New RP (RolePlaying) game - players wanted

[RedFred]

Originally posted by Qantaga
I would agree that Stockpile Energy, use of the Design Workshop at any time and Reverse Engineering could be used within the Role-Playing aspect of this game, but I think we would want to abide by the rest of these rules.

Sounds good to me. With the exception of allowing reverse engineering for all but probe teams to rovers.

My e-dress is: rshypitka@hotmail.com

Do I understand correctly that as Morgan, I must SE to FM as soon as I have the tech and the 40 energy credits?

[Googlie]

Much as I hate to say so, I'd say "yes"

(urgh - moving to Fundy, with its research penalty, as soon as I get SoTHB, which I'll need asap 'cos we are in abundant native life setting ...)

Still, at least I'm not the Hive, moving to Police as soon as they have accumulated 40 credits ..

G.

[Flubber]

Hey whats wrong with police state-- I love it !! Two benefits and no negatives.

I note that the second new game ( calling themselves RP3 I think) has started. Are we underway? I did not see a turn thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diary of chairman Flubber , Hive

I know that I will be surrounded by factions that do not understand the value of the police state. My files on them all indicate that almost everyone will be kowtowing to that "opium of the masses" known as democracy. I've studied the government of democracies and it makes me shudder. Police are never given enough respect and authority and that can lead to unrest. Such societies rebel at the idea of supporting the military and police needed to keep order.

I talk and talk to show them the true way but all they do is speak of things like fundamental freedoms and individual rights. It seems futile in trying to show them that emphasizing the collective, in the long run, results in greater benefits to the most citizens. Belief in these individual "freedoms" was the cause of a lot of mayhem back on earth. They just did not understand that to be safe and secure you NEED to allow the state to have sufficient control to protect you from criminals, dissidents, terrorists and radicals. democracy is such a cacophany of competing voices all shouting for their personal interests that it is a wonder that ANYTHING gets done. The best course of action is often avoided if it would be unpopular with the influentiial or the vocale. How can you run a society in that manner??

Now Miriam is someone I think I may be able to deal with. She has yet to embrace the joys of a police state BUT I respect her fundamentalist views. We may have different government types but at least she isn't preaching democracy.

[Hydro]

RedFred,

You can delay your agenda SE if you have a convincing reason, which you would need to post in text for to the rest of the RP(2) crew or in a bit of fiction within a storyline (if you are so inclined). For instance, if you are the PKs and get the tech for Democracy and most of your bases are size one then the switch (and the decreased support) could be crippling. This might be a reason to delay Democracy until later. Likewise, if you might want to have a SE that precludes your agenda (e.g. - PKs going fundy instead of demo) you need a REALLY good reason, and even then you would only stay there a short time. Again, the idea is to role play, and the faction leaders will respond to local politics, economics, and diplomacy (like the PKs going fundy to suck up to the Orange Menace...).

All - does this sound reasonable? Comments?

Hydro

[Googlie]

Exactly

I would see the Hive going Police as sson as affordable, and likewise believers going fundy as soon as they get SoTHB, and Gaians green, etc. After that, as Hydro suggests, diplomacy may force (suggest?) an SE change.

But to avoid going fundy for fear of losing research is counter-agenda, where knowledge is actually an aversion for Miriam. Or if Morgan, and you get Ind Econ, and have 40 credits, I'd expect to see a change to FM rather than a rush build of, say, another synthmetal sentry. That, I think, would be in keeping with the morgan agenda.

But let's not be too rigid. The playing is the thing, and if indeed a convincing explanation can be given as to why the delay, then use imagination and write that lame excuse. (As Morgan, maybe that base where you want to rush build the synthmetal sentry has a weakened scout from a worm attack, and the population are restless - whatever)

G.

[Flubber]

It all sounds good. Lets play!!

Realistically a player can avoid moving to their agenda in the early days simply by not having the cash to change. As the HIVE I will have no reason to want to avoid Police State but the early cash comes so slow that rush-builds will probably eat up those energy credits.

[Flubber]

I understand that my hotmail address is temporarily acting up. Players can copy turns to sharris4141@yahoo.com so that there are no delays.

[Hydro]

Another idea: what about submissive pacts? It would be nice to have some way to accommodate this, as opposed to having to exterminate a faction. This would be complicated though since there would have to be a mechanism for determining when it happens and, if so, what happens then. Here are my suggestions:

Conditions for a submissive pact:
* The decision to surrender is up to the owning faction, and accepting is up to the dominant faction.
* A faction may not surrender to a faction with an opposite agenda. It is up to the surrendering faction leader to decide if he/she will surrender if the SE is antithetical to their agenda
* When you surrender you will 1) give all your energy to the dominant player and 2) give all your tech to the dominant player (can this be done in multiplayer?)
* The dominant faction can force SE choices on the submissive. If these SE choices are against their agenda then this is a prime reason for a revolt.

Now the tricky part – how to enforce a submissive pact? I’m open to suggestions, but I think it is up to how well the players get along after the surrender. In other words, it is up to the dominant faction to either keep the submissive faction fat, dumb, and happy or garrison their mutual borders in a significant way to avoid attack.

I think this would be a nice addition to an RP game, and it might mirror what has happened back on Earth. Thoughts?

Hydro

[Deimos]

Hydro,

I agree with your suggestions.

Now, as the Colonel of the Spartans, I intend to make you all my submissive (j/k.....er, not really ) I think that by gifting tech, credits, units, and/or providing for the sumissives defense should be reason enough for the submissive to stay submissive.

And as you say, it would make a marvelous addition to the RP aspects of this game.

[Googlie]

I actually got a slave in an OCC game I played, as Miriam. Got Morgan early when he was but three bases, and threatened him with extinction. He immediately caved.

He grew to some 20 bases and 100 or so pop while I stayed at 1 base reaching 12 pops or so, and he stayed loyal throughout. I transcended after Zak (I think) got Voice, and I rush built the Ascent. Holding hands, Nwabudike and Miriam together achieved noncorporeality (I guess Morgan thought Miriam was offering him incorporation, or something)


G.

[Flubber]

The chairman watched his followers wrenching at the door of the escape pod, warped from the crash onto the surface of of Planet. He walked to the door and stopped their exertions. "no my children, you are all exerting yourselves according to your own individual plans and as a result nothing is accomplished. Yin and Susan, place your fingertips here. . . . you there . . . push gently here and then it is a simple matter. "

He pointed at a little girl, perhaps 3 years of age. "melissa, you want to help us get out don't you?"

The girl nodded shyly and toddled over next to the chairman as directed . " Now Melissa, give your biggest football kick right here!!"

She drew back her tiny foot and pinged it against the door. To the chagrin of the strapping young men that had tugged at the door for 30 minutes, the door fell open easily, revealing the terrain beyond.

The chairman turned to his followers, " I hope that you understand that this door is the same as a society. Many of you are physically mighty and could be said to have great individual attributes. But functioning as individuals, with your own plans at cross-purposes, all of your individual efforts were for nought. However under central control and with a controlled plan we were able to collectively accomplish the task using the attributes of our least skilled individual. Working together with central control we are simply stronger"


-------------------------------------------------------------

(Now I need the game so the Hive can venture into the world)

Does anyone know when we might get started??

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Hydro
Another idea: what about submissive pacts? It would be nice to have some way to accommodate this, as opposed to having to exterminate a faction. This would be complicated though since there would have to be a mechanism for determining when it happens and, if so, what happens then. Here are my suggestions:

Conditions for a submissive pact:
* The decision to surrender is up to the owning faction, and accepting is up to the dominant faction.
* A faction may not surrender to a faction with an opposite agenda. It is up to the surrendering faction leader to decide if he/she will surrender if the SE is antithetical to their agenda
* When you surrender you will 1) give all your energy to the dominant player and 2) give all your tech to the dominant player (can this be done in multiplayer?)
* The dominant faction can force SE choices on the submissive. If these SE choices are against their agenda then this is a prime reason for a revolt.

Hydro

Don't know if this rule will apply to all of the RP games, but if it does, I would add that if the dominant player commits any acts (against anyone) that would be considered an atrocity in a regular game, all of the offending faction's submitted faction should have the option to break the Pact immediately.

That brings up another point. What about atrocities in general? Do they have any impact on the SE rules?

- Scipio

[Hydro]

SC,

Good point about atrocities. I agree that a submissive could break a pact, and should regardless of the consequences if they are one of the peaceful factions. For play in general I think the same rule on atrocities applies. For example, Santiago and Yang might view atrocities ‘in context’, or some other mealy-mouth convenient excuse. The peaceful factions would have no such excuse. Note that even if the charter is repealed that those that voted against repeal would still hold atrocities as atrocities. Some factions would NEVER vote for charter repeal (PK and Gaians), others might go either way (UoP, Morgan), and others might do so if convenient (Believers, Hive, Spartans).

Hydro

[RedFred]

Wow! A submissive pactmate in OCC. I am jealous of Googlie.

I applaud the surrender ideas. This isn't an all out go for victory style game but it is hard to be enthusiastic when your bases are slowly but inevitably wiped out. Allowing a faction to surrender and contribute to his pactmate's victory is a fine idea.

[Googlie]

Actually, one of my finest master/slave games was in my compare game with Vel. We played the Hive from the same start, and after some 50 or 60 years I enslaved Lal. He proved wonderful, eventually surpassing me on the power graph. He fed me techs, units and occasionally I tapped him for energy. It was a pleasure to transcend with him.

Re the game, I think that a defeated player would actually have just as much fun continuing in roleplay mode as an undefeated one - get used as a research engine, or as proxy troops, or as a manufacturing powerhouse - could be a lot of fun (and not unlike some of the team games we have going right now, where each's strengths are reflected in the production output)

With the added bonus of always keeping your submissive happy - or in the reverse case, your master honest.

G.