Print

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

[Thanshin]

This thread is to discuss the rules and possibly to set up a game of dwarven democracy.

The rules:
- One recognized good player "The mayor" does the playing itself. He could be chosen by taking other community games as example of playing quality, for example.
- Actions and strategy are voted. One dwarf, one vote.
- First dwarfs equate first players. If one dies, that player stops voting until next migration.
- Immigrants give votes to players in the vaiting list and are assigned in order. Dead players get to pick dwarf from the first immigration wave, to reenter the game.
- Mayor vote counts as one, but resolves ties.

The initial dwarfs choose their skills; from then on voting should be used to decide things like:
- Initial equipment.
- Embark point.
- Initial targeted design (textual or with simple blueprints).
- Strategy to follow.

The Mayor starts building the most voted initial targeted design and, as soon as he faces a decision, he pauses, publishes the game and asks for a vote. For example:

- "Bituminous coal found. Should we make a smelter?"
- "In the initial design there are no fields, shall we make some?"
- "Food is too low. We need a better food strategy."
- "Skeletal raptors killed the hunter (Sorry Bobtheforumite). Should we go get his axe?"
- "Skeletal raptors killed the axe retriever. Should we raise the bridge?"
- "Skeletal raptors killed the lever puller. Should we build a wall on the corridor to save the still living dwarves?"

[Curris]

This sounds like fun. I'd be in on this.

If I had a dwarf, he (or she) would be an engraver and a fisherdwarf. Likes fish if possible, dislikes military. Purely smooths halls until he/she is legendary, then begins engravings! Can't waste those walls. Is not opposed to bookkeeping and hauling either if necessary.

Skill set
Fishing 3
Swimming 2
Engraving 3
Building Designer 1
Comedian 1

Rules clarification: How many times is a dead dwarf player allowed to come back? As many times as there are openings, likely, but do they have precedence over new players?

[Arrkhal]

This could be fun, albeit slower paced than most games.  To really simulate beaurocracy, will you impose some kind of challenge, like you allow X days to pass in-game for every real-world day the players deliberate?  With some kind of time limit.  And a motion should carry once it receives a majority vote, without bothering to tally remaining votes; i.e., if 4 of the starting 7 vote "yes," you don't need to wait for the remaining 3 as they couldn't influence the vote anyway.  For votes that need a simple majority, anyway.

That's what I'd do.  It's more dwarfy.  First we should vote on those kinds of decisions, how the government will be set up.

I'll play either way.  Hm, normally I specialize, but that's not a good idea, here.

How about:
Carpenter 4
Grower 3
Brewer 3

And to begin, I propose the following (each item should be voted on seperately):

*All dwarves are free to put forth proposals, upon which everyone votes.

*All decisions, other than specific exceptions, are made by a simple majority vote.

*New immigrants receive retroactive votes on motions already passed, and thus may resurrect a failed project or cancel an ongoing one, if the vote was close enough.

*A proposal is implemented or canceled as soon as it receives sufficient votes to constitute the required majority.

*Anything involving the substance commonly known as magma, lava, the firey blood of the mountain, the sweet glowing nectar of Armok, etc., should require a 2/3rds majority vote.

*Attacking or stealing from a trade caravan or otherwise angering a peaceful civilization should require a 2/3rds majority vote, with the exception of the elves, who require only a simple majority vote.

*Immigrant nobles, with the exception of the dungeon master, are not playable.

*Appointment of player-selected nobles should be made by common vote.

*Adherence to mandates should be determined by common vote.

*Execution of an immigrant noble (other than the DM) at anyone's merest whim, is decided by simple majority.  Execution in the event of an export mandate is made by 1/3 majority.  Execution in the event of a production mandate is made by 1/4 majority.

*We should be able to nominate and vote for particular players to perform certain tasks, such as construction of something difficult.  The nature of the service (save swapping, providing schematics, etc.) shall be decided upon between the mayor and the other party.  If they cannot reach an agreement, it will be decided by common vote.

*In the specific case of emergency leadership/martial law (one player receives complete free reign over the fortress in an emergency), this should require a 2/3rds majority vote, and a term limit of 1 season should be imposed.  An emergency leader may serve for no more than 2 consecutive seasons, and no more than 6 lifetime seasons.  An emergency leader may be chosen in advance of a catastrophe for instant instatement, in which case the conditions of instatement will be determined at that time, once again by 2/3rds majority vote.  Ending an emergency leader's term can occur at any time by a simple majority vote, and will also forbid that person from ever assuming emergency leadership again.  An emergency leader may terminate his or her own leadership at will, without any such ban, though their service will count as one full term regardless of time served.

I think that's enough soul-crushing beaurocracy to start.

[quinntan]

Yeah this sounds interesting. Sign me up as a 5 miner / 5 mason. Preferably male. Is the op going to be running it?

[Thanshin]

Rules clarification: How many times is a dead dwarf player allowed to come back? As many times as there are openings, likely, but do they have precedence over new players?

The players who've already been in have precedence over new players at all points. They just have to wait for more immigrants to come.

To really simulate beaurocracy, will you impose some kind of challenge, like you allow X days to pass in-game for every real-world day the players deliberate?

Not at first, but it's a very interesting idea to challenge settled fortresses with 80 dwarves.

if 4 of the starting 7 vote "yes," you don't need to wait for the remaining 3 as they couldn't influence the vote anyway. 

Correct. Most of times there won't be need for the entire team to vote.

*All dwarves are free to put forth proposals, upon which everyone votes.

*All decisions, other than specific exceptions, are made by a simple majority vote.

*New immigrants receive retroactive votes on motions already passed, and thus may resurrect a failed project or cancel an ongoing one, if the vote was close enough.

*A proposal is implemented or canceled as soon as it receives sufficient votes to constitute the required majority.

I wouldn't include voting on the voting system at first, to avoid total democratic paralysis, but I agree that your motions can be considered as base.

*Anything involving the substance commonly known as magma, lava, the firey blood of the mountain, the sweet glowing nectar of Armok, etc., should require a 2/3rds majority vote.

It wouldn't make sense as it stands, as the dwarves could vote to change that very rule. But it could be part of a base "constitution" (voting rules).

*Immigrant nobles, with the exception of the dungeon master, are not playable.

Au contraire! my friend.

The nobles should have the chance to vote against the installation of that lever activated personal megabeast zoo in their room.

It makes the game more challenging.

*Appointment of player-selected nobles should be made by common vote.

*Adherence to mandates should be determined by common vote.

*Execution of an immigrant noble (other than the DM) at anyone's merest whim, is decided by simple majority.  Execution in the event of an export mandate is made by 1/3 majority.  Execution in the event of a production mandate is made by 1/4 majority.

A bit too complex for a first game. We should set a simple "constitution" and leave the voting on voting rules for a second experiment.

*We should be able to nominate and vote for particular players to perform certain tasks, such as construction of something difficult.  The nature of the service (save swapping, providing schematics, etc.) shall be decided upon between the mayor and the other party.  If they cannot reach an agreement, it will be decided by common vote.

Agreed.

*In the specific case of emergency leadership/martial law (one player receives complete free reign over the fortress in an emergency), this should require a 2/3rds majority vote, and a term limit of 1 season should be imposed.  An emergency leader may serve for no more than 2 consecutive seasons, and no more than 6 lifetime seasons.  An emergency leader may be chosen in advance of a catastrophe for instant instatement, in which case the conditions of instatement will be determined at that time, once again by 2/3rds majority vote.  Ending an emergency leader's term can occur at any time by a simple majority vote, and will also forbid that person from ever assuming emergency leadership again.  An emergency leader may terminate his or her own leadership at will, without any such ban, though their service will count as one full term regardless of time served.

This point almost made me reconsider the entire post and let voting on the voting from the first experiment.

I now think the best option is to set a base constitution hard to change (6/7 to change, or somesuch) and then let anything happen.

I think that's enough soul-crushing beaurocracy to start.

You seem like the kind of people Democracy games was invented for. Have you played in any Democracy CIV game?

[Thanshin]

Preferably male. Is the op going to be running it?

Oh, no no. I've played much DF but not nearly enough to consider myself a good player.

We'd really need a strong player; one of those who saves half demolished fortresses in succession games.

[Arrkhal]

You seem like the kind of people Democracy games was invented for. Have you played in any Democracy CIV game?

I never really got into turn-based strategy games much, except for Alpha Centauri.  Too much really insane stuff.  And most RTSes these days are too easily broken by Zerg rushes, no matter how much complexity the makers tried to implement.  I think DF bridges the gap between RTS and TBS nicely, though.

So anyway, for a simple constitution (and if it requires a 6/7 majority to change, I really think it should require a 6/7 majority to instate as well), most of the above should work?

Just need a few more players, and a mayor.

Playable nobles could be insane if this gets big enough.  We probably won't be able to get 80-200 people playing this, so how will NPC votes be handled, if at all?

Hm, it could be potentially hilarious as well, if in-game mandates are treated like any other proposal.

Okay, another proposal for the constitution.  The justice system should be left inactive so that no "crimes" are ever automatically punished, and mandates can be safely ignored (this will even deactivate the hammerer).  If crime ever actually becomes an issue, justice should be determined by the players, including method of punishment.  Like a certain number of "lashes" administered by a no-quality wooden menacing spike which is modded to do 10 gore damage, or a period of confinement in a room filled with miasma, etc.

[Thanshin]

So anyway, for a simple constitution (and if it requires a 6/7 majority to change, I really think it should require a 6/7 majority to instate as well), most of the above should work?

I mostly agree. I'll make a comprehensive constitution for first players to vote on.

Just need a few more players, and a mayor.

Playable nobles could be insane if this gets big enough.  We probably won't be able to get 80-200 people playing this, so how will NPC votes be handled, if at all?

They don't vote. There are always people who don't care to vote in an election.

Hm, it could be potentially hilarious as well, if in-game mandates are treated like any other proposal.

Okay, another proposal for the constitution.  The justice system should be left inactive so that no "crimes" are ever automatically punished, and mandates can be safely ignored (this will even deactivate the hammerer).  If crime ever actually becomes an issue, justice should be determined by the players, including method of punishment.  Like a certain number of "lashes" administered by a no-quality wooden menacing spike which is modded to do 10 gore damage, or a period of confinement in a room filled with miasma, etc.

I see where you're going and I think in that case the metagaming is more fun.

I think we should leave the mandates as they are and simply try to fulfill them all or vote for the killing of a noble. Taking into account that "thou shall not kill another dwarf" should be on the constitution, so 6/7 to kill a noble.

[100killer9]

Could I chime in here as a... Uh, axedwarf/woodcutter?

[rickvoid]

Oh man. This looks like fun!

I would like to request a bone-carver, when possible.

I recommend we keep the constitution simple to start with. It'll get huge and confusing later on anyway.

For voting on after I get in:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On the disposal of deceased dwarves:

The Founders shall be lain to rest in a Grand Hall in the Fort. Bonus points if it doubles as the legendary dining room. Mega bonus points if you use glass caskets (can't remember if you can make those or not).

Dwarven Hero's (Champion level members of the millitary, multi-legendary civilians) should be lain to rest in a grand surface mausoleum, a statue of them placed next to the coffin.

Regular military shall be lain to rest around the mausoleum. Bury the casket, then place a statue over the casket on the next z-level up as a headstone.

Regular civilians shall be interred in a communal mausoleum, in the very bowels of the fort.

Traitors (mad-dwarves, failed moods, murdered nobles) are to have their bodies dumped in the refuse stockpile, there to rot.

If I get in, I request the custom title of undertaker. In addition to my bone-crafting, I would like to handle all of our honored dead. Regular haulers can dump the traitors. 

[Spartan 117]

I'll be a miner/mason. Perhaps a bit of stonecrafting.

[rickvoid]

Actually, since I posted early enough to be in as one of the starting seven, I'll do some mining and carpentry as well. Digging and casket making.  It'll give me something to do until we get a bones industry up.

So;
5 Bonecarving
5 Carpentry.

[Arrkhal]

Let's see, if my fingers aren't deceiving me, we've got enough registered voters to make this happen.

1. Thanshin - unknown (I'm guessing you're playing, anyway)
2. Curris - fisher3/engraver3/swimmer2/architect1/comedian1
3. Arrkhal - grower4/brewer3/cook3 (since Rickvoid will be our carpenter)
4. Quinntan - miner5/mason5
5. 100killer9 - woodcutter5/axedwarf5 (I'm assuming)
6. Rickvoid - carpenter5/bone carver5 and unskilled miner (oh, and yes, it is possible to make glass coffins, but that's only if our map has sand)
7. Spartan117 - miner/mason/stonecrafter (4/4/2 maybe?)

I think a mechanic/broker would round out the party nicely, but Thanshin's skills will be up to him.

First order of business should probably be to get everyone's exact skill values set in stone.  Then elect a mayor.  Then draft up and vote on a constitution.

[100killer9]

You have mine. "uh" meant only if no one else took it.

[SoulSpeared]

Could I join at the first immigrant wave?