Print

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

[hops]

Preface - What is Nation States?

NationStates is a browser game concerning the management of a country/political entity based on one's own political ideals. The game is more of a CYOA rather than an actual strategy game when interaction with other states and roleplaying is ignored, as there is no way to actually lose it. The main gameplay of the game is to choose how you respond to issues, which are written by the community. You are given responses which reflect your ideal, or you are able to dismiss the issue if none of the responses fit your ideal.

Complexity in the game comes mainly from predicting the effect of these responses on the state of your nation. Your nation has three main stats, Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedom. There are also other "sub-stats" that can be seen on one's nation profile, such as Leading Causes of Death, and Economy (Ownership). These stats are most likely simply cosmetic, caused by choices you pick in issues.

There are more to go on with the game, but this is not the aim of this thread. However, the last thing that should be mentioned is the World Assembly. The World Assembly is a place where nations within a region vote on an issue, and allies can endorse each other to presumably increase the influence of the nation's on the decision. This political power play is perhaps one of the few strategic aspect of the game, but most of the repercussions of the World Assembly are still roleplaying.


That's nice, but you just ranted about a browser game

To go back to the purpose of this thread, that is, a forum game, we must first note what the goals are:

• To provide a GM-guided interactive narrative where the players lead a nation: As this is a forum game, and all content ultimately come from the GM (me), it is impossible to keep gameplay objective. Thus, it is not possible to make the forum game strategic in nature. Instead, it should be the format of Nation States' issue but in which the GM will make up all the issues, with perhaps suggestions in PM for issue ideas. Players may also suggest unique responses, just like in a Suggestion Game. However, there will still be premade responses so as to keep options open and not require players to spend too much time exploring options. The options may also evolve to suit the nation's unique state, and its relations with foreign powers.
• To provide a dynamic suggestion game: As most suggestions games get bogged down by voting, and as picking options depending on the GM's whims is not possible in this particular forum game, there must be a system that allow the game to move quickly without being too taxing on the GM, or limit the interaction of less active players.
• To allow the player to roleplay: While the players' roles within the game are yet undecided, the aim of the game is to allow them to roleplay, whether as ministers, priests, conspiracy theorists, journalists, individually. Or allow them to play as foreign states with coordination from the GM, or other form of roleplaying.

So what is this thread for?

While I have stated my goals, I have yet to work out the mechanics. Then there is also the intricacies of stats that should be adapted from NationStates to suit my needs. (Something that shouldn't be worried upon too much by the players, however)

Thus, this thread will be my discussion of the mechanics, with, hopefully, inputs.

[TheBiggerFish]

Oh, hi!

[DoctorMcTaalik]

As a former NS user, I'm looking forward to see where this goes.

[hops]

Log 1 - Frequency of Update

We'll begin with the choice that will affect the game all the time: rate of update.

Since suggestions will be more vote-based than it being more like the chaotic state of most suggestion games, I may disrupt voting if I updated whenever I felt like it. My solution to this is that there will be a standard deadline for votes, after that, even if I still haven't updated, suggestions will be ignored.

The amount of time given is another issue. While I can change it as the game goes on, it is best that there is some consistency. So far, I think that 48 hours should be enough to give people time to read and think about the issues. This might be a bit too rapid, but my idea is that issues will be given out in batches, and at a certain time, perhaps every fourth turn, there is a development on the plotline of the game.

[MaximumZero]

You have my attention.

[hops]

(Meta) Log - Points of Discussion

I think it'd be best if I was more structured than just discussing the random thoughts that come to me. I will discuss the random thoughts that come to me but I'll brainstorm for prompts as well, since I suppose so far I haven't fleshed out much for people to have any prompts for me.

In no particular order:

• Choice Spectrum
• Redundancy
• Qualities and Quantities (Stats)
• Narrative
• Roleplaying
• Parallel to god games
• Political neutrality
• Foreign powers/NPCs

[hops]

Log 2 - Political Neutrality

On one hand, I might be overthinking this because it's highly unlikely that Bay12 will try to lobby for their ideal government and would probably rather try to form a comically oppressive dictatorship, try to revert into the Second Dark Ages, or other things.

But that might come across as me being presumptuous. It's possible that the players as a whole will gravitate towards utopian/dystopianism (two sides of the same coin in this situation).

As an utopian fascist myself, I might be biased if that is that case. And bias is not good in this sort of game. One solution could be to opt for the effectiveness of policies being arbitrary instead, but that might end up feeling like I am making the choices of the players not matter.

But that's suggestion games for you. NationStates didn't try to make itself engaging in term of political realism. In fact, it allow for different political archetypes to work, whereas in reality it is highly likely some of them just... won't. Just like NationStates, the emphasis should be more on the "storyline" and how the players react politically to it. There may be no right or wrong answer when it comes to political ideals, but there will definitely be right or wrong answers when it comes to the methods and reforms used to pave the way for those ideals in evolving social situation.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I guess the question what's the point of the game??? What are players striving for? If you simply want to create a breeding ground for interesting stories, well, there are probably easier ways to do it. If there's something more to compete for, at least nominally to create conflict, what it is?

[hops]

I guess the question what's the point of the game??? What are players striving for? If you simply want to create a breeding ground for interesting stories, well, there are probably easier ways to do it. If there's something more to compete for, at least nominally to create conflict, what it is?

There are many suggestion games with the plotline focusing on management. Of course, most of them die and I'd imagine the people running them were just making shit up on the fly.

There are many victory conditions that could be had, from embezzling tons of money and then retiring like in Tropico, to world domination, to whatever. It'll depend on what the collective chooses. One major thing would likely be to not get lynched by the citizen, though.

[hops]

Log 3 - Parallel to god games, winning/losing conditions, and NPCs

These logs have been hilariously short lately so I'm going to start discussing related topics together.

First off, Nation States is a sandbox. A good example of sandbox in FGRP are god games. Which inevitably dies off because there's no goal or winning condition.

Urist McScoopbeard asked about what the point of the game is. In god games, there are many players and they come up with their own missions and then step all over everyone else to complete them. In this game, the players collectively run a single state, so things are different. I already mentioned that the winning state can't really be solidified at this point. I mean, really. Let's say we wanted world domination... but what if the playerbase actually just wanted to embezzle loads of money and then escape the country? What if they want to just get their pet policies through? What if they want to just run a country really well?

Maybe there can be multiple pre-set win conditions, but that would have to be very broad to cover al lsituation, something which seems a bit of an overkill since I wouldn't know yet if anyone else would want to copy the system I will build here.

Thus, in conclusion, the win conditions will have to be ascertained in the game.

As we have discussed winning conditions, we should also discuss losing conditions. This is easier. You simply lose if the government is overthrown, or your country is under foreign control for too long. The main "enemies" are NPCs, by which I don't mean just a person, but also an entity. An NPC in this game can range from a single celebrity, an official under your employ, a very good assassin, a political organization, another country, or the World Council. The NPCs can occasionally be your allies, but most of the time they're threats that you have to keep suppressed or appeased to not lose. Most of them act within a (hidden) set of behaviors, but since I'm not a computer i reserve the rights to make the NPCs do whatever I want, as long as it tells a good story and challenge the players to consider their choices.

[hops]

Log 4 - Choice Spectrum

Gah, we're starting to get into difficult territory, here, because I now need to actually flesh out the mechanics. I don't want to deal with the scary stats yet, so here we are.

Though the players can always suggest their own solutions, the default choices given to them would tend to shape their thinking process. Thus it is my responsibility to be consistent with the range of choices given.

As I am not a player writing an issue and submitting it to Nation States, I don't have the benefit of being objective. My idea is that the general guideline for all choices for every issue is that:

Issue: The issue often arise from a demand from a certain group of interest.

Choice 1: Give them what they want.
Choice 2: Compromise.
Choice 3: Don't give them what they want.
Choice 4: Don't give them what they want, and also hinder their efforts to be able to ask again.
Choice 5: Wildcard. Just imagine what a Bay12er would suggest for shits and giggles. Or sometimes it is a serious shift in policy.

[hops]

Log 5 - Why God Games Die

This is something I feel like talking about, since it was also related to how I lost interest. From what I’ve seen, most god games peter out due to the GM losing interest, rather than the players not wanting to play. Sure, a factor is the GMs putting too much work into things and then getting too bogged down, but from what I’ve seen the general vibe is just that things got boring for them.

I think this is likely because GMs often design their god games (or in my case: politician game) so that, even if they don’t intend to, rely mainly on their storytelling. While players enjoy experimenting and seeing what happens, I have a feeling that most players join god games because they have a good idea what they want and what they think would be cool to happen. This is suppressed, usually, and when it’s not, it gets out of hand. The GM either make it so that the players aren’t stimulated enough to pursue anything other than their agenda with a one-track mind, or the players become too dependent on the GM to have an idea for what to do.

At the risk of sounding hubristic, my solution to this would be to incorporate more RNG prompts, and adopt the use of RP help in MUDs. The idea is that the players can PM me to suggest adventures which will befall other players. Usually, to avoid metagaming, it would be arranged so that apart from entertainment, the suggestor would get next to no mechanical reward from this. This being Bay12 and seeing how we love suggestion games, I’m hoping that a Bay12er’s love of shenanigans will win over their desire to win.

And anyways, what I said in the first paragraph, I meant that I lost interest because so far this blog had been a vacuum of only my own ideas and nobody else's. That's pretty boring. I'm thinking that it is imperative for me to cobble up something minimal to test out the system and amuse myself. Seeing how my previous minimal tests ended, though, I think I'd have to resist the strong urge to hotfix things on the go.

[TheBiggerFish]

Huh.  I should probably PTW this.

[hops]

Log 6 - Multiplayer

I started the game development thinking of having it be a suggestion game. That idea now seems boring, especially after I started to participate more in FGRP. There’s nothing against suggestion games, but they’re dimes a dozen, and they strip away any sense of agency the players might have. This works for an interactive story, but I doubt it would work for something like this.

I’m thinking that the players play as certain “Players”, for lack of a better term. I think that it would be most interesting if they were all lumped into a single country. The PCs are not expected to roleplay as human beings, and their avatars are expected to be larger-than-life politicians, choosing from starting from a small sphere of influence (governing a town, heading an activist movement) or working with the big picture. I’ll need to think of a way to balance how power works in the game in a way which incentivize active political actions without it just being a power grab.

And this all ties into the essential question of the goal of the game. My idea is that a player choose their own personal win condition that I then adjust. Not all wincons are created equal, and it’s not like you gain something special by choosing a trivial win condition. On the other hand, it may be difficult to set down something concrete that the player can work towards.

[aDwarfNamedUrist]

PTW