Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Haha I was thinking about stealing orange. But I didn't know what the etiquette was there.

Sorry if you had some issues with that rule. As we delve deeper into gameplay we're getting into "can't please everyone" territory--rules about streamlining voting and such are bound to be popular. I wouldn't be offended at all if you amended or recategorized these rules later, it just wasn't a priority for me.

It is kind of exciting to have a semi-controversial vote though!

[Kirian]

Vote: No on 335

[Kirian]

Also, yes, I'm aware we need some upkeep early in the thread.  I'll try to get that done today.

[scott_pilgrim]

Create: H8

I'm trying to think about the general direction that this game is going to go in.  In general I love eurogames, but with 11 people and a pbf format I think it is much more natural to have some more openly political, negotiation-based stuff going on.  That way decisions and discussions can be happening on other players' turns, and it feels much smoother and like more people are participating during other players' turns.  I guess I'm saying that has more of a free-for-all format rather than "ugh now I have to wait for 10 other people to take turns before I can do anything", since everyone can participate in discussions.

So with that in mind, in order for people to need stuff from each other, people have to have stuff that other people don't have.  Right now we're all sitting on the same pile of cash, and while we are occupying different spaces on the board (or will be once people other than me are on the board), we don't have anything that can make us say "this is something that I have that you guys need, let's work out a deal".  I'm thinking we can do something with classes, races, occupations, or something of that nature.  Like:

(Each player has an occupation, blah blah technical stuff.) At the start of his turn, if a player doesn't already have an occupation, he may spend one IP to set his occupation to one of the following: Stonemason, Kiln Master, Blacksmith, or Carpenter.

And then we have four resources, stone, brick, iron, and wood, and we have uses for that in building stuff, and then people need to trade to get certain things, and maybe you buy them from other people.  Something like that.  That's just an example, but I really like the idea of have separate classes/occupations that distinguish people's roles.  The flavor is also totally open to other people's opinions, if you guys would rather be flying around and building stuff in space that's totally fine as well.

Or maybe, we don't need any of this stuff at all, because maybe the board does actually give us the differences from each other that we need based on position.  We could say like the northwest quadrant is the forest, the northeast is the mountain, etc., and you can spend IP's in the forest to get wood, etc.  I guess the thing with that though is that since we can move then it may be optimal to just move around to get resources you need instead of negotiating with people.  Also in that particular example the middle of the board would be like way better than the corners, so maybe that's a bad thing.  Ooh, or it could be interesting if we do that but also with the rule that if you get surrounded you die.  But I don't really like that rule since everyone else can move so many times before your next turn.

Anyway, those are a bunch of thoughts that I'm having.  If there are other more important things for me to do with my turn, let me know.  If you like any of those ideas or have suggestions for details regarding either mechanics or flavor, let me know that too.  In my examples I just assumed there would be four occupations and resources but maybe someone thinks it's better to have 3 or 5 or 21945 different things, or maybe classes should do other things like get you more money per turn vs. better movement.  Or maybe we need more framework before we can start making interesting choices be possible, or maybe there's some important administrative fix I need to make.  Let me know what you guys want me to do with my turn, I'm happy to use it for whatever!

[florrat]

I'd like to see new rules which do something with our current features, instead of making new features. We now have money, a board, units with some position on the board and initiative points, but none of these is actually useful yet. I'd much rather see a rule saying "you can do this-and-this with money" or "you want to reach these-and-these squares on the board for such-and-so benefit" or "you can spend IP's on this-and-that" rather than a new concept.

I like your ideas, but since they're all also introducing new concepts, I'm currently in favor for something else, which doesn't introduce anything new.

About Forest/Mountains/... on the board: it's a nice idea. If we want to go in that direction, I'd suggest that instead of complete quadrants only parts are Forest/Mountains/.... For example: The top-right 4x4 (or 5x5 or 3x3) squares are Forest, the bottom-right 4x4 (or ...) is Mountain, etc.

But for the moment, I'd prefer something simpler... 4 people already showed support for the treasure chests rule I suggested, if you like it you could do just that...

[Jimmmmm]

I really like your ideas scott. They are kind of similar to ideas I had, where everyone needs a house to sleep in and food to eat, but no one person has the capacity to provide both, so some people have to be builders and some people have to be farmers and they have to work together to ensure everyone has a place to stay and food to eat.

I also agree that it would be good to get something going that means we can actually do something. It is important to have a way for us to earn money, but I think it's more important for us to have a way that money is valuable. The simplest way of doing this would be something like:

You can build a house for say $750.

If you have a unit on the board, you must have one inside a building in order to take your turn.

You can freely enter your own buildings, and you can enters others' with their permission.

Maybe you can also spend money creating/buying a bike or a horse or something, which will help you get around faster. Maybe you need something like this in order to move when it's not your turn. Maybe it costs a heap of money to give a unit a skill, so that some are able to build buildings, and some are able to build bikes or train horses, and some are able to grow food (maybe each unit you have costs 1 food per round to maintain or something), so each person will have to choose something to teach their unit to do that they think will not only help them, but will provide them with a skill they can trade with.

[Grujah]

Whats with you and houses, jeez!

[Jimmmmm]

Whats with you and houses, jeez!

Are you saying it's a bad idea?

We need a way to make money valuable. Do you have a better solution?

[Grujah]

Building stuff out of stone and wood is not really my thing. Kinda bland and flavourless, we can do better than that. :s

[Jimmmmm]

Building stuff out of stone and wood is not really my thing. Kinda bland and flavourless, we can do better than that. :s

Did I say anything about stone or wood?

[Grujah]

Scott did, and housing is basically that. Meh.

[Jimmmmm]

What would you do instead?

[scott_pilgrim]

Thanks for the input.

I like your ideas, but since they're all also introducing new concepts, I'm currently in favor for something else, which doesn't introduce anything new.

I definitely understand where you're coming from; it would be nice to be able to make interesting, meaningful decisions sooner rather than later so that we can start actually playing a game.  The problem is, I just can't come up with anything good we can do with what we have now.  Honestly, I don't like the treasure chest idea; while it is nice that it connects the board with money, it doesn't really add anything to the game.  Finding the optimal way to move toward a treasure chest is pretty trivial (especially now since we can create our first unit anywhere we want), so it's basically just a way of randomly giving some players money.  If we're going to be doing something using the framework we have, it should be for the purpose of allowing people to make interesting decisions, which I don't think the treasure chests do at all.  I appreciate the suggestion and obviously if a majority want it I can't stop it from passing on another player's turn, but I would rather do something I like with my turn.

Okay, so here's kind of a funky thought I just had regarding houses:

On a player's turn, (s)he may pay $x to a player who is directly (diagonally?) adjacent to him/her on the board.  If (s)he does, (s)he builds a house on an unoccupied space directly adjacent to him.  That player is in ownership of that house.  Players not in ownership of a house cannot move onto a tile with a house on it.

We don't need to specify yet what a house does (other than reserve a space for a player).  The idea of this rule is that you need someone's help to build a house.  Maybe they should have an option to deny your offer, I don't know.  I was thinking $x would be some fixed price but maybe it should just be any amount of money, and then players agree on a price.  I kind of like the idea of players requiring other players' help in order to build things.

Anyway, now I've started thinking about something different.  If we want this game to be negotiation-based, maybe we just need a more general rule that will allow that kind of thing to work.  I was going to try something that would allow us to make binding agreements, but man that turned out to be really hard.  So maybe we could just try something that allows players to pay each other:

On his turn, a player may post "Give N$x to Y", where "x" is a positive integer and Y is a player name.  If he does, and if player Y in the same turn quotes this post and immediately says "Agree", then the player taking his turn loses N$x (x Nomic dollars) and player Y gains N$x (x Nomic dollars).  On his turn, a player may post "Receive N$x from Y", where "x" is a positive integer and Y is a player name.  If he does, and if player Y in the same turn quotes this post and immediately says "Agree", then the player taking his turn gains N$x (x Nomic dollars) and player Y loses N$x (x Nomic dollars).

Maybe the wording could be better.  Players can only give money to another player if it is one of the two players involved's turn, but maybe that's not a necessary requirement.  I think that quoting the proposal and then stating "Agree" is kind of awkward but the only other way I can think of doing it would require numbering every potential transaction, which seems like it would be more obnoxious.  Maybe not though.  Thoughts?  Would people vote for this (or something like it)?

[Jimmmmm]

I like your idea of needing to work together to achieve things.

For your money transfer suggestion, I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. If all you're trying to do is allow one player to give another player money, just make it happen immediately when someone says they are giving it to someone else. It's not like anyone is going to refuse money that is given to them.

I guess if we wanted to have transactions such that one person is giving another money in exchange for something it might require that kind of agreement so neither party can back out.

[scott_pilgrim]

I guess if we wanted to have transactions such that one person is giving another money in exchange for something it might require that kind of agreement so neither party can back out.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking, but you might be right anyway.  If we never make other rules about other kinds of binding agreements then it's not necessary to do it the way I suggested, but I was thinking we may want to have that in place for later.

[Jimmmmm]

I think if it's a simple one-way payment then there's no need for agreement, even if we bring in a more contractual agreement later.

[florrat]

@scott: True, treasure chests do not add interesting decisions on their own. But they might add interesting decisions when we can also do other stuff with our units on the board. And it will be hard to add a rule which adds interesting decisions on its own. But if you don't like it, you shouldn't do it.

[scott_pilgrim]

All right, let's just go with this:

Draft Proposal 336:

A player may post Give N$x to Y, where x is a positive integer less than or equal to the posting player's current total number of Nomic dollars, and Y is a player name.  If a player does this, and it is either his or her own turn or player Y's turn (at the time of posting), then his or her total quantity of Nomic dollars decreases by x, and player Y's total quantity of Nomic dollars increases by x.


It's a little awkward but concise.  Yeah, it doesn't do anything for us now, but I'm sure we will want it sooner or later and it will be nice that we already have it.  Should I keep the restriction of only working if posted on a turn of one of the player's involved in a transaction?  That feels better to me, so that people aren't doing all sorts of stuff on other players' turns, but I can imagine people wanting more flexibility and I don't mind changing it.

[Jimmmmm]

Is it really necessary to restrict it to one of the two players' turns?

[Kirian]

Hey guys--with GokoDom starting shortly, and RL stuff happening... in RL, I'm not really able to keep up with this at the moment.  Can someone take over for the next thread?

Officially: /out

Sorry, guys.

[Voltaire]

I'll throw my hat into the ring for starting up a new thread (I think it's super-important to have an OP that stays up to date), unless someone else wants to do it. I'll start it after the current turn ends if that's what ends up happening.

[florrat]

Sorry to see you go, Kirian... But understandable. It's perfectly fine with me if Voltaire manages the next OP.

About the draft proposal: I also would like to be able to perform actions (like trading money) during other player's turns. In fact, I'd be perfectly fine with a game where every player could do anything on every turn, except that the current player can propose a rule.

[Voltaire]

In fact, I'd be perfectly fine with a game where every player could do anything on every turn, except that the current player can propose a rule.

I think, for a forum game, we should build something that is close to this as the "default".

[florrat]

I think you can propose your rule...

[scott_pilgrim]

Right, okay.

Final Proposal 336:

A player may post Give N$x to Y, where x is a positive integer less than or equal to the posting player's current total number of Nomic dollars, and Y is a player name.  If a player does this, then his or her total quantity of Nomic dollars decreases by x, and player Y's total quantity of Nomic dollars increases by x.