The part where I have to sit down and think about how multiple different aspects of any given combat unit "cash out" into multiple point stats strikes me as significantly more complicated. Though if you're including "nation creation" into "order of battle creation," then yes, SDNW4's rules have a lot more complexity loaded into that part of the process.
That part I can respect and understand- such rules were not in use in SDNW4, though I will note that in practice no one ever argued with a straight face that (for example) a 1001-point force could casually bulldoze through a 1000-point force because N+1 is greater than N.I believe I should explain exactly where I'm coming from. Simple is good, but I don't believe it is the only objective. After all, we're talking about rules used as a backstop for a semi-freeform game. If you don't need that backstop, great. Everything's working. If you do, though, it needs to be both simple and fit for purpose, and purpose, in that case, is adjudicating what has become an adversarial process.
However, your core point that the game should have a mechanism that makes play continue to be interesting even if inter-player conflict becomes adversarial is well-taken. We made do without it for quite a long time, and had a good deal of fun anyway, in SDNW4... but that doesn't mean it isn't useful or necessary.
No. Please no. Stop. Don't do this.Crossroads Inc. wrote: ↑2020-10-01 02:53pmHey all... So.. Not sure if this is me being Nit picky, but, after reading Eternal_Freedoms rather intimidating ship descriptions...
Does anyone else think it would make sense to lay down a standardized "ship size" for ship weight limits? As in "ship of X point value = 1000 meters aprox" or such.
I ask because after thinking about it, he listed SIZE for his ships, but not strength. And i am now imagining something very silly of people who, say, each had a "100 point battleship" and one of these was 2400 meters.... and the other one 240 meters or something silly.
The solution to such conflicts is either to leave them alone and ignore them, or intentionally play them up as cases where one side has, say, superior technology that is very compact.
It is NOT to create universal rules that clamp down on everyone's imagination and lock us all down to designing functionally identical ship concepts and tactical concepts and so on.
My natural inclination is to go with this- on the grounds that any serious amount of adversarial play in these games is almost certainly a bad thing and likely to bring the game down screaming.Dark Hellion wrote: ↑2020-10-01 03:25pmWhy the fuck does it matter. Seriously I feel like I wanna just post an ogre gif screaming nerds. No amount of rules fixes bad players. This is literally the lesson that dnd taught us over the last 3 editions. Honestly if we can't trust a bunch of 30 year olds to play the game with decorum I really don't want to play with those people to begin with.
Because unlike Rogue's example of tabletop Warhammer 40k play, many of the core functions of STGOD roleplay do rely on collaborative gaming. When a bunch of Space Marines fight a bunch of Tyranids in tabletop, the two armies' players are explicitly not having to share the products of their labors or jointly plan out a sequence of events. In a good STGOD, such sharing and joint planning becomes far more important, if the goal is a good finished product.
But that doesn't make the adversarial play rules bad in and of themselves. Guess I can maybe work with them.
It totally is.Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2020-10-01 04:39pmYeah, there's no reason to dictate fluff. (Though under SDNW4's rules, the shuttle full of mages as powerful as a dreadnought couldn't make planetary landing, which is a hilarious image. ) No matter what system we're likely to adopt, the points will be what matters, not the physical characteristics of the vessel.
OK, but then we need the document to effectively have separated first and second halves in the same document. The first half is a wordy article explaining the basic theory of what the game is. The second is a relatively terse article explaining what the rules are. If we run into newbies who are still confused after reading both, we can show them the ropes as we go.Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2020-10-02 11:13pmI've just done a full editing pass on the Imperial Wiki to remove speculative language, what should have been out of article notes on what to put where, and so forth, as well as put in perfunctory provisions for buying ground troops and the above provisional planetary assault rules. Simon, I know you said the introductory text made it hard for you to get into it, but at the same time, that's what the wiki's hyperlinked table of contents is for; I believe that if the article is going to purport to be an STGOD handbook, it should explain the basic concepts of what the game is. The SDN World rules article saves a lot of words on not doing that, but if people who didn't know what the game was (new players, say) were to read that in isolation they'd have no idea what it was talking about.
The problem isn't really bad as long as the author doesn't expect people to read through five paragraphs of philosophical musing before they get to the meat of how the rules work. I'm guilty of this myself sometimes, admittedly.
I appreciate the shout-out.Dark Hellion wrote: ↑2020-10-03 11:02amHonestly, I want to play STGOD because I want to play a semi-competitive collaborative storytelling game. I don't want to play a pen and paper 4S with some narrative attached. If I wanted a 4S game I would buy one, I'm a 35 year old man with a steady job, not a 24 year old underemployed grad schooler who can't afford to drop a few hundred for a game and some expansions. I can't just spend money to tell silly stories about Space Greeks fighting Space Squids with their Space ABS. That is what STGOD is about for me.
And, again, when you get right down to it, I share your sentiment. Every grand strategy roleplay I've ever felt any interest in was more about the roleplay than about having detailed rules for "how to be a pen and paper 4X game."
I think the fundamental problem here is that while your goal is NOT to make a 4X game, it's to ensure that adversarial play can proceed to the point of faction annihilation, on the assumption that "factions get blown up by wars" is a major part of the in-game setting, without the game falling apart...Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2020-10-03 11:55amThe objective isn't to make a 4X game. The objective is to have something to fall back on when the roleplay almost inevitably devolves into that. When their backs are against the wall, very few players are going to want to just roleplay their own inevitable demise, with no choice other than to respond to "my massive fleet opens fire" with "my ships all explode and the planet lies helpless before you." What I'm trying to do is both codify what happens in advance so someone presented with that will have already agreed to it, and make "what happens" involve meaningful choices for the defender - which is likely to be me, because Nashtar doesn't go conquering. I don't have fun with "N+1>N, you lose" from either side of it. Neither is it fun to go on the attack and have someone say "my ships all punch their hyperdrives before you attack and I'll be back with my whole damn navy, bye sucker." What I'm trying to do is make it possible for battles to have incremental rather than binary outcomes, so a tactical defeat doesn't have to mean you're strategically doomed (certainly disadvantaged, but not doomed).
Your mechanism for achieving this involves making a 4X game.
We might do better to just have designated umpires for any inter-player wars who can glance at any situations and say "uh yeah, your N+1 points don't let you effortlessly brush aside N points, a bunch of your ships and theirs go into drydock and the war is on hold for a while." Among other things because then the 'system' is only introducing extra labor in the rare instance of a serious adversarial disagreement, instead of making everyone do extra labor all the time and making the extra labor the main focus of the system.
We're not teenagers anymore. Well, I never was on SDN, but I was in my early 20s, and a bunch of you were that young or younger too in the early 'glory days' of STGODs. We can hopefully avoid the dumbass shit that makes it necessary to have a complex ruleset to adjudicate conflicts. We can also hopefully avoid the dumbass shit whereby we get this weird idea that the object of the game is to emerge triumphant atop the bloodied carcasses of all the other players, which is a big part of what creates conflicts that must be adjudicated in the first place.
I respect that.Rogue 9 wrote: ↑2020-10-03 06:09pmWe are simply going to do it, one way or the other. I plan to, as promised, put up a poll now five days hence outlining every extant option. One of the poll options is going to be no-rules freeform. One will be SDNW4. If Hellion comes up with an actionable plan, his will be on there too. We'll vote on it, then go with the results. I just want to get a game off the ground; everything else is secondary and we can try to avoid the strategic deadlock in other ways if need be.
Oh, I believe it. Look up "Stealth Fail" in SDNW4.
Also, I think Dark Hellion is ENTIRELY right about the abstract issue even if I disagree with him about details. Namely, that one of the biggest problems with STGOD mechanics is that they tend to punish losers. Once you start losing there is no mechanical way within the rules to stop losing, because power (or power growth) is proportionate to territory, so losing territory means taking a permanent hit. Which weakens you permanently, and in turn makes you easier prey.
There's no equivalent to the real-life thing where an attacking nation can enjoy success but ultimately have to stop and only 'bite off' a few provinces despite having overrun half the enemy country... which is annoying in single player strategy games but GREAT in multiplayer because it means that nations get to continue existing for long periods of time, and that there are realistic ways to recover from a defeat.
So we need to either have a mechanism for that, OR have our moderation pre-commit to making the situation forgiving and permissive for easy rebounds so that we don't have players being easily forced out of play without their consent.