News:

"I sense a soul in search of answers.  I shalt eat him."

Main Menu

Thoughts about sidegames

Started by Itarien, March 14, 2005, 10:29:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CasualSax

I was of the impression that that idea originated with "why even call them "side games"? we could take some game and make it integral to the playing of the game as a whole itself."  Thats what I'm arguing.
i][size=9]I want to be the minority
I don''t need your authority
Down with the moral majority
''Cause I want to be the minority[/size][/i]

Rye Coal

yea that is quintopia's post not mine. You asserted that my ideas had no more impact on the game than the kingdoms proposal a few posts back.

Char Coal

CasualSax

My appologies then.

Back on topic - sessions vs. one main grand integrated game.  Thoughts on both, and/or a new method?
i][size=9]I want to be the minority
I don''t need your authority
Down with the moral majority
''Cause I want to be the minority[/size][/i]

Rye Coal

Great Idea - that wasn't getting anwhere. I was enjoying the argument so much I didn't realize how far off we had gotten. My apologies for cluttering up the board.

I'm not opposed to minigames even several of them but i would like to develop the central game before building in several minigames. I look at it like we are laying the foundation for a house - a central game would be the frame work, the structure that the world sees - and the minigames that High Lord Poomba Casual Sax is suggesting would be like the furniture- dynamic and changable. A central game would be more like a rigid structure in which sub-games like those HLPCS is suggesting can be created, played, and replaced by another sub-game.

Alright wasn't that a vauge and wonderfully iconic concept. The point is the two ideas can coincide there doesnt have to be one or the other.

Char Coal

CasualSax

Alright.  Then lets shelf the mini-games until we get the main structure complete.  As long as we keep a solid structure, we can also prevent some loopholes and add in ways of dealing with pure abuse (a player finding a way to grant himself one bajillion credits, for example).

Some ideas:

Kingdoms - Founded by two players declaring themselves loyal subjects of a third player.

Kingdoms would have 'variables' that would be posted much like the score table - population, wealth, and land.  (We'd have to be sure to state in what manner can kingdoms give land/wealth to each other, and that variables can not be changed except by means defined in the rules, yatta yatta..)

We'd need a way to dissolve a kingdom, and then what happens to the variables associated when a kingdom is dissolved.

Once this foundation is set up, we can then find some sort of tie-in with the score - whether it be points won by conquering others, etc.
i][size=9]I want to be the minority
I don''t need your authority
Down with the moral majority
''Cause I want to be the minority[/size][/i]

quintopia

I still don't see how it limits us.  I have never said that the sidegames have to necessarily contribute to the standings of the main game.  They would, as you would have it, be completely separate.  I was just thinking of a way to add a storyline to them. . .make it more like an RPG, if you will.  This is an RPG forum after all.

Furthermore, I was never opposed to the kingdom idea, only the way it was proposed, so suddenly and without meaning.  I would vote for it once it has been well discussed and fleshed out and made meaningful.  However, you may continue to judge me based on my voting record, because if you'll remember, you even abstained in the end, despite your support for the idea.  You must have finally seen that every other voter had good reason for voting it down at that time.

CasualSax

As I keep saying - by putting in an overall structure, you limit yourself to things that you can fit in to that structure.  And if you hadn't noticed, I'm letting that slide at the moment.

Now - do you have anything to contribute to the discussion, besides defending your all precious image?
i][size=9]I want to be the minority
I don''t need your authority
Down with the moral majority
''Cause I want to be the minority[/size][/i]

SuperusSophia

How about setting up a seperate set of rules for "minigames?" Have the rules posted with 400 formate and be subject to the mutable rules, in the same way the mutable rules are subject to the immutable ones.  And personally, I see no reason to participate in side games that do not influence the core game.  I'd be up for creating corporations, which much like kingdoms would have different stats that could affect the core game, but without the midieval Europe feel to them.

How about a sort of gambling minigame?  One player could challenge another player at different things like chess or other similar games, witnessed by the other players, and they could have stakes to them.  Maybe if I know LHP Sax isn't going to vote for my proposal, I can challenge him to a game of chess, in which if I win, he votes for my proposal, and if I lose, perhaps I am bound to vote for his proposal on his next turn.  Then other players could maybe place bets on our game, say Charr Coal bets Quin 20 points that I lose.  Of course, all bets would have to be official, posted in its own thread somewhere, and would be legally binding, short of forfeiting the game, of course.

CasualSax

Corporations sound cool, actually.

Gambling against other players I don't like - it could end up being used as a method for transfering points from one player to another.  As far as allowing it to manipulate voting, I think its a bad idea.  I'd much rather the minigames stay as contests between all players who wish to compete.
i][size=9]I want to be the minority
I don''t need your authority
Down with the moral majority
''Cause I want to be the minority[/size][/i]