First off: I think this idea has HUGE potential.

Now... here are some ideas, I''ve come up with while reading this thread:

1) If the game were implemented in a MMORPG kind of style, I think a winning situation may not be necessary. The players would play for power, economical or political. It would be obvious to anyone playing the game who is the super power, or who are the super powers.

- With now win, in effect now end of the game, there is the possibility that the game would become stagnant, with nothing happening. Worlds like these may be really appealing to some players who just want to act out the every day maintenance of a political state.

- I think however that there would be enough stimilus for action in the game because of a constant supply of new small states that enter the game with no grounding and basically raise hell for the established states.

- Another solution for a stagnant world would be having the game on multiple servers, perhaps individual run servers. If you didn''t like the server you were on, you could quit. Or anything... Also I see that unlike in the real world (hopefully), if things got boring, people would just start a war for no reason.

2) Howabout allowing players to assume a role in an already established government, instead of starting a new government. This will probably be necessary to maintain consistency in the world while adding new players to it. Allow the players within the government to be seperate and (originaly) hidden from the controller of said government.

- So if player A is in control of Utopia... allow a new player, player B, (or a current player) to become part of a rebelious group or some other political figure within A''s nation. It may be necessary for A and B to interact, but it should also be possible for B to act with A ignorant of B''s intent or purpose. In other words, A and B should interact in the same manner as members of different states.

- In this way, you could have internal conflicts as well as external conflicts. To inject B into A, you could put B in control of one of A''s resources or ocupations. And if the game indead plays like a nation conquering or aquiring fiefdoms, A would have aquired B''s fealty or some such.

Sorry for the rambling... hope this makes sense.

-Jason

dymetrix, I essentially agree with you. I was just thinking today that new players could inject themselves into ongoing games as ''up until now'' silent citizens. Once they have entered the game, they are allowed to build contacts for the purpose of uprisings, inciting unrest, gaining political favor, becoming a journalist, or whatever.

Another thought I had was related to the size of a game. If there were indeed as many as a 1000 or more players in any one game, it is likely that there would be many players that are completely unaware of the existence of other players or groups plotting their own schemes.

I was also thinking how unaccessible political figures or high level figures often are in real life. It could be that a high level official might make public speeches and be well known among most players, but that does not mean there is an open line of communication between the two players. One must gain favor, recognition, and rise within the ranks to gain a voice, so to speak. But then again, there also exists the opportunity to build underground movements and factions.

Another thought I had was how one might justify an organized group of individuals at the game beginning, yet justify a certain level of technology, if desired. All one needs to do is look to the current state of Afghanistan to see such a case right now. At this moment we have an essentially fractured state yet a certain level of technology. Granted, there are outside forces in that scenario, but in a fictional setting, it seems reasonable that post apocalyptic setting could be the basis for the game''s inital parameters.

A somewhat tangential addition: scenarios.

While a persistent online multiverse is fascinating and entertaining, there are times when your players may wish to play limited length situations. You may choose to provided episodic adventures, available for a limited time to a limited number of participants. How about it?

Actually, this does sound quite a bit like Shadowbane still. For those of us who don''t know, it''s a MMORPG (in development) which is guild-centric: guilds actually own property and kingdoms. The founder of the guild decides what type of government it will be. Guilds can swear fealty to other guilds, and wars can be waged between guilds over territory that will really belong to them, should they be the victor (unlike in EQ, where the guilds cannot actually own real estate).

Go read about the game at www.shadowbane.com to find out more about it.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
While a persistent online multiverse is fascinating and entertaining, there are times when your players may wish to play limited length situations. You may choose to provided episodic adventures, available for a limited time to a limited number of participants. How about it?

If you would care to elaborate on what comprises an episodic adventure, maybe it would be worth discussing. At the moment I can''t visualize how that would work with the evolving mechanisms of gameplay, which I admit are still very fuzzy and virtually nonexistent at this point in time. In other words, anything is fair game, if you would merely be vociferous in your ideas.

quote: Original post by Ghostface
Actually, this does sound quite a bit like Shadowbane still. For those of us who don''t know, it''s a MMORPG (in development) which is guild-centric: guilds actually own property and kingdoms. The founder of the guild decides what type of government it will be. Guilds can swear fealty to other guilds, and wars can be waged between guilds over territory that will really belong to them, should they be the victor (unlike in EQ, where the guilds cannot actually own real estate).

Go read about the game at www.shadowbane.com to find out more about it.

After giving Shadowbane a brief looking through, I see similarities and differences.

The similarities I see are related to the guilds, and their mention of city-states, kingdoms, empires, revolution, betrayal and war. Theoretically, alliances will form, and political movements and agendas will influence the evolving state of the game. Also, I see that guilds may use different methods of their choosing to to assign membership to an individual or banish an individual.

I see a lot of differences from what I visualize as well. For one thing, Shadowbane still appears to be very much a game about physical properties of individuals including weapons, fighting, and roaming about the landscape in a video game like environment. I am not knocking this; the graphics look very good. But I feel that kind of emphasis competes for a player''s resources, those being time, vision, and cooridnation, drawing the player''s concentration away from the unfolding political element possible in gameplay.

Other differences are the more canned templates related to guild political structure. I feel as if though the designers have taken the traditional fantasy MMORPG format, and infused political gameplay into it. What I am visualizing is a complete trashing of that concept, and the groundup construction of a new concept which focuses around providing the mechanisms to allow players to communicate, organize, and formulate the structure of their own governing system. From a prototype, it would then follow to bring in graphics, but more from the standpoint of presentation of the machinations of the evolving political, geopolitical, social, and economic climate, as opposed to the evolving geophysical environment as in Shadowbane. In Shadowbane, I gather that one is entertained by watching what a player looks like and what a player builds. In what I visualize, one is entertained by what others think, write and do behind your back.

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
If you would care to elaborate on what comprises an episodic adventure, maybe it would be worth discussing. At the moment I can't visualize how that would work with the evolving mechanisms of gameplay, which I admit are still very fuzzy and virtually nonexistent at this point in time. In other words, anything is fair game, if you would merely be vociferous in your ideas.

Well, obviously the mechanics of gameplay must be fully defined within the parameters of the main game, which is why I labelled it a somewhat tangential topic. Noticing the apparent difficulty of determining victory conditions I thought it might be worthwhile to consider more restricted objectives than "amassing as much power/influence as possible."

Say, for example (and I think this was mentioned either earlier in this thread or in another thread in this forum), that a government is faced with the possible threat of war within a finite number of game world days. The player is a diplomat or noble of some sort, and to be the one selected to be an emissary/negotiator would bring great honor - but will be great pressure as the fate of the nation essentially lies in your hands.

This scenario has a definite time limit and a definite victory condition - to win the commission and then convince the invading force to accept "reasonable" terms of servitude. Saving the nation at the expense of all freedoms and property - essentially giving the invaders free reign to plunder the land - will result in revilement, and possible execution.

There are many more such possible situations that will provide that "closure" and sensation of successful completion. Mediation between warring factions or nations whose conflicts hurt your interests (political or financial); non-violent response to an act of war against yourself or allies, etc.

Edit: quote for concurrency.

Edited by - Oluseyi on October 11, 2001 9:54:48 PM

I was looking at Nomic, and it is really fascinating and amusing. I just don't think it carries it far enough. Granted, it is very pure, but as a result I think it only attracts the very hardcore, and thus loses momentum. Then again, I know very little about the game.

However, it inspires me. I am now wondering if a game is created where players are allowed to define their own governments and rules, there exists a structured (but allows freeform) way to generate and write rules which the computer program can understand so as to at least be able to identify when those rules are being broken. It would not necessarily be the program's job to enforce the rules (sometimes, maybe) or to even inform the players that a rule was broken (again, maybe sometimes). Therefore, maybe it would be beneficial if new rules were written in plain english but also formatted from a set of 'rule-objects' to facilitate this.

EDIT: To include the link to this interesting and amusing evolved set of rules in a Nomic campaign.

Edited by - bishop_pass on October 11, 2001 12:01:05 AM

Clarifying evolving details : Please comment.

A randomly generated map of the world is created for each campaign. Incoming players are deposited at random locales on the map, with perhaps a constituency representing perhaps 1,000 people. These people are not individually simulated, but represented as one economic unit. Theoretically, the player is the leader of this group. Visualize a recently fractured state, perhaps like Afghanistan. Depending on what style of campaign is played, the setting could be medieval, industrial, modern, or futuristic. You are immediately possibly in danger if there are other players near you.

It is inevitable that other players will band together to build a stronger faction or form an alliance. It is probably a good idea that you do also. Your strength lies in how many people are behind you. Two groups allied equal 2,000 people.

To facilitate organization, efficiency, you and your allies may build a government and define the governmental structure. Likely a command hierarchy will form. Where you exist in this comamnd hierarchy is entirely up to how you wield the power you have and how the other players perceive you and accept you. Other members in your group or outside your group may campaign for you or against you. Such information may flow in any of the numerous information flow mechanisms.

This brings us to information and the flow of information. Information in the game only exists because it is assimilated by each player through his interface to the game world and then is disseminated. This dissemination plays a key role in the dynamic of the game. In fact, the whole game essentially revolves around this concept. As other players receive information, or receive false or biased information, or fail to receive information, the political climate changes. The standard information venues would likely be simulated as secure transmission, limited transmission public speeches and addresses, messenger, journalistic reporting representing hard facts and biased opinions, rumor spreading, player to player, player to many player, and so forth. All information except for the information presented by the interface is manufactured by the player.

A macroscopic economic and military simulation exists. It is based on resources, budgets, military positioning, and geographic parameters. Desired features would include trade, manufacturing, sanctions, embargoes, immigration and defection, and currency exchange.

It is desired that both inter-governmental and intra-governmental conflict exist. Among the interesting situations that would hopefully arise are rebellions, coups, underground political movements, hot wars, cold wars, and economic wars.

Communication can be divided into two broad types: IN GAME communication and OUT OF GAME communication. OUT OF GAME communication would typically be represented by email. IN GAME communication would utilize the game's servers for information transmission. IN GAME communication should be encouraged. Methods for encouraging IN GAME communication includes: 1) hiding explicit numerical data which is essential to success, instead giving bonuses such as extra hit points when using these cooridnates when transmitted IN GAME; 2) presenting different color coded maps with slightly different styles to different players so that screenshots which are emailed require extra effort to interpret by the receiving party; 3) making cut & paste methods dificult because of graphical presentation of text, as opposed to ASCII format, and making information compartmentalized so that screenshots take extra effort to produce. The reason for encouraging IN GAME communication is to create the possibility of information interception, information tampering, and information spying.

Edited by - bishop_pass on October 13, 2001 11:56:08 PM

Here are some thoughts on the theoretical reasons why governmental structures would arise and why individual players would conform to the self imposed rules of the government they become a member of. The game essentially makes it necessary for organization to take place, because of the inability for any one player to singly collect and assimilate all of the information which represents the game world. Because the goal in the game is to gain geopolitical dominance, the players will have to create the infrastructure for information to trickle up to the top and then trickle back down to the bottom. Naturally, along the way, there exists the possibility of unobjective information transfer, due to the individual motivations of each player. This is why multiple suborganizations may develop, in order to act as a check and balance system.

I guess the key is to provide the simulated world (military and economic) and the mechanisms to transfer information, and then let the players organize and develop.

Edited by - bishop_pass on October 14, 2001 1:55:41 PM