Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Politics in Athesia; More, less, any changes?
Topic Started: Mar 2 2008, 05:26 PM (724 Views)
Virtual Harrisment

A topic under discussion by the GMs is politics in Athesia, and I for one would like some player input.
Would you like more politics in Athesia, Less? Politics confined to the forum with face-to-face gaming reserved for dice-rolling and monster-slaying?

Some problems with politics are: Time - time gets used by 2 people talking while 18 sit and watch, Outcome - When neither party will budge on an issue what was the point? and Exclusivity - Up until now, politics = plot and they characters most involved in politics got to deal with the plot whilst everybody else just followed orders.

Now you'll all read that and cry "No Politics! Kill Dragons!"

The problem with no Politics is: Why not watch a movie or play an MMORPG - You want to affect the outcome right? You want to make a difference? Or am I wrong, would you all like to be soldiers where you go where you are told, kill what you are told to kill and are kept in the dark as much as possible? You don't know if your actions changed anything, you don't even know why you were there, Need to Know my friends, and you most certainly Don't.

So I am for some politics, with judicious amounts of action and danger in between (and that's just the train ride down to Colchester :P ). The following have been suggested:
Time - Down time politics: Talk on the forum, talk to players you know (but keep a record of what was decided) but when everybody is together stick to kicking arse.
Time Limit Discussions: GMs will limit required politics in games, you'll have a short time to Roleplay it (which can represent hours of your characters hashing it out) and if you don't have a decision by the deadline then the default situation/NPC decision occurs.

Outcomes - DMs will have a default decision by an NPC (or world conditions) that WILL occur if you don't alter it, this decision will be deliberately made to be about 50-60% 'correct' (i.e. a battle-plan will be solid but with several flaws). Do better or live with mediocrity people.

Exclusivity - We're discussing incentivising politics with cash and DTP (got your attention? Good) so everyone will want a slice of that pie, also we're discussing giving incentives for co-operation - so that although you might all be involved in a little friendly competition for the best trade deals and rewards you have no real reason to exclude players who want to get involved. Or to put numbers on it: If three of you get involved in politics you could earn 3,000gp each, if 20 get invlved you can earn 20,000gp each. So drag the sword-swinging lug to the negotiating table because you get real rewards for doing so :P

Thoughts? Opinions? Insults?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pummage
Member Avatar
Perinoir Pyreheart-Vespoya
I approve.
I like DTP and Gp.

I like talking on the forums and I think a lot of things could be forwarded here but I think anything that affects the meat and bones of the politics should be in person. Trade agreements and other fluff that could influence positions would be good but nothing that overwrites the whole situation.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Davachido
Leonus Typhoeus
I do like the political side of Athesia but I find it kind of odd that all ranks get to sit in the same debate (From what I saw from the last 3 day game), I'd like to see something like all the rank 4s (and their subordinates if they choose) in the kingdom to come into a single room to debate on a decision and come out with something, if they don't something decided by the GM happens due to their inaction.

Once the higher ranks have finished discussing it is up to them to tell or not tell their lower ranked buddies on their mission. Or the higher ranks can choose to forgo the decision they did and go on their own agenda, so this way we have the kingdoms working 'together' and have a more fleshed out ranking previlages (in terms of political debate).

The rank 2s can organise troop structure on the battle field or depending on their job assign their special units (battle medics/mage battlion for example) to do something. Or be commanded around to do the fighting if that is what they are there for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ansob.
Member Avatar
Alexander Norris
Personally, I'd hate it if politics was confined to forum only. I don't want to sound harsh, but it's not the fault of the people who want to RP that other people don't (just because D&D is a paltry excuse for an RPG and is more of a wargame in disguise doesn't mean that there should be no RPing :P).

Incentives, for simple politics, why not; I wouldn't be opposed to more DTP (since being an elf is currently costing me 4DTP and a free feat) or more gold. Incentives for acting like diplomats, not self-absorbed arrogant cockends (and no, I don't mean Tom; just Vespoya :P), and actually working together - that would be cool.

As for time limits on diplomacy, I suppose so, but I'd prefer if they fit in to the setting rather than were arbitrary (as in, "the rules of this assembly stipulate that each speaker is only allowed 5mn to make his speech," which is real-time, and then we condense the whole debate thing so 10-20mn of IC discussion represents several hours of stalemates and concessions).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gunbane

Davachido
Mar 2 2008, 07:55 PM
I do like the political side of Athesia but I find it kind of odd that all ranks get to sit in the same debate (From what I saw from the last 3 day game), I'd like to see something like all the rank 4s (and their subordinates if they choose) in the kingdom to come into a single room to debate on a decision and come out with something, if they don't something decided by the GM happens due to their inaction.




The rank 2s can organise troop structure on the battle field or depending on their job assign their special units (battle medics/mage battlion for example) to do something. Or be commanded around to do the fighting if that is what they are there for.
I do not like this as it basically means that politics is limited to only those people with rank 4 characters. This means that there will certainly be some people who want to do politics but can't due to the fact that there are only a limited number of rank 4 characters per country!



As for the suggestion of the rank 2's organising the troops, surely that would come under the job of the military rank 4 for that country, so again anyone with less than rank 4 may as well forget about roleplaying entirely!



I personally feel that the politics is about right as it is, since athesia was supposed to be a game in which politics featured much more heavily than your average RPG. Though if you want to add incentives to make other people join in the politics I doubt anyone would complain :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Virtual Harrisment

Ansob.
Mar 2 2008, 07:59 PM
Personally, I'd hate it if politics was confined to forum only. I don't want to sound harsh, but it's not the fault of the people who want to RP that other people don't (just because D&D is a paltry excuse for an RPG and is more of a wargame in disguise doesn't mean that there should be no RPing :P).
Posted Image

But more seriously, I agree, it isn't the fault of the people wanting to RP that others don't. That's true, it's also not the whole story. The bits you left out are:
- Sometimes veteren players won't let new players in on the RP, since currently RP = Plot, and people like to be involved. Hence offering rewards for co-operative roleplay.
- It's the DMs job to make the game fun for everybody, so if we limit or impose rules on certain aspects it is not for sheer perversity or because we like making life tough for you, but so that more people can enjoy the game. Hence placing time limits on face-to-face RP.

I certainly agree that time limits should be IC not OC (although OC you should be given some sort of rough timescale (10-15 minutes for example).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John K
Member Avatar
Proconsul Marcus Princaii
@Davachido: Politics shouldn't be split up by rank, instead high ranks would get more political currency to use, otherwise we'll create too much elitism.

@Ansob: D&D is fine for incidental RPing, just not Politicking. Then again, I've only seen 2 systems with rules for Politics anyway. As for time limits... it may be fun to watch two players argue over a sword for 10 minutes, but a 2 hour marathon is just wasting time. IC 'correctness' has it's limits when it impedes the fun of the majority.

If we create a system it will make the merits of politics clear to everyone, easier to join in and more fun to watch. Politics have been run semi-LRP so far so don't start expecting to roll dice or pull out your 'compelling argument' power, any system imposed will me less intrusive than that.

Also, this game is supposed to be open to everyone. Politicking is not everyone's cup of tea and there's nothing wrong with that. It's my own opinion that tactical planning and 'scouting' should be another aspect (possibly of the same system) as well as something for the 'dumb lug' characters to do instead of just having to watch people haggle about the price of Mithril. This way, tacticians, politicians, spies and thugs can all play the same game and achieve something special.

John,

P.S. Remember, unless it's posted on the Game_Control account, everything posted by a Ref is their own opinion, not something the rest of the refs necessarily agree with
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Davachido
Leonus Typhoeus
John K
Mar 3 2008, 10:15 AM
@Davachido: Politics shouldn't be split up by rank, instead high ranks would get more political currency to use, otherwise we'll create too much elitism.

Also, this game is supposed to be open to everyone. Politicking is not everyone's cup of tea and there's nothing wrong with that. It's my own opinion that tactical planning and 'scouting' should be another aspect (possibly of the same system) as well as something for the 'dumb lug' characters to do instead of just having to watch people haggle about the price of Mithril. This way, tacticians, politicians, spies and thugs can all play the same game and achieve something special.

Well the aim wasn't to try and create that much of a split, maybe for certain decisions, that may be already the case as there wasn't that many of the lower ranks talking in the last game and the higher ranks did have some private conversations.

Though I do suggest there should be talks amongst ranks in their own kingdoms in private for each kingdoms own agenda, for example camland to create plans to obtain the other sword shards without the other kingdoms knowing about it.

The scouting suggestion is something I like though, for those people not that interested in the political side of things can form a scouting party for the kingdoms while they have the political debate, and when they finish their mission can enter the chambers and give their report. Thus we have people doing what they want and both will have an outcome politically. The party can have vital information or suggestions due to their involvement at the front.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John K
Member Avatar
Proconsul Marcus Princaii
People are free to have talks within there own kingdom, but I don't think it's to be mechanised that way. We want a way to involve people without creating new divides. Splitting the kingdoms even more will create a rift between players, so the rest of the game will be difficult (i.e. "I'm not healing him he's from Camland!").

John,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ansob.
Member Avatar
Alexander Norris
Virtual Harrisment
Mar 3 2008, 09:28 AM

Shouldn't that read "Exalted - basically, WoD for people too elitist to admit they want to play WoD?" ;)

Posted Image
Edited by Ansob., Mar 3 2008, 06:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Suggestions · Next Topic »
Add Reply