Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TeleDwarf]

I am writing this from phone, so I can accidentally miss something. If I do - please do not be shy to repeat it.

Tools vs RP: we use three tools to emulate communication within our group: this thread, personal messaging, wiki.
This thread's current activity represent current buzz around you. You stick your nose out of your room and hear that Keroe did this or Neblime said that. It is extremely easy to access.
This thread's historical posts represent history of the fort. It takes skill to find what you are looking for. Rationale here is that you need to go around asking about history, and even if you think you have uncovered the truth - there is almost no guarantee that the 'truth' is unaltered(as we can modify messages, mis-quote and use other forum tricks to hixe the real truth).
Wiki covers things that are not necessarily current or true, but people are extremely vocal about them. So it basically takes only to ask in order to receive full scoop. Being such a public issue - any change can be easily spoted.
Personal messaging is secret interaction between players, and is covered in mystery.

So, public discussions -> this thread.
Articles of pride, opinions, traditions, ideas, posessions, titles -> wiki (optionally this thread too)
Old discussions, history,  laws, etc... -> to be gathering dust in this thread, unless someone decides to make memoration of those a personal goal (librarians, lawyers, historians put stuff from here into the wiki).
And anything goes into private mailing, as noone will reliably see it anyway.

Of course it is a risk to allow players to list their own posessions, but it is a road to conflicts, fraud, legal hearings and detective position. Sounds fun .

Traditions: when we talk about tradition here it means 'a share semi-persistent view on what is good and what is bad'. So you can have stuff like 'To heal someone is good', 'To cause infection is bad', 'To be sherif is good', 'To be a sherif and to have a criminal punishment postponed is bad' on your page   and if enough people agree to add same idea to their page - all applicable dwarves will receive influence boni or penalties on the period ending.

Overseer & projects: even though overseer can be changed and will be changed - it is still not a succession fort. Overseer cannot do or not do project on his own. Well, he can, but at risk of severe punishment at the end of period.  All power comes from players. If players will be focused, motivated and work as a team - projects will be created easily. Otherwise there can be wide range of unfinished projects and even some sabotage going here and there. The role of an Overseer is to input orders of the players into the game as accurately as possible and bring back nice screenshots with a compelling story(and manage serfs). That does not mean that overseer doen not have means of cheating and room for corruption though .

Game Period: one season should be suitable. And overseer mandate? One-four periods maybe?

Serfs and clothing: tracking item ownership is quite revolutionary and experimental idea. Tracking consumables can become an unbearable chore, I fear. That is why I suggested to make consumable industries peasant-fueled.

Negative influence pool: Government had a lot of influence from communal wealth(rum, beer, spirit), which it used to create a title and give it to Neblime. Then - !!Kaboom!! - huge explosion. Wealth goes in flames, but there is not enough influence in the pool to cover the loss. Hence government is in great alcohol crisis.
I do not see how a player can get into such peril, but I bet we will make something up.

Action associated costs: the idea was to simulate social disaproval of any forced usurpation and to make sure that usurpation is used very carefully. Basically aggressor pays 1,5x price, while receiving 1x benefit, while victim loses 1x benefit for 0.5x price.
When I think about it now - we can have similar effect with tradition like 'It is bad to usurp stuff' if we want. Do you guys think paying to the shared pool is redundant here?

[Elorf]

Game Period: one season should be suitable. And overseer mandate? One-four periods maybe?

Seems good to me. Overseer election probably should be four periods, having to elect a new overseer every period sounds rather tedious.

By the way, I won't be able to post on the forums for the rest of month. Which means that I probably can't join you guys at the start of the game and can't participate in the votes. In the meantime the overseer can just use me as a mason/craftsdwarf. I'll be back though, so don't dump me with the serfs. 

[RabidAnubis]

When I think about it now - we can have similar effect with tradition like 'It is bad to usurp stuff' if we want. Do you guys think paying to the shared pool is redundant here?

No, 1.5x is a pretty good standard cost.  traditions should just make it worse

[neblime]

well extra cost from traditions that oppose actions is kind of inherent in the tradition anyway, so we don't need to add specific costs for those actions I don't think.  If urist loses influence because of a traditions against usupring a position once, it doesn't make sense to have to lose influence every time he performs that action, because people already see him as a usurper.

I think 1 year is a fine overseer period, we can always change that IC if there's any reason to.  Or have some kind of rebellion/ depose the overseer if we want to

I like the idea of paying to the shared pool for frowned upon actions, I think we should keep it.


Ok so what else needs to be done before we start 

[TeleDwarf]

As I understand we have a motion to change rules:
For now I'll call it "Aggression Simplification Act" (until better name is proposed or it is passed as it is).

I start by giving up that value to the shared pool (consequence 1. I am less popular).
I follow by giving half of that value to the victim, rounding up. (consequence 2. he is more popular now)
Now, if I still have more influence then my victim - I become an owner of the birchen bed. (consequence 3. My precious!)

to read:

Code: [Select]

I start by giving half of that value to the victim, rounding up. (consequence 1 and 2. he is more popular now)
Now, if I still have more influence then my victim - I become an owner of the birchen bed. (consequence 3. My precious!)


"Actions": are deeds of one-time forcing someone.

• You pay the cost of freedom you are trying to abuse. For example if you are trying to usurp a title of 5 influence - you return 5 influence to the pool(for being such a nasty backstabber)
• You pay half of that cost to the victim, rounded up (because you recognize that he is important enough to usurp stuff from him)
• after that you MUST still have more total influence thenm victim, who is still holding the title/item/freedom
• so, to usurp a title of a 5-influence squad leader who has 10 personal influence you need to have 15+3+3+5+1=27 influence to start with: you give up 5 influence at the start (you:27-5 = 22), you give (5/2 = 3) influence to the victim(you:22-3 = 19;victim: 15+3=18), and you are still more influenctial then he is.(19>18), so after action you became 19+5 = 24 influence (27->24), while  your victim 18-5 = 13 influence (15->13)
• this works nicely with titles(always good to usurp if you can) and items (any small item is rounded up to a least 50k to usurp, so 1 influence, while it does not necessarily brings you that influence back).
• In case of freedom - I propose to make it auction style: I want you to do *this* (make me a bed, enlist in my squad, etc...) for 1 influence (I pay 1 to pool and 1 to you), you decline(if you can. Obviously you cannot decline right away because I still have more influence then you, but after a term or two you might have more and be able to break free from my influence) for 1 influence (you pay 1 to pool and 1 to me), I insist by raising stakes to 2( I pay 2 to pool and 1 to you), you decline for 2 (2 to pool, 1 to me.), etc...
• NPC peasants cannot decline, so the only competition will be with players, to it will go like :I hire@1, you re-hire@2, I re-hire@3, but you do not give half of freedom to the victim because he is an NPC(his value rises instead)
• NPC price tag can be bumped up by paying more then NPC currently costs:  paying 6 influence for NPC priced @3 will automatically cause next bidder to pay 7 if he wants your serf.
• Note that NPC enter into a long-term relationship, while PC are entering a one-time contract.
• On the other hand NPC price rises for all future hires, while PC price rises only for THIS type of contract, for THIS customer. So different dwarves can force a poor carpenter to make them beds @1, while second bed(if they have family or the first one happened to be of a questionable quality) will be @2 for them.

to read:

Code: [Select]

"Actions": are deeds of one-time forcing someone.
[list]
[li]You pay half of that cost to the victim, rounded up (because you recognize that he is important enough to usurp stuff from him)[/li]
[li]after that you MUST still have more total influence thenm victim, who is still holding the title/item/freedom[/li]
[li]so, to usurp a title of a 5-influence squad leader who has 10 personal influence you need to have 15+3+3+1=22 influence to start with: you give (5/2 = 3) influence to the victim(you:22-3 = 19;victim: 15+3=18), and you are still more influenctial then he is.(19>18), so after action you became 19+5 = 24 influence (22->24), while  your victim 18-5 = 13 influence (15->13)[/li]
[li]this works nicely with titles(always good to usurp if you can) and items (any small item is rounded up to a least 50k to usurp, so 1 influence, while it does not necessarily brings you that influence back).[/li]
[li]In case of freedom - I propose to make it auction style: I want you to do *this* (make me a bed, enlist in my squad, etc...) for 1 influence (I pay 1 to you), you decline(if you can.) for 1 influence (you pay 1 to me), I insist by raising stakes to 2( I pay 1 to you), you decline for 2 ( 1 to me.), etc... [/li]
[li]NPC peasants cannot decline, so the only competition will be with players, to it will go like :I hire@1, you re-hire@2, I re-hire@3, but you do not give half of freedom to the victim because he is an NPC(his value rises instead)[/li]
[li]NPC price is paid in full to the shared pool[/li]
[li]NPC price tag can be bumped up by paying more then NPC currently costs:  paying 6 influence for NPC priced @3 will automatically cause next bidder to pay 7 if he wants your serf.[/li]
[li]Note that NPC enter into a long-term relationship, while PC are entering a one-time contract.[/li]
[li]On the other hand NPC price rises for all future hires, while PC price rises only for THIS type of contract, for THIS customer. So different dwarves can force a poor carpenter to make them beds @1, while second bed(if they have family or the first one happened to be of a questionable quality) will be @2 for them. [/li]
[/list]

Who supports "Aggression Simplification Act" motion?

[neblime]

so you dont have to have more influence than victim BEFORE paying the cost of the position? (only before paying half that cost to the victim)
couldn't that lead to you having less influence than someone you just usurped?  I don't know if that makes sense, surely if you can usurp a position off someone you are more influential than them

[TeleDwarf]

so you dont have to have more influence than victim BEFORE paying the cost of the position? (only before paying half that cost to the victim)
couldn't that lead to you having less influence than someone you just usurped?  I don't know if that makes sense, surely if you can usurp a position off someone you are more influential than them

I do not see how is it possible. Can you sketch a scenario?

Also I actually prepared that act according to your post. Please feel free to change it according to your vision.

[RabidAnubis]

I think the previous idea was fine.  You removed sending things to the shared pool which means that now you spend only half to get stuff.

[sal880612m]

I think I prefer having part of the cost going back to the shared pool as well.

[neblime]

I think i misunderstood.  So now you only have to pay half the value to the victim, and no more?  i thought it meant you only need to have more influence than the victim after pAying half, then you pay the full cost after taking the item/position.  So nevermind, seema fine but maybe some influence should still go pool? Say half the value of the target item position (or maybe a set amount like 1 or 2)

[RabidAnubis]

are we gong to vote on traditions soon?

[neblime]

traditions don't require votes do they?  You just decide you agree with one (or make a new one w/e) and it has an effect if enough people are agreeing with it at once and you can choose to agree or stop agreeing at any time (I don't think agree is the best word here though)

[RabidAnubis]

Sorry forgot about that.  But I'm ready to get started.

[sal880612m]

We still need a world to play in and an embark site. Also I think it might be a good idea to flesh out something in regards to governing the titles that exist in game.

[neblime]

thats a good point.  I propose that we let mayor election based on social skills happen, but give it some amount of influence value too, so we can make an effort to usurp it but otherwise be elected normally due to our good social skills.
As for the other positions maybe just have a set influence value.
how about:
Mayor: 5
Bookkeeper: 1
Manager: 2
Broker : 2
Hammerer: 1
Captain of the guard: 5
Militia commander: 5