OK I'm scrapping the team Idea...Heres the new idea:
All players shall have their own kingdom. They shall call their kingdom what they wish. No two players may reside in the same kingdom. The kingdoms will play a bigger role in the future.
Looks to be a good foundation to add new things - wars, population, an economy..
'The kingdoms shall play a bigger role in the future' isn't text that should be in a rule. *nodnod*
this is the same proposal except that "teams" has been changed to "kingdoms", I think. I don't have anything against it, really, but I don't have any reason to want it, either.
It definitly opens the door for future rules. I agree with Rez though, get ride of that last line. MAYBE change it to "may play a bigger role in the future if further proposals deem it so," but even that is unnecessary.
Well, as is, the rule needs to actually have impact on the game. No, at this point, we don't need some huge strategy game.
It'd be cool to start with a basis, though. The kingdom law should include something that makes Points into a tradable good.
This would set up a viable economy; people already want points, because getting enough points means you win. However, if I can bribe Rez, say, with 20 points to vote for my proposal, then this adds a new economic element to the game which can be developed as new rules are progressed.
Some formal method of trading would need to be established, too. Why tie in this law with the Kingdom law?
Because, frankly, by itself, the Kingdom law is basically meaningless. If we wanted to build this game into some kind of empire-based game (which is pretty neat), we should integrate things into it other than simply being another naming addition.
Some clever way of detailing land, population, wealth, armies, or whatever would be cool, but I think starting with turning points into money is the best way to go.
or maybe we could create a new currency separate from points, and create a bank to distribute it.
This would create plenty of need for future rule-making, just to govern inter-kingdom relations...
But...why? What's the purpose?
Well, at the moment most of the rule making is happening to the current rules, and the rules aren't expanding much. Granted this is only the third turn, and Carthrat, the Lab Rat, already did post something seperate from the initial set, but how much more will happen in the near future. This opens the door for plenty of rules, even maybe a third set of rules on a level lower then the current mutable rules, to govern kingdoms.
Future turns could see proposals written to govern populations, economy, war/peace/alliances. While I am loathe to see a strategy game become more prevelant to the game then the initial concept of rule changing, I think it would make an interesting subgame effecting the original game.
I personally think that it is quite boring to have the only type of move being to make a proposal, however, I still have no reason to vote for such a proposal unless it is fleshed out somewhat.
I like the idea of diversifying this game and an economy would be great. but there needs to be a few things
a) it has to be closed (as in you cant just infinitely expand it or detract from it, were not the federal government here (US gov that is))
b) it must become a central part of the game
c) we need a reliable way to earn money, transfer it and spend it
We need to flesh out the idea of ownership. We need to define exactly what a Kingdom is. Is it a figment of our imaginations with no real bearing in the game as it stands now? Or is it a corporate entity with its own rights and privileges? How do the rule sets apply to kingdoms? Are they beholden only unto themselves like a nation state or are they more like the States in the US, confined to some constitutional overlord set of principals?
These are only a few of the questions popping up into my mind. To start defining ownership and establishing a transfer system for game points would be a good start towards the economy. As for Kingdoms, I don't see a need for them yet - later on yes (add about 30 players and we will need 'em). For now I could see some umbrella legislation on corporate entities which kingdoms might fall under, as well as a bank or any other in game business.
-Rye Coal, Sir Titleless of the Unnamed Province
I think rule should stay about the same because it's only an introductory rule. The actual kingdoms (I like corporations better, I think it fits the theme a bit better) would play a larger role in the fututre based on future proposals. This is good for now.
It's a waste of a rule as it is. If it's passed, the board is really no more open than it was yesterday; there's just one less clause you need to specify in your new rule. I'd rather seem larger jumps of progress made. :/