This idea has been with me for like two or three weeks, and I think it''s time to share it, and get it slayn ;-) Background: I''m an anarchist, and would like more people to think of how they organize their lifes and how power is used around them. My ideal for decision making is: - small groups - 100% agreeing - decisions are made by those affected - if decisions need to be made for large quantities of people send representation (but just for that decision The game: You sign up for the game and get an account. You can then apply to get in a scenario (which will have space for 10, 100, 1000 or ? players) When a scenario is full the game begins. In the begining there is a forum (with poll capabilities) and a chat. Your character has a name. In every turn the game delivers one item of type A and 1 item of type B to every player. To develop the game (and hence your character) you and the other players have to make decisions (using the poll-capabilities of the forum), in the begining a decision will be made if 50% of the players vote for it. Everyone will be able to suggest poll. Decisions can be made to add abilites to the characters, to name the items A and B, to give abilities to items A and B, to give the characters abilities to act, to name such actions, etc, etc and most important to change how decisions are made. Object of the game: The object of the game is to make 5 (or so) decisions with a required 100% voting for an option. Winnning: When a scenario has ended, the player is allowed the enter scenarios with more players. Misc: I''ve also thought of some kind of map, hence giving players a location, and giving the scenario the ability to decide on moving, mapitems, landscape, etc. So what do you think? ------------------------------------------------------------ JABS - just another boring signature

I must say I dot really understand this at all ...

"I''m an anarchist, and would like more people to think of how they organize their lifes and how power is used around them."

That is cool. I have always thought that games should be able to send messages about life and society to the user just like movies and books.

"Decisions can be made to add abilites to the characters, to name the items A and B, to give abilities to items A and B, to give the characters abilities to act, to name such actions, etc, etc and most important to change how decisions are made."

What are theese abilities used for? Could you please write any example?

"The object of the game is to make 5 (or so) decisions with a required 100% voting for an option."

You mean 5 decisions where everyone votes for the same thing? So the goal is that everyone should have the same opinion? Is this hard? (everyone decides, yes lets vote for option B so we can win this!)

"What are theese abilities used for? Could you please write any example?"

- From my point of wiew: It gives the players to ability to decide over their world. And also advocates the wiew that you have the power (together with others) to define your reality.

- From my point of wiew, in game-object-perspective: nothing!

- From the players point of wiew: It makes it possible to give your character the ability to build a plough from item A (that maybe has been named steel) and item B (that might have been named fire) and hence farm on map coord 45,67 that has been named field.

-From the players point of wiew, in game-object perpective: training in making decisions and have a discussion, other than that; nothing.

"You mean 5 decisions where everyone votes for the same thing? "

Sort of, I also meen that the players first decide that 100% is required to make a decision and then take decisions with that rule.

"So the goal is that everyone should have the same opinion?"

The object is that the players realise that good decisions require agreement, and hopefully this will lead to discussions. Discussions where they try to agree on this.

The goal is that everyone agrees that option A is the best decision, not that everyone has the same opinion.

"Is this hard? (everyone decides, yes lets vote for option B so we can win this!)"

And yes that would be a possible way achieve the game-objects, but there are two catches:
- there will be no other reward, but the possibility to join larger scenarios.
- there will probaly be people opossing even that!

/Tomas

------------------------------------------------------------
JABS - just another boring signature

i think this is a neat idea, but it definitely needs a debate element. Just deciding what to call something or what random action to perform becomes a contest that is won by charisma and brow-beating force of will. Give them a problem to tackle, and see how they handle it. Did you ever see a movie called The Cube (maybe just "Cube")? A handful of people with different skills were put in some freaky trap dungeon and forced to try to survive and excape through cooperation. In the movie, they eventually just killed each other, but that''s not the only way it could have gone.

For instance, put ten people together in the middle of the desert, with the wreckage of their plane strewn about. They all have different skills, like catching lizards and building huts, and they all have to survive. They rifle through the plane''s debris, finding everything that they can. Maybe someone''s hurt (an NPC, or even a real player), and has to be carried. The goal will be individual survival, so some people might be tempted to pocket a little food or bury a bottle of water where nobody else can find it, just in case the little society goes to hell.

So, if you work together, then you all have a slightly better chance of surviving as a group, or you can look out for number one, and run the risk of the others finding out about your treachery and punishing you. It''s like a freakish combination of the Prisoner''s Dilemma and the Survivor TV show.

No matter what, though, you''ll need a goal. The goal could be personal, like making money or staying alive, or mutual, like crossing a river or putting out a fire. Debate over the right thing to do at any given time, some sort of time limit (dying of thirst, the building''s burning down, etc), and the opportunity to screw everyone else over would make the game. Of course the same people that PK will be there, too, Hiding the food and then drowning themselves in their own damn hat so nobody can eat, but you''ll get that no matter what.

The Cube is an awesome movie!!!

piuga: now I understand your idea a lot better! somehow I though that the game would just have a forum with polls and nothing else ... i guess i am just stupid. I agree Iron Chefs suggestions. There was a thread going on here a while ago about making a game out of The Lord OF The Flies, which might have some usefull info in it.

The Cube is an awesome movie!!!

piuga: now I understand your idea a lot better! somehow I thought that the game would just have a forum with polls and nothing else ... i guess i am just stupid. I agree with Iron Chefs suggestions. There was a thread going on here a while ago about making a game out of The Lord OF The Flies, which might have some usefull info in it.

This game is blatantly screaming for griefers to trash it.

unanimous decisions are so rare even in small groups (e.g. 2 people), it''s nice to think that people could someday come to make educated agreements on matters of critical interest. However, the reality of the situation is that when you say the same thing to a thousand different people, there will be a thousand different interpretations.

The trouble with trying to ''gamify'' this concept is that the scope of the game doesn''t encompass anywhere near the number of variables which affect the decisions of real people. If you give an entire group a goal, they may simply pursue that goal efficiently, over the internet, given time to think, this is not hard to expect (that is, without the presence of griefers). Perhaps a better strategy is to give each player a slightly different goal, and be sure that everyone has a goal which conflicts with at least one other person''s goal.

Failing the goal scenario, if you really want a zero definition world, with the constraint that failure means that it exists forever, and success means that people decide that they need five unanimous decisions made, a group of people who wish to simply ''win'' will first agree that decisions must be agreed upon 100%, and then make five pointless decisions...

I think that the scope of this system is too constrained for it to really become what your looking for.


struct {person "George D. Filiotis";} Symphonic;
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

Ok, thanks for theese opinions.

Suppose you're right most of the time.

a thought:
- if the begining scenarios are more like you described, and the more scenarios you "win" the more the scenarios that you _can_ join get like I really would like them to be.

an explanation:
- the reason why I don't really like the idea of more structured scenarios is that I also want the players to think about how the real world is defined, and how we/they actually can change this.

an example:
- a fart is generally defined as rude, stinking and somewhat funny (if placed in the right context). But what happens if we decide that a fart isn't at all. I mean, there will still come out gas of our anus from time to time with a variable sound and/or smell, but what if decide that this isn't something that we react upon (like we don't normally react to someone blinking)?

Maybe a bad example, I'll try to explain better if asked for

regards!

------------------------------------------------------------
JABS - just another boring signature

[edited by - piuga on January 16, 2003 12:19:51 PM]

quote: Original post by piuga
I mean, there will still come out gas of our anus from time to time with a variable sound and/or smell

this, IMHO, will always be funny

I''m with krez.

Bock on topic, however, it all depends on how you structure the game. I don''t think I''ve ever encountered a grief player on any chess servers. I''ve played a little online go, and haven''t seen them there, either. I''m not sure what kind of grief playing can be had with online Tetris, or Spectre, or even Avara. This doesn''t sound like it needs to be an RPG.

I''d say that if the game is made such that grief playing isn''t fun, then people won''t do it. Everyone loves to log onto a Diablo II or Quake server and kill all the wrong people, or drop a buttload of grenades in your own base and then type "UR ALL F00LZ!!!11 BWAHAHA EET THET FUXX0RS!!!!1 IM 1337!!!!!!!!!1" But if you take away the immediate gratification, then all you''re left with is Darwinian fun. Let the bastard try to sabotage the mission, then the other players will either kill him outright or leave him behind. Take away the ability to run around shooting people, and you''ll get rid of half of your problems right there.

It''s all about design. Yeah, people can try to fail, but the others might just let them. If you give a player stats, like how many times they''ve personally survived, the average percentage of their team that survives, and how many times they''ve been the only survivor, then people can get an idea about who they''re dealing with.

I don''t have any real answers, but I would really like to see something like this work out. It would be fun. I think that co-op is the best form of MP, and this could be the next evolution of the co-op system.