Recreation Commons - 007teenth Floor: The Isle of Doom

[Drogue]

It was because it didn't work. I don't think it's confined to RP, as to make the Hives beliefs consistent with the game, we used a different system, that didn't work as well.

It was, of course, a combination of factors, including there being another DG, however if it had been a DG as we usually know it to be (elections and the like), I think others would have stayed interested. I know I would have.

I don't want to be the PKs, or at least a democratically consistent team, purely for the RP. I want to be it because I think I think it's really important for a DG, in real life, to emphasise getting everyone involved, to emphasise collective decision making and working as a team. That's the fun of a DG, whether it's as gameplay or roleplay - being part of a team playing the game. Playing as a team isn't emphasised playing a faction where ideologically one person has all the power, or where all ideology comes from God. It's not just gameplay, it's how that affects the way we play the game.

My bottom line is, for a DG to be fun, we have to play as a team, but a team with differing opinions and beliefs, so we have debate and discussion. I think if we play as the Hive or Believers, having a faction ideology expressly against shared decision making, then that ideology will come out in the way the play the game. The PKs ideology is exactly in line with collective decision making and teamwork, even when it's not the most efficient method. That's why I think they're so suitable.

[GeoModder]

But Drogue, think of it! You might get elected as PlanetPope!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
It was, of course, a combination of factors, including there being another DG, however if it had been a DG as we usually know it to be (elections and the like), I think others would have stayed interested. I know I would have.

I just had a quick look at the ACPSG constitution. There were supposed to be elections. I can't remember if there ever actually were, but if there weren't, it must have been because there weren't enough people to fill all the positions in the first place.

Anyway, in this ACDG people didn't seem to be having a problem thinking of themselves as Spartan officers, Gaian Lords or Morganic stock owners. So as said by others, playing a democratic faction isn't a necessity. You can simulate elections in another form anyway. Bisshops electing popes etc...

My bottom line is, for a DG to be fun, we have to play as a team, but a team with differing opinions and beliefs, so we have debate and discussion.

I agree. That's why I would be against playing the Morganites. it would be practically impossible to roleplay a leftish worker party, especially if everyone must join in some stock exchange game. However I don't see this problem with the Believers. Christianity has been used and bended for all kinds of completely different and sometimes contradictionary ideologies.

I think if we play as the Hive or Believers, having a faction ideology expressly against shared decision making

Once again, those factions aren't against shared decision making. The ACPSG was supposed to have Central Committee members (ie everyone) elect the Secretaries. Believers can have priests (ie everyone) elect bisshops, the pope...

[Maniac]

This is my 8999th post. I'm going offline now. See ya.

[binTravkin]

From Latvia with Love.

"Bartender, I want a xenomartini. Shaken, not stirred."

How'd you guess I drink Martini?

"I am Travkin, binTravkin."

"Ewww! Did you see the doctor about that problem'"

"Clearly, I do. He plans to use his army of Blink Displacer Beavers to conquer Veeh-Latia." As Method spoke the last words he made a ssssh gesture.

"Eh? Why don't you dare to say Latvia? Is it.." Before binTravkin could finish his sentence, loud and maniacal laughter stopped him: FIRST LATVIA, AND THEN THE WORLD! MUAHAHAHAHA!

"Hello my name is Travkin. BinTravkin."

"And my name is Kal-El of Krypton. Eh no. I am Hercules."

Is my name really so strange?

"Hello, my name is.."

"Arghh! I am tired of this joke! Let's skip directly to the end of our dialogue!" interrupted Maniac.

A moment of silence lasted as both men turned pages in their scripts.

PlanetPope

[Illuminatus]

I believe I will make a resounding argument to demonstrate that "nondemocratic" factions can be the base for a demogame. I just need some time to finish it.

[binTravkin]

In fact, Mim is one of the best democrats of SMAC - still get's 10 minerals in newly founded bases!

And yes, I am too quite surprised how some people find problems in democratically roleplaying (not so)nondemocratic factions.

I for one think it will be very fun.
You just imagine, we not only can have parties 'left, right, center', but:

'The Orthodoxal Centrist Party'
'The Catholic Party of The People' (left)
'The Judaist Party' (slightly right and freemarketeers)
'The Kalvinist Clerical Party' (known for their intolerance)
'The Heretic Party' (always in oppositon)
...
and finally, the prohibited parties as:
'The Free Muslims'
'The Confucian Monks Of The Planet' (slightly greenish)
'The Empath Guild' (guess who)
...

EDIT: Cannot be! I forgot 'The Monasterical Moron Coalition' (no they aren't about stealing the MMC)!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by binTravkin
And yes, I am too quite surprised how some people find problems in democratically roleplaying (not so)nondemocratic factions.

It's not just about RPing, it's about hot it works in practice. How do you model making decisions that aren't for the best in the game, due to burocratic squabbling (ie. having to poll and accept that decision) while playing a non-democratic faction? If we're being consistent with the Believers, we don't need to poll for everything. Yet that leads to being a boring game for those not in power.

My core tenants, if you like, are:
1) We have to play as a team - collective decision making, turnchats, an elected group of directors/leaders and polling for major decisions. Really getting everyone involved in the game.
2) We have to be consistent. Any large inconsistencies between who we are and how we work leads to a removal of any charactisation. I don't mean we have to run democracy in the game, I mean if our faction ideology, quotes and whole ethos is in having one ruler, we can't then poll for everything and get everyone involved while being consistent. We need to play the game by the faction ideology that we choose.

[binTravkin]

1) We have to play as a team - collective decision making, turnchats, an elected group of directors/leaders and polling for major decisions. Really getting everyone involved in the game.

So, what's the problem?
The eccleasical ( ) council of the Cardinal that is.

2) We have to be consistent. Any large inconsistencies between who we are and how we work leads to a removal of any charactisation. I don't mean we have to run democracy in the game, I mean if our faction ideology, quotes and whole ethos is in having one ruler, we can't then poll for everything and get everyone involved while being consistent. We need to play the game by the faction ideology that we choose.

By this definition, no faction fits demogame, because all of them have distinct ruler.
In fact I tend to think Sister Miriam could have slightly less influence on a democratic Believers than Lal on the PKs.
Lal was teh Planetary governor, plus he was official from unity while Mim's only a psych chaplain.

[ForesterSOF]

We are spread to far away and too many of us to make a true democracy for us.

This makes me thing of a represenative democracy as the way to go.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by binTravkin

So, what's the problem?
The eccleasical ( ) council of the Cardinal that is.


By this definition, no faction fits demogame, because all of them have distinct ruler.
In fact I tend to think Sister Miriam could have slightly less influence on a democratic Believers than Lal on the PKs.
Lal was teh Planetary governor, plus he was official from unity while Mim's only a psych chaplain.

The point, to both, is that the factions expressed beliefs - the quotes they say - have to be consistent with the way we play. Lal's talk about freedom of information and the need for rulership by the people, for the people. Miriam's talk about the divine will of God, which doesn't lend itself well to playing as a team, when it comes to the ethos of the game.

[Drogue]

It seems the vote hasn't changed for a while, so I'll switch over the title

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
Miriam's talk about the divine will of God, which doesn't lend itself well to playing as a team, when it comes to the ethos of the game.

Do you know what is the divine will of God?

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Drogue
It seems the vote hasn't changed for a while, so I'll switch over the title

I am sorry Drogue, it appears you did not understand the "Which alternate title would you choose for this bar?" question. The results of the poll are not binding, I just offered alterante titles to see what would be public opinion of them.

The title of the thread shall not be changed in any way.

[binTravkin]

Do you know what is the divine will of God?

Divine will of us?