Thoughts about sidegames

[Itarien]

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.

[Rye Coal]

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.

[Itarien]

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

[quintopia]

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.

[CasualSax]

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..

[quintopia]

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. . .

[CasualSax]

I think that that would limit our creativity and variety too much.

[quintopia]

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.

[tinuviel]

Or they could have an "annual" tournament with googlewhack jousts, poetry smackdowns, and truth-or-dare battles to the death.

Oooh!  Fun and Excitement!   :D

[CasualSax]

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.

[Rye Coal]

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.

[CasualSax]

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.

[Rye Coal]

 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

[CasualSax]

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.

[Rye Coal]

Lord High Poomba CasualSax You must be confused - those inital ideas are the only suggestions i've made in this thread.

Char Coal