself too much work. You seem intent on soloing every game, which is fine for a quicker less in-depth game (or if your kiwitt who's retired and has a crapton of time on his hands), but it doesn't work for the ones you make. Seriously, I think you should find like 2 co-GM's to help carry the grunt work with you, and give a reasonable work load. I know it didn't work out for my fail-edition of IOT, but I can put that failure was entirely on me being a new (and not ready) GM, not to the multi-GM structure.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
all the more reason to make a mega alliance against you
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
No, that would be me. As long as we're talking about games with War Plans involved.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Personally from my experience, if you wanna watch out for anyone, it's AA and Jehoshua.
AA is good at spotting the best mechanic to exploit, and Jehoshua is very good at manipulating other players' actions.
AA is good at spotting the best mechanic to exploit, and Jehoshua is very good at manipulating other players' actions.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Yeeep. Also watch out for anybody flying under the radar, and if the game has WMDs, it's veeeery probable that RS will have some on stock.
Robert Can't
Éponine
Never watch out for me... You'd just be wasting your time.
Similar threads
