Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
CREATING POLITICS AND GOVERNMENTS
Posts
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
LockeZ
View playlists
Closeauthor=JoelMB12I'm not being rude or snarky because it's the internet. I'm doing it because you're trying to turn War and Peace into a video game, you doughnut.
There's no reason to be rude or snarky just because this the internet.
author=Aegix_DrakanIt's interesting for you but it's dull for the player. "Worldbuilding" is a game design term for entertaining yourself at the audience's expense. It's like the player hired you as a hooker, and instead of pleasuring them you're just sitting there masturbating and telling them how good it is.
I have to say, designing new cultures and factions and nations is really interesting stuff.
Aegix_Drakan
6037
author=LockeZauthor=Aegix_DrakanIt's interesting for you but it's dull for the player. "Worldbuilding" is a game design term for entertaining yourself at the audience's expense. It's like the player hired you as a hooker, and instead of pleasuring them you're just sitting there masturbating and telling them how good it is.
I have to say, designing new cultures and factions and nations is really interesting stuff.
Only if you hamfistedly go on and on and on detailing the stupid thing, or drag it on with more than the player needs to know. I don't enjoy longwinded monologues about the detailed state of a world either.
The only stuff you outright tell the player is the stuff they actually literally need to proceed with the game, everything else can just be fluff you put into readables or NPCs or whatnot if players are interested enough to seek it out.
...Then again, I enjoy reading fluff and piecing together the fictional histories of worlds that I play in. It's not everyone's jam.
JoelMB12
0
author=LockeZthere's something wrong with having that level of quality a world bulding of peace level quality. I think we played two different games my friend. I got to say my friend you're committing the fallacy of that analogy. World building can be done poorly if it is, is information dump. In the same way any trope can be done poorly. I don't know about you but I unless my game is purposely being esoteric and using symbolism with intelligent. I'm not going to be okay with flat terrible written reasons for conflict. The more detail you after the world the more really you make it or in the writing sense at the more you make it feel plausible. That's the big appeal with the Game of Thrones series even though the fantasy setting the world has a feeling of real real plausibly. Because every conflict every government every political faction since the history of recorded memory is complex. From the reasons we're in Syria right now two the complex webs of relationships going on with Warlords in Sudan and Somalia. Why do you thinkauthor=JoelMB12I'm not being rude or snarky because it's the internet. I'm doing it because you're trying to turn War and Peace into a video game, you doughnut.
There's no reason to be rude or snarky just because this the internet.
author=Aegix_DrakanIt's interesting for you but it's dull for the player. "Worldbuilding" is a game design term for entertaining yourself at the audience's expense. It's like the player hired you as a hooker, and instead of pleasuring them you're just sitting there masturbating and telling them how good it is.
I have to say, designing new cultures and factions and nations is really interesting stuff.
suikoden end once war is won because new governing is complex mess. Most child or teenage soldiers if they survive and strive in that environment they become militia Commander like Jackson or something far worst. I am sorry for the Jackson example, but he the real life example of the most JRPG hero born from the Suikoden mold and there spiritual successors. Least from my experience least in JRPG not talk about the Western or CRPG that try at all to tackle politics and government. Sadly JRPG do it favor flatly to say the least.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Remind me not to hire you guys as hookers.
There is a lot of "politics" in my game design docs, but not in the actual game. It helps greatly in the creation of characters, especially ones that are nobles, monarchs, etc, in their motivations.
That said, depends on what you mean by politics. Some like to conflate it with pretty much everything that really matters. Or, if you just mean like "and duke so and so rules over the duchy of what-its-face and formed an alliance with count buttface, etc" THAT is dry and boring, of course. But, perhaps Duke So and So has a really fancy plot to overthrow Count Buttface, and there is "politics" behind his motivations, but this all just serves as a backdrop for the things that actually happen in game. Betrayals, forbidden loves, murders, rebellions, etc.
That said, I see nothing wrong with including totally optional literature/lore about the state of the world, or history. To me that's actually quite enriching. But that's only if I REAALLY care about this fictional world. For instance, I always read the books in The Elder Scrolls games.
That said, depends on what you mean by politics. Some like to conflate it with pretty much everything that really matters. Or, if you just mean like "and duke so and so rules over the duchy of what-its-face and formed an alliance with count buttface, etc" THAT is dry and boring, of course. But, perhaps Duke So and So has a really fancy plot to overthrow Count Buttface, and there is "politics" behind his motivations, but this all just serves as a backdrop for the things that actually happen in game. Betrayals, forbidden loves, murders, rebellions, etc.
That said, I see nothing wrong with including totally optional literature/lore about the state of the world, or history. To me that's actually quite enriching. But that's only if I REAALLY care about this fictional world. For instance, I always read the books in The Elder Scrolls games.
Aegix_Drakan
6037
author=LockeZ
Remind me not to hire you guys as hookers.
I feel like this line needs to be immortalized somehow. XD I'm in pain from all the laughing.
JoelMB12
0
For example guys let's go with the standard classic heroes reward tropes. Then let's say you're going to make this a bit more realistic realistic once they got the crown. Now if it takes place in a feudal setting then they're going to have to deal feudal oaths rivals family and claims to the throne noble family the church fight with the fact you are always broke and it kills you to spend money to have an army.
I am actively creating a D&D style gaming system (not as a rpgmaker thing, as a pen and paper), and as such, I came up with the following so far.
Feel free to add some to this list.
author=Me
There are different ways of managing government.
Absolute Monarchy: A person's bloodline determines right to rule. As such, the rightful heir is given absolute authority.
Anarchy: This is either pre-government or what happens after the fall of government. While it is often characterized by disorder, certain limiting factors can be put into place. Also see City-State below, although a key difference is that an anarchy is run by town council. The town council is a meeting of all town members, without any elected officials and a simple show of hands on decisions. Another limiting factor is a mercenary force to bring wrongdoers to justice.
Aristocracy: The government is ruled by the richest people. A variation of this is Gerontocracy, where the oldest members of the society have the highest positions.
Constitutional Bureaucracy: The government is run by government officials and rules rather than a single entity. These people decide on the rules of government. The average person does not know who rules, but they are aware that somehow laws are written.
Democracy: This is a system of government largely defined by popular vote. Election of a president is done likewise.
Republic: This is a system of government limits popular vote, comparing it to mob rule. Instead, regions vote for representatives, who in turn vote for the leader of the country.
Direct Constitutionalism: Either by republic or democracy, laws are passed directly by vote, not through the actions of a centralized government. That is, in three-branch government, acceptance or veto of laws by the executive branch is done not by a king or president but by regular polls.
Democratic Republic: The government is much like the United States, as designed by the founders. The popular vote is balanced by the electoral vote. A president or other leader is elected under this system.
City-State: This is a relative anarchy with a small government in place to prevent complete chaos, but no larger system. For instance, while an anarchy has no centralized government, a mayor may lead local affairs. The mayor is voted in office by majority.
Constitutional Monarchy: This is a monarchy, but instead of the king or queen ruling under absolute rule, their rule is limited either by specific laws or a parliament, or both. The parliament can run the larger matters of the state by vote, and if the king/queen is deemed unfit or unready, a regency can be installed to run matters of state for them. This is similar to the system of government of the United Kingdom, as originally designed.
Cooperative: This is like a farmer's co-op. The government gives a share of its power to those who grow the crops and work its industries to make vital decisions about the way the government is run.
Communist: A totalitarian state where the common people give their wealth to the poor. Wealth is “shared” by mandate of the state, and private property is virtually illegal.
Fascism: A totalitarian state where the common people give their wealth to the rich. It is essentially similar to communism, except it is more of an elitism rather than ostensibly for welfare.
Confederacy: A centralized government loosely runs a number of loose states or provinces.
Dictatorship: A single person takes power, usually by force, wielding absolute power.
Federalism: The powers of central government are limited, and the various provinces retain some self-government.
Oligarchy: An extreme of Aristocracy. Only a small group of people run things. This system is sometimes hidden by another type of government, since these individuals seldom have legitimacy.
Theocracy: The state is run by the church or temple.
Direct Theocracy: The government is run by a deity or by someone claiming to represent such, such as pharaoh.
Mandated Anarchy: In this odd system, force is illegal. This plays out either in terms of general practice (such as legalizaing anything which is not theft, rape, or murder since these defy consent) or in the larger matter of nation building (such as creating a paradoxical council with the express purpose of actively preventing town governments, and thus kingdoms, from forming).
Imperial Meritocracy: This type of government is closest to ancient China. Only those who have studied and are proven to be worthy (educated, honest, etc) are fit to manage government. Because of this, each person is required to take a difficult civil service exam. These people become the local government, and in charge of passing laws. They serve the Emperor, in turn.
True Meritocracy: As Imperial Meritocracy, except there is no central leader.
Syndicate: The government is ruled (directly, or indirectly) by one or more big companies, and laws are dictated by the whims of such companies, and advertising is how popular opinion is governed. On a smaller scale, this would be something akin to a mining town.
Mafia: As syndicate, but government is ruled by illegal systems. If the law is broken, people are not penalized by law but by having their legs broken or sleeping with the fish. Horse racing, gambling, and drug trade are major businesses. This is typically run by a Cartel (see Economic Systems in Chapter 4).
Protectorate: In exchange for tribute of one sort, a powerful third-party, such as a wizard or priest, offers to keep the town safe from attack or possibly aid in other ways.
International State: Many countries rule a single area of land. They agree on laws based on mutual interest. This can be very good or very bad, since the individual citizens of the country or countries have little oversight on what several countries agree upon. An example is the European Union.
Necrocracy: A rule by the undead. This is a country that appears to have official rulers, but a group of vampires or other such creatures rule from behind the scenes.
Lotus Eater State: In this system, scientists have everyone in some manner of virtual reality. This may vary from just having helmets on to make sure people enjoy boring work, to having a Matrix style setup, where humans are in jars for slow nutrient extraction while they believe they are living real lives.
Recurring Theocracy: This is similar to Tibet's government. A leader is chosen by religious law, but the twist is that the leader in question is a reincarnation of the same past leader that has ruled them before.
Eternal Dictatorship: Although technically, this could be a monarchy, it usually does not work in any system where those who come of age have the right to power, and definitely not in an elected presidency. It also seldom works for a kind and benevolent ruler, as such usually has no desire to rule people indefinitely. Essentially, the ruler hires Alchemists to research eternal life, and attempts to rule the land forever. In most campaigns, there is a way to get rid of him anyway through assassination or destroying production of their medicine.
Utopian State: The state has become ideal. All are well rewarded for their work, and there is a zero-scarcity economy. Further, government interferes as little as possible with the daily lives of citizens. It is unclear how this system runs, only that it has become a paradise through a long effort.
Feel free to add some to this list.
What I like to do is do block the players acces to certain areas due to politics, maybe war between two factions/kingdoms or unfriendly relationship between them. The players ability to meet the king would be limited to only when the king wants to see them, else they wouldn't be allowed into the kings court, except if a quest requires it.
And also depending on what role the player takes in the story, politics would have a different impact. Should the player have some connection to a certain lord or Kingdom would make some characters help the player while others would impeede his progress because of that reason, not because they are 'evil'. For example, a cruel Duke could be helping the player because he's in good term with the player's employer. While, if the player would just be some kind of mercenary or monster hunter, the politics of the land would have little impact on his journey.
If I wanted to convey some political stance to a player, I would simplifiy it as much as I can, if the player is interested in finding out more on each characters political stance, they can do so via optional dialogues or books or whatever works. Keep the main idea simple but allow the player to inform themselves better if they wish to.
Now, if the player were given the choice to join a specific faction, in that case I think there should be plenty of ways for the player to properly inform himself on each of the faction's policies, so that the player can properly chose one of the factions, or just not join them if he doesn't like either faction's political stance.
And also depending on what role the player takes in the story, politics would have a different impact. Should the player have some connection to a certain lord or Kingdom would make some characters help the player while others would impeede his progress because of that reason, not because they are 'evil'. For example, a cruel Duke could be helping the player because he's in good term with the player's employer. While, if the player would just be some kind of mercenary or monster hunter, the politics of the land would have little impact on his journey.
If I wanted to convey some political stance to a player, I would simplifiy it as much as I can, if the player is interested in finding out more on each characters political stance, they can do so via optional dialogues or books or whatever works. Keep the main idea simple but allow the player to inform themselves better if they wish to.
Now, if the player were given the choice to join a specific faction, in that case I think there should be plenty of ways for the player to properly inform himself on each of the faction's policies, so that the player can properly chose one of the factions, or just not join them if he doesn't like either faction's political stance.
JoelMB12
0
author=OzzyTheOneI could argue a list of the classical sense of mercenary if you're talking about the Fourteenth and Fifteenth century I'm thinking the free companies of the Hundred Years War Captain of Italy the free knights and Germany. They're going to have to have some peace and political understanding of the landscape just for their own Survival and their role in the conflict and how can I play different factions against each other which happened a lot in real life.
What I like to do is do block the players acces to certain areas due to politics, maybe war between two factions/kingdoms or unfriendly relationship between them. The players ability to meet the king would be limited to only when the king wants to see them, else they wouldn't be allowed into the kings court, except if a quest requires it.
And also depending on what role the player takes in the story, politics would have a different impact. Should the player have some connection to a certain lord or Kingdom would make some characters help the player while others would impeede his progress because of that reason, not because they are 'evil'. For example, a cruel Duke could be helping the player because he's in good term with the player's employer. While, if the player would just be some kind of mercenary or monster hunter, the politics of the land would have little impact on his journey.
If I wanted to convey some political stance to a player, I would simplifiy it as much as I can, if the player is interested in finding out more on each characters political stance, they can do so via optional dialogues or books or whatever works. Keep the main idea simple but allow the player to inform themselves better if they wish to.
Now, if the player were given the choice to join a specific faction, in that case I think there should be plenty of ways for the player to properly inform himself on each of the faction's policies, so that the player can properly chose one of the factions, or just not join them if he doesn't like either faction's political stance.
It's funny when you bring up monster hunter have you ever read The Witcher book series. Majority of its in English now. And it literally says you have political being a monster hunter can get you and that series has a very real believable world the same way Game of Thrones does.
