The HOTW VII - Setup Thread II (or the entrance of new mods)

[Robert]

I think he just doesn't have the time every week to play. Perhaps he can sub again a few times but not on permanent basis. (which would hardly be subbing )

[LzPrst]

thrak could sub for rome as he seems to be able and willing to play often, possibly even on a permanent basis. and if capo doesnt come back, he could take over rome.

[Colonel_Treize]

Originally posted by CyberShy
If a rule isn't mentioned, it's not there.
And I know that Ozzy said that we could vote on it, I just disagree on that. We can continue to vote on new rules till the game ends. It doesn't matter if ideas are good or bad, the changing the rules should just not happen during the game unless something is really going wrong. That's my opinion. And the fact that the majority voted against your rule or ignored it backs my opinion up I think.

Actually, even though you believe we shouldn't vote on rule changes after the game has begun, the fact is, you did vote against both proposals.

Anyhow, I reiterate that my second propsal is not a rule change.

In order for us to not continue to tally everyone's vote, we'd have to call a vote on whether or not to vote during the game. If it were accepted, that would negate the chance for you to call a vote in the rare case that, in your opinion, something is really going wrong. So, if you think the reason why people shoudn't vote on this is that nothing is really wrong, then actually you should advocate for people to simply vote against both proposals.

Four people have voted in favor of my first proposal, with modifications, so we still need to hear from everyone.

[Colonel_Treize]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I am with LzPrst on that, try to avoid things you haven't invented yet. (God, King, Letters).
I have written an open letter before writing as well, I changed it in a message to everyone.

If you are for this, then why can't I convince you that my similar issue is a valid one?

[Robert]

LzPrst: Actually, even though you believe we shouldn't vote on rule changes after the game has begun, the fact is, you did vote against both proposals.

If Ozzy says we should vote, then I vote. I'm a humble servant of Ozzy 8)

I vote against everything that changes the game. I vote in for of not voting on anything anymore.

Colonel_Treize: If you are for this, then why can't I convince you that my similar issue is a valid one?

I want to make a difference between what in-game happens and what us-demi-god-civ-players-who-know-everything know. My in-game king didn't met the Vikings and doesn't know about them, but I do know about them. My in-game king doesn't know their maps but I, as the civ player, like it very much to learn about their storylines.

[Colonel_Treize]

I took a recount of the vote on the first proposal.

Colonel_Treize: NO
MMC: NO (at Writing)
Deity: NO (he said he would give my first idea a go, but he was confused as to whether agreement meant YES or NO.)
LzPrst: NO (at Writing)

Frank: YES
Ozzy: YES
CyberShy: YES

Kuno: Abstains

Actually, the majority is now in my favor, if I agree to change it to Writing instead of Paper. After giving some thought to what Frank said about the Great Library, he's right. The Library of Alexandria did have Papayrus reed scrolls on which most of their books were printed, an early form of Paper.

[Prussia]

yes for me

[Colonel_Treize]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I want to make a difference between what in-game happens and what us-demi-god-civ-players-who-know-everything know. My in-game king didn't met the Vikings and doesn't know about them, but I do know about them. My in-game king doesn't know their maps but I, as the civ player, like it very much to learn about their storylines.

As do I. My point is that since you and your character are one and the same, your character can't help but know what you know. Since we are not just actors following a script but also directors of a work in progress, knowing information your character doesn't will taint our decisions, consiously or unconsciously. No matter how good you are at separating the two, your choices will always be affected, whether you know it or not.

[Robert]

Well, that's not what we try to achieve in diplogames. I am not the same as my character, otherwise I could've played as CyberShy the 48th.
The storytelling is an important part of diplogaming and if your suggestion will be implemented then that means that the story telling will be damaged.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Colonel_Treize

As do I. My point is that since you and your character are one and the same, your character can't help but know what you know. Since we are not just actors following a script but also directors of a work in progress, knowing information your character doesn't will taint our decisions, consiously or unconsciously. No matter how good you are at separating the two, your choices will always be affected, whether you know it or not.

It is impossible to know no more than your character.

Do you think Grog the warrior sat down with his flint tools and said "hmm, what should we invent first? Fishing, bronze working, or mysticism? Well I want to build Stonehenge, so I think I'll go for mysticism."

No way. The only people who can make those kinds of decisions are players who exist outside of the in-character world. Being able to think outside of your character is ESSENTIAL for this game.

Another thing, many players will have multiple characters. Those characters will know different information, and will interact, deceive, and scheme against each other. Only a person with God-like knowledge of the situation could pull that off.

You HAVE to seperate out your characters from yourself. I cannot stress this enough. I really don't think this game will be as fun for you if you are unable to do that.

Making a seperate thread where you talk to yourself would make the game less fun for you, and less fun for the rest of us.

Please try it our way. We've been playing diplogames for a number of years now, and htis is how we've always done it and it has worked out really well. If after this game you don't like it, then by all means start up a new game with different rules. But I very much encourage you to try it our way. I think you'll like it.

[Frank Johnson]

CT, basicly by the time we all decide on something we'll all have gotten to at least the very basic techs that would make things like maps, screenshots, and other such information and interaction realistic enough.

The relivant life span of this debate is so short its almost not worth having. By next session everyone will have a religion or have contact with someone who does so the idea of God/Gods will exist. By the session after that all or most people will have writting, and so maps and screen shots and such are feasable. Debating over kings, warlords, and emperors is spliting hairs at best at any stage.

Do we want to, in spirit, avoid using things we don't really have in our posts? Yeah. But do you have writting yet? I'm writing posts weither you guys like it or not.

[LzPrst]

My in-game king didn't met the Vikings and doesn't know about them, but I do know about them.....as the civ player, like it very much to learn about their storylines.

thanks

[LzPrst]

CT: I am against it actually. It's more work than it's worth at the moment. And as writing will come in the next session...

we stay on course. last game was fine with the current system.

[Colonel_Treize]

Points taken, by all of you. I am fully prepared to do things the way they have always been done. But for the sake of the democratic process, I appeal to you Ozzy, to contact the players who haven't voted yet to look at this thread and make an informed decision. We have heard from 9 players so far. Anyone can abstain, of course, but I just want to know.

@Frank: This needn't be a perpetual debate. I now fully understand the opinions of those who have voted. We have only for the remaining players to chime in.

Proposal One is 5 to 3 against.

Proposal Two is 5 to 1 against, I think.

[Robert]

Originally posted by LzPrst


thanks

No, thank YOU!