Re: alternative goals

From: jonmmorris@aol.comnospam (John Morris)

Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 05:24:02 +0000

Enno wrote:>Since there have been complaints about the lack of topics, I'll tra
to start
>one. It originated in eressea.talk, but should be applicable to other games
>of the genre. I'm talking mostly about the atlantis/olympia/eressea style of
>strategic fantasy game.
>
>One of the things I read in the atlantis rules that attracted me to the game
was that (from memory) "there is no ultimate goal. players set their own golas
-
>you can be a mighty warlord, an explorer or a rich trader". Now, from almost 5
years of experience, I must admit that that's not entirely true. There may be
>secondary goals, but you won't live long if you don't follow rule #1: "Be
strong, or others will kill you". The powergamers can ruin the game for
everyone who sets himself an alternative goal. Why is it so hard to make a game
where that's not the case? Waht are possible goals?
>

Reminds me of a quote by my International Law professor, "There is no
international law.  The strong do what they will and the weak do what they
must."

>1. Exploration.
>In a decently sized gameworld, your maps will always grow faster than the
speed at which you travel. you meet other people who already have maps, piece
them
>together, and soon there's nothing you can reach that hasn't been explored
yet.
>Exploration can be fun for a few turns, but just doesn't cut it, long-term.
>
>2. Trade.  First of all, all games of this type that I have seen so far have a
crappy trade system. In many cases, the system is artificial. In Atlantis, for
example, trade goods are items nobody needs - they are just meant to be traded.
Trade is also utterly unnecessary, as there are far better ways of getting
money (perversely, an army is the best way to make money in atlantis, making
powergamers not only powerful but also rich).
>
>3. Roleplaying & Storytelling
>You can have a lot of fun fleshing out your faction and characters. Until the
powergamer comes along and kills them all. In the Times, the Express or
whatever the name of the weekly newspaper is, at least 90% of the articles are
"who attacked whom", and real storytelling is marginal.
>
>4. Building
>Players who like the Civilization-aspects of these games (differnet
buildingtypes, roads, castles, sfleets, etc) are also prone to being killed by
the next-door powergamer.
>
>5. Quests
>While it's theoretically possible to have quests in a turn-based PBEM like
this, it's extremely hard to design them (weekly turns are really slow) and
takes a
>lot of moderation which none of the players seem to be willing to spend. The
difficulty of making quests would decrease with higher turn frequency, but the
game needs some pretty good built-in mechanisms to allow quest creation. And
you'll still need dedicated players who create and moderate them.
>
>If anybody wants to add something here, feel free. New ideas welcome :-)
>

I certainly am not familiar with every game out there, especially the fantasy
genre, but it would take a fair amount of skill to create a  game with all the
viable strategies you've described.  The closest PbM game I can think of might
be Lords of the Earth where sheer power is a strategy but not the only one,
long-running roleplaying/storytelling exists if only because the games go
forever, and there are numerous subplots beyond the obvious battle reports in
the newsletter.

However, the best match that I can think of to what you're looking for is not a
PbM game at all - it's a game like UltimaOnline or EverQuest.

I run a non-fantasy strategy game - Most of my players go the powermonger route
- if they don't they at least form alliances for mutual protection from the
most aggressive players.
1) Exploration - none, the world map is a known, published entity, though your
knowledge of regions outside your country and colonies is pretty sketchy.
2) Trade - I think I have a good economics/market system.  The players buy and
sell and their actions, along with an 'unseen hand' algorithm, determine the
next turn's market prices.
3) Roleplaying and Storytelling - Sort of.  There is a newsletter each turn and
players submit propaganda to supplement my news and analysis (primarily combat
and economics).  Many of my players (and I) cut their teeth in the postal
Diplomacy hobby which has a long tradition of press wars.  A sort of
roleplaying...
4) Building - Absolutely.  Build more stuff, new technologies, improve the
efficiencies of what you've already got, expand your colonies, (and of course
build up your military to go attack...)
5) Quests - no, not applicable for my genre (WW1 - WW2)

The official 'winner' of Gunboat Empires, the guy who gets the plaque, is the
player who is voted 'Best Player' by his fellow players for that game.  It was
once given to the largest military power but he was also the organizer of the
winning coalition.  Other players have won based on their diplomatic skills,
propaganda writing, having the largest economy, and for running a country good
in all categories though best in none.

Good thread!
John
*** (AD) Gunboat Empires has moved from PBM to PBeM
     http://www.gunboatempires.com                      ***

References

alternative goals
"Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>
Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:15:30 +0000

Referenced By

alternative goals
"Enno Rehling" <schick.mir.spam@gmx.de>
Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:15:30 +0000