What do you think 'killed' the demogame?

[donsig]

And in the world people and officials get taken to court and lawyers argue over what the law means.

Thank you for saying this. It seems to me that there was a desire to have something more than civ, and lacking any different ideas about what something more should be, the law became much more than what it needed to be. I was very confused, because first I would hear that we must protect the citizens, I'd try to do exactly that and then the same people would say no, don't poll that

Your problem was (is) that you try to be moderator AND play the game. You know darn well that when some of us make a case for something technical we are lobbying for what we want. Any good lawyer can argue for one interpretation of a law in this case and another interpretation of the same law for another case. I've seen you do the same thing DaveShack. It actually became quite fun to watch your tactics and then spring them back at you later. Wrangling to get what you want IS playing the demogame.

 

[Cyc]

I haven't read much of the recent activity lately but what I have seen has been a bit sterile for my tastes, as the new generation attempts to pay reparations for our sordid past by being a bit too cordial. Bring back the thrill of debate, step out of the mechanics of the game and step into the ring! This game needs passion and opposing positions to work, not to mention a few shameless characters who know what it takes to carry Sweeps Week.

Me? Shameless? Well maybe you're right, DZ.
As always, it's great to hear from you.

Veterans regarding what?

I actually meant veterans in posting in the Civfanatics Demogames and all that entails. That doesn't mean a wizard in GOTM, PBEMs, SGs, etc... (although those skills would definitely be a plus) The Demogame had it's own thing going on. The Demogame, at least the first 5, walked the walk AND talked the talk. And everyone knew it. And everyone had a good time.

For those who voted lack of fun side things (RPG, groups, etc), why do you think there wasn't anyone creating this type of content?

DaveShack, just as much as anyone, you kept trying to spur the DGs along. You made points with me for that. Even if you can't do RPG, you're OK in my book. Plus, I don't think you ever banned me...
Actually, I felt shunned for the efforts I put into the DGs in regards to creativity. I did it just because it was so much fun.

Or waiting to jump on the person who does try to lead, for doing too much.

Yeah, like you did to Provolution, right, DaveShack?

And this thread was really fun to read right up to this point. You're both right right. Now break, and go back to your corners.

As far as the legal system goes, to me that part of the game was one of the most satisfying. These Demogames are played with a set of rules. That's what makes the game playable. Without the rules, it's too random. Chaos sets in quickly. Nothing's remembered, nothing matters. That's why the legal system was so important. Too many people wanted the chaos of randomly following the rules. The Courts reigned them in. It happened to the best of us, whether intentionally or by mistake, our errors needed to be identified and corrected, even if only an attempt was made. Of all the in-game positions for elected officials, I think the three Justice positions came closest to being an RPG on their own, if that makes any sense. I believe the Courts touched both worlds, the DG and the RPG, it's hard for me to put into words.

 

[Provolution]

To be clear here, I have no issue with Daveshack, and am generally at good terms with him. It is when this "Champion for the people" thing comes up when it might get sour. For "The People" could be players that abuse Daveshacks generally humane and chivalric ways to get a leg up on a different player. It is very much like those old, wrinkled women in the dark ages pointing their shaky, soiled and twisted fingers at the local alchemist or herbsmaster, and ask for the villages Judicial Champion (Daveshack) to make sure that the targeted person is burnt on a stake in the name of Principle.

This is where Monthy Python kicks in, or Kafkaesque processes for that matter, when these misled souls drums up a new Witchhunt, it is very hard for someone like Daveshack serving in a multi-capacity (Chief Justice, Chieftain, Veteran and Moderator) to balance out rights and wrongs. This is especially true in cases revolving around prestige and old grudges, where the notion of surrendering a case is unheard of, given the craving for forum status.

I still think there should be a Judicial system, but not as the source of disposing of political opposition or as a place to play "roles" in a metagame.
The judicial system should be there to make sure rules are followed. However, we need much much stronger ministers/leaders for this system to make sense, as there was in this game only a stick, and no carrot, for leaders. You get all the work, and all the blame, and very little of the honor and fame.

And this "Citizen right" thing is also pushed to far. It is almost like you are being turned in and arrested and sent to the War Criminal Tribunal in Hague, if you do not appease the slightest and most impulsive whim of some of the demanding types. There were a couple of "citizens" that made you feel you were institutionalized in a kindergarten or mental asylum, and attacked you on sight if you did not obey their ill-researched impulses.

For subgames to grow and emerge, we need much stronger leaders (so elections and long term planning actually counts) and a permanent end to this overdone polling thing. I want a demogame more in the spirit of Darth Vader, than Ralph Nader. If I wanted this American rights activist universe, I rather sign up with Amnesty International where I can see people eye to eye, if I wanted this activist thing, than this anonymous forum playground with semi-unknown posters advocating that their view have a higher moral ground one day, and the next day be confused with another dirty move.

I can honestly say I like demogames a lot, but have admittedly gotten more cynical about peoples alleged moral fiber compared to their scope and nature of actions (I have never claimed to be a great humanist, so I surprise positively when I surprise).

 

[ravensfire]

Hmmm, why did I drift off ...

* Fatigue - I've been involved in DG's for a long, long time
* Disgust - People that can . .. .. .. .. ., whine and moan, but won't put up a solution. They SAY they will, but won't do it.
* Disillusioned - Leadership isn't something elected or granted, it's earned. There are a few that LEAD, but of late, it's been very, very few. Too many people will complain, or will charge off on their own, but they don't LEAD. Leadership is more than just saying "Do this!", it's getting people involved in doing that, and supporting that.
* Embarrassed - People just don't give a damn about the rules. You know - I don't like some of them, but people in the past few DG's have done what they want, when they want, then whined when people called them on it. I find it embarrassing to be part of group that acts in such a manner.

I think the DG concept is dead at CFC. The core group is small, and shrinking. Some of the ideas tossed out are intriuging, but require more people that have been active to work and just aren't enough to interest me. Maybe a year or two break is needed, to allow people to rest, recharge and recover.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

I agree with various posters, so what I write below is mostly a rehash of what others have said.
Below are the main things that I think have went wrong, and how to fix them.

1. Fatigue
The only way to fix this is to give us a large break before the next demogame. I was thinking about a year or so. We should build up some suspense for it.

2. Disregarding of rules
Too often somebody will say, "Well the rules say this, but I know most people want to do it this way." People want to ignore rules they think most people don't agree with, but then don't want to spend the time to submit a simple amendment to the rules. I'm actually not sure how to really fix this, maybe a more aggressive court.

3. Playing to win
I know at first it sounds strange to play not to win, but I really think we should. If we play to win, one of two things will happen halfway through the game:
a. We know we are going to win, the question is "how long?"
b. We have no chance of winning, but will play on until defeat.
We should play as an rpg nation, as I and others have mentioned before. Instead of settling at Location A because it will provide us 3 more hammers and 2 more gold then Location B, we should settle there because our citizens want a beach getaway or such.
I want to argue about the morality of slavery, unlike this game where it was switched to solely because of lower maintenance (which was later changed in a patch). I recall a few people discussing the morality of it, only to be outshadowed by people saying: "Why would we stay in Tribalism when we can switch to lower maintenance?"

Also I think political parties would be a cool idea to inspire some debate, but the moderating staff says they violate forum rules, so there goes that idea...

 

[Eklektikos]

I would suggest that part of the problem with sustaining an unbroken line of demogames for several years is that that continuity inherently and unavoidably erodes some of the important elements which made the concept so fun in the first place. The first two or three games were enjoyable, at least from my perspective, because the players were in the process of creating something from nothing. Arguing over new rules was fun because the ideas were, for the most part, fresh. Eventually, however, the number of inherited rules, customs and conflicts inevitably moves the game away from being a creative process and toward one geared toward tweaking and maintenance of the existing ruleset, which makes for a somewhat different play experience. This is no criticism of the players involved, but rather a speculation that the demogame format itself is incapable of sustaining itself without changing into a rather different beast in the process.

Disclaimer: It's been a long, long time since I've been active in a demogame here, so I may well be orating from the incorrect orifice, so to speak.

 

[Chieftess]

2. Disregarding of rules
Too often somebody will say, "Well the rules say this, but I know most people want to do it this way." People want to ignore rules they think most people don't agree with, but then don't want to spend the time to submit a simple amendment to the rules. I'm actually not sure how to really fix this, maybe a more aggressive court.

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not that people want to ignore the rules, it may also be because people don't understand the rules (especially with the way some people enjoy legalese here), or they don't know the rules, especially with newer players. We've had a couple that have played a turn or two extra (I remember one who asked during an election debate, "So, what are you going to do with XYZ civ that's going to attack us in 5 turns?") and they really didn't know they weren't supposed to do that. Sometimes things may crop up in a game that no one can control, like an enemy unit stepping on a used tile mid-turn and causing the build queue to be messed up (that was more of a problem with Civ3 than Civ4 as Civ4 has production overflow).

 

[Joe Harker]

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not that people want to ignore the rules, it may also be because people don't understand the rules (especially with the way some people enjoy legalese here), or they don't know the rules, especially with newer players. We've had a couple that have played a turn or two extra (I remember one who asked during an election debate, "So, what are you going to do with XYZ civ that's going to attack us in 5 turns?") and they really didn't know they weren't supposed to do that. Sometimes things may crop up in a game that no one can control, like an enemy unit stepping on a used tile mid-turn and causing the build queue to be messed up (that was more of a problem with Civ3 than Civ4 as Civ4 has production overflow).

I agree, it was the case during both of my cock ups! I had seen people post odds before and I didn't stop to think that moving the keshik was illegal because it was undoable, I just wanted to prove a point that would end the quite fierce infighting and instead provoked even more . Then there was the turnchat incident and although it was my error in judgement, there were several conflicting sources of information about whether the turnchat was legal or not.

 

[GenMarshall]

From my own point of view. Mainly it has to deal with the infighting when debating about the rules of the Demogame which have caused some people to be turned off, both current players and lurkers.

The next I lump both Demogame Fatuge and Game as Set in the same part for me since it gets tiering to constantly play in a game that we know that we have a win. Being through many of them, they grow kind of tiering without any kind of challenge to bring forward to the Demogame Community.

Lack of Public Turnchats, lack of time posting and a conventiant scedual, for me and to anyone who has the thing called Real Live. If the game moves too fast and one of the posters is working say a 12 hour job or works during the time the turns are being moved, the person in question would be lost and in the dust. On top of that many of us have other interest to attend to that grabs most of our attention. Some people it's work, some it's family, some it's another Game, and some it's another hobby. (Perhaps this can be tied into with the Demogame Fatigue and game is set), Most people would wander to something better and exciting if they see a "dry spell" when the game is set and done.

 

[Provolution]

Well, as long as certain veterans treat the demogames as their personal property, and the other players as meddlesome individuals when new solutions are presented, all debate on how to be truly novel in setting up demogames be laid dead. A handful of reactionaries are dead bent on running a strong judiciary, weak ministers and virtually no sub-games or RPG element.

We would be left with a micro-management feast and a meta-game on trashing the reputation of ministers just for fun, by a self-appointed lynch mob.