I'd still like to explore the side game aspect.
Is anyone else still interested in looking into this?
Maybe here if, theres some agreement, we can hammer out something substantial before we get restricted by time limits on proposals.
Great idea- perhaps a little general direction? Are we talking a completely new unthought-of of game? Or do we want to adapt something for our purposes. Shall we make it geared toward a specific game type? Word games would be easiest or some sort of internet scavenger hunt. Trade and commerce or war strategy? I personally would like some thing that incorporates the real world to some degree and promotes player relationships.
I didn't have any specific direction in mind. I thought that we should start with a completely blank slate for people to raise ideas and questions. Then gather up all the ideas, suggestions, questions and concerns. Then pick out a game from the ideas and try to adress as many of the concerns as possible.
Think of it as a group brainstorm. :D
so give us some ideas of your favorite boardgames. charr coal and I are fans of games like settlers of catan and risk and earth: 2025. I wouldn't be averse to something like that, if it were well detailed and playable before it went into action.
If you guys don't mind, I'd like to work on a sort of Diplomacy/Risk game - but I would like that to not be the only game we have. Surely we can make up something where we all have our own character and have some sort of mock sport/battle thing. Something that will be more based on luck than manipulation.
The key is how entertwined do we want it - do we want one sidegame running, or do we want to have one game every round, or one every turn..etc?
Personally I'd like one game per round or until a winner is declared. When we have more than one game in the rules, we could vote on which one we played next.
The very first thing we need is the ground base for side games to be built ontop of, like:
30x. Side Games.
1) A side game is a game that is played by its own rules as defined here, that gives ten points to the winner. All side games must have a way to determine a winner when time runs out, etc, etc..
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. . .
I think that that would limit our creativity and variety too much.
no it wouldn't silly. we could have one huge game that is central to gameplay, and other little sidegames would be built into it. . .they would be forced to crop up as a necessity of the main game.
For example, say the kingdoms join together for a world war. That war would itself be a sidegame, governed by its own rules, and having a clear winner separate from the main game winner.
Or say a kingdom wants to go on a hunt for the holy grail. We could give that kingdom a specific item to find somewhere on the internet, and if they can find a page about it, then they get 5 points.
Or they could an "annual" tournament with googlewhack jousts, poetry smackdowns, and truth-or-dare battles to the death.
Having a larger umbrella game does nothing to limit anyone's creativity, as it is set up to specifically encourage creativity without limitation.
Quote from: "quintopia"Or they could have an "annual" tournament with googlewhack jousts, poetry smackdowns, and truth-or-dare battles to the death.Quote
Oooh! Fun and Excitement! :D
No, it limits us, "silly." You're limiting us to Kingdom related tasks in your example.
With a more fluctuating game, one person cannot gain dominance for more than one game off of one slieght of hand, per-say. It would allow us to have chess, jousting and Brockian Ultra-Cricket. Not things only things that we could "fit in" to a kingdom system. I am very much against the existance of long term possessions for the very same reason - one clever move could put you ahead permenantly.
Thats all besides the fact that your past voting history puts you against the very thing you now support.
Sorry Sax but my Bull Shit-O'meter is just joing crazy tonight- its the damndest thing. Kingdoms went down because it had no bearing on the game - not because we didn't like the idea of Kingdoms or Teams.
The rule had just as much bearing as what you are suggesting - such a primary rule would need to be created before we could add in the complexities.
And please be more curtious.
Lord High Poomba CasualSax what did i suggest? oh thats right, i brainstormed some game ideas - i never even got into shaping their impact on Nomic . so sure i guess your right they don't have any bearing, but that makes the jab kinda worthless now doesnt it?
Char Coal
I was not arguing your ideas, but the proposal of having one main game versus several distinct gaming sessions.
And, I repeat, please be more curtious.
Lord High Poomba CasualSax You must be confused - those inital ideas are the only suggestions i've made in this thread.
Char Coal
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.
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
My appologies then.
Back on topic - sessions vs. one main grand integrated game. Thoughts on both, and/or a new method?
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
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 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.
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?
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.
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.