Why did the last game die?

[croxis]

IF ANYONE TURNS THIS INTO A DEBATE I WILL GO OVER TO YOUR HOUSE AND SLAP YOU SILLY!

Now that is out of the way, all I would like to know are individuals' perspectives on what caused the death of the last democracy game

 

[dutchfire]

Lack of initiative

It's quite natural for some aspects of the demogame to go down after some time. What you need then is someone with initiative to bring it back, or to start something new. I think that is what we lacked later in the game. In the beginning we had Ice2k4 who set up quite a lot of activities, a newspaper, a lacrosse league, etc. When he left the game, there wasn't really anyone who set up new things. Some tried (I did a Demogame challenge which was hardly succesful, Grant did a rather good Gladiator league.)

Anyone can go along in a role play game, anyone can read a newspaper, what we really need is people willing to set up role playing and newspapers. Not only do you have to invest time, there's also a chance that it'll fail, which is hard for your ego. That initiative was what was sometimes missing I guess, and I think we should encourage such initiative in the new demogame.

 

[Strider]

Anyone can go along in a role play game, anyone can read a newspaper, what we really need is people willing to set up role playing and newspapers. Not only do you have to invest time, there's also a chance that it'll fail, which is hard for your ego. That initiative was what was sometimes missing I guess, and I think we should encourage such initiative in the new demogame.

Seconded. Although if there is any time to show initiative it is now. I've been trying to get things moving with little to no discussion. Only croxis here has seemed excited.

I also think we kind of killed ourselves by playing to much. We beat all of the hinges out of the constitution which left very little dynamic aspects in that area. Offices became so easy to get it wasn't that big of a deal. We killed the game by trying to perfect it. I am leaning towards saying just to wing it this game. Let's do stuff with no look at how it will effect us in the future. Let's just have fun.

 

[ravensfire]

Agree with dutchfire.

We had a protracted ruleset process that went on months longer than it should have. We then got bogged down in the details, disruptive acts and whining. We had people that cared about the process, people that cared about the process and people that cared to complain. The result was lots of finger pointing, but nobody willing to work towards a solution.

I'm not sure if "winging it" is the right approach, but the simpler the process, the better.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Arguments and debates about the rules. That's what basicaly turned me off from the Demogame. Most of the threads (that I saw) were more geared towards laws and rulesets and less about the game itself.

 

[croxis]

Like I said, winging it will allow for emergent gameplay.

 

[Joe Harker]

Dutchfire pretty much sums it up.

 

[Octavian X]

I do agree that a certain player-based initiative is missing from the game - the DG2 RPG, for instance, lost a lot of momentum when Shaitan decided to bow out, as he'd been the prime mover and shaker behind its processes. Ever since, bursts of activity in the DG have really correlated to the new presence of those willing to devote a lot of time and energy to the game.

Rulesets never had anything to do with it, I think. Heck, there was the AlphaWolf incident - one really involved person gave a lot of momentum to the forum in the rule-designing process. The first demogames had their own protracted rule disputes (Term 1 of C3DG2 saw a nearly endless Judiciary thread), but the momentum kept the game alive. By now, the inevitable entropy has set in for us old farts.

If we really are going to get another game going, the best thing we can do in designing a system is to make at as easy as possible for a person to get involved - new blood means new initiative, and a better experience. Anything that makes getting into the flow of the game difficult (like an emergent ruleset, imho, but that's another thread entirely) will end any future game.

 

[croxis]

Oh, but please do!

 

[Octavian X]

Well, yes, it was very fluid and allowed for an evolutionary process.

By the same token, that fluidity made it difficult to precisely track down what exactly the rules where. This in turn makes it difficult for casual players to know which rules were in effect, introducing an element of instability in game play.

Also, it seems to me that the evolution that we thought would happen never took place. We were still trying to elect chieftains and warlords in the industrial era! We just were sortof appending positions as we went on in the beginning, and the inertia set in toward the end, which effectively cemented the positions as securely as any constitution would have.

I guess you could just call me nostalgic for the old days, when top executive leaders could set policy (and amend a part of the law code... and approve Presidential appointments...) by vote (in a turnchat, no less!), when constitutional change required huge majorities and Senate approval, and democracy overall had a very different meaning.

 

[croxis]

In another thread silly =p

IF ANYONE TURNS THIS INTO A DEBATE I WILL GO OVER TO YOUR HOUSE AND SLAP YOU SILLY!

 

[AluminumKnight]

If I could just share a few comments of mine as a person who was very excited to get involved in his first Demogame (I had always seen/heard about them, but never got involved), but lost interest fairly quickly:

1. When I signed up, before the game started, there was a lot of activity and everyone seemed excited, creating groups all over the place. Well, it didn't take long before the group I had joined simply stopped doing anything. This is a common pitfall, I think, for anything. Everyone is excited at first, and things sort of die down as the game moves along. What you guys have been saying is definitely spot-on, there needs to be initiative in leaders of groups and such.

2. It was very hard for me to figure out what was going on with the game. I honestly could not tell where the game was, but it always seemed to be way ahead of where we were politically. Either that or it was hung up on waiting on someone to do something. There were tons of "official" threads, but it was kind of confusing and hard to find the information I was looking for. Not to mention things kept changing places (for instance, I remember the location of screenshots of the current empire changed a bunch of times) Things just seemed... all over the place.

3. This is partly due to me personally, but I felt like I really didn't have an effect on the game. It seemed to be a very daunting challenge to take an office, partly because of all the rules and stuff, partly because there seemed to be an "elite" group of people that always ran things (which is not necessarily all bad), and partly because it seemed like whoever had the actual game at the time was making almost every decision anyway (I could be wrong about this, but it was the impression I got).

I'm going to give this a shot again, and even try to organize my own group this time, so I'll definitely be here trying as well.

 

[croxis]

AlKnight it it on the head on what was the major barrier that kept me from getting into the Demogame. I've tried several times.

 

[Shattered]

I found the last game bogged down with too much beauracracy and rulemaking. With barely any roleplaying happening, I lost interest pretty fast. Sure, I love to micromanage my civ games, but not to the degree that the last one was. (IE planning out the entire tech path, talking in videogame jargon instead of roleplaying) I'm going to drop my bias for the last game, and join this up and coming one. Hopefully it will be a balance of both roleplaying and CIV. Oh, and one more thing. I found it kind of ridiculous to have a fully formed and structured constitution IN 4000BC! Now I know most people wanted a base to stand on, but come on. People back then barely had spoken languages, not at least to say a fully formed constitution. If there is one thing that could draw me back into this game with full gusto, it would be a history related political progression system. Such as NOT having complex idealized modern political movements untill either the time period or the technology warranted such. In lamens terms, no communist Ghengis Khans in 1200bc.
Well, that was fun to type. I am expecting alot more from this game, but I will play regardless.
*rant over*

 

[Octavian X]

In another thread silly =p

You asked for it.

 

[fed1943]

The rules (call them constitution or whatever) are not for 4000BC but to a group
of players living in XXI century.
But... no English language in 4000BC, so we are forbidden to post in said
language.
Best regards,

 

[Provolution]

Well, constitution with all that UN, political correct liberal blabber was the problem. Of course we need "in character" game rules, but not constitutions based on a Mickey Mouse rip off from the US constitution. Human rights do not belong into such a game simulation, in particular not 4000 BC. What we need is fair and transparent game rules, metagame rules if you prefer to call it that (in English of course) and then allow the faction based selected government develop the companys laws, and vest this trust in them. This will leave out the consensus model we had before, and replace that with "winner takes it all dynasty -because the better proposal has gotten more votes". This way, 50 % of the votes would do per Civics change (we make it "real" in the sense we can only change government and laws during civic changes, which we tie to the faction platform. No change of civics means no change of government). We need more immersion, and less "traditional" rules, that will only deter non-veterans. Veterans knows the ins and outs of "traditional", and new ones would never have a fair chance to catch up. Faction based "winner takes it all proposals" will be a more crystal clear way to convey that a massive rule, power structure and concept have changed.

 

[DaveShack]

The losers in a "winner take all" system are left out. How can that be healthy?

IMO what kills these games is bashing. I'm seeing it again in this thread before the game even starts. We've had tradition bashing, change bashing, RPG bashing, technical play bashing, mistake bashing, and bashing for no good reason at all. Not to mention American bashing, UN bashing, and virtual lawyer bashing.

How about a moratorium on negative campaign techniques? Don't say why the other system is bad, say why your system is good.

 

[Provolution]

The losers in a "winner take all" system are left out. How can that be healthy?

IMO what kills these games is bashing. I'm seeing it again in this thread before the game even starts. We've had tradition bashing, change bashing, RPG bashing, technical play bashing, mistake bashing, and bashing for no good reason at all. Not to mention American bashing, UN bashing, and virtual lawyer bashing.

How about a moratorium on negative campaign techniques? Don't say why the other system is bad, say why your system is good.

I think that moratorium will be hard to implement, and we seem to be split in two halves. Though, I suspect the traditionalists will win in the end, as they simply wear us out by sticking to their thing (without inventing any new, as they recycle the old system, so all they got to do is to say "no").


There are winners of Traditional too, and that is the veterans that power broker through rigged "laws" , forum conventions and other means, which turns the game into a bureaucratic and legalese slugfest, fun for them, but unfun for very many.

If we pick traditional, I think this will be a smaller game for sure.

 

[Strider]

If we pick traditional, I think this will be a smaller game for sure.

The large majority of newer players are supporting Faction Based.