STGOD: A Dead Art?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Don't really have that much to lose, we won't need an OOB thread unless it becomes popular and we start needing refferences. Just kick it off and if it turns to shit then we can abandon it and go with something else while having no real loss of time investment.

A lot of people really get much out of writing their OOB, down to the last tiny laser cannon, so I think no OOB = no good. But that's just my 0.02€...

Perhaps we should make it optional? I don't know about you, but I LOVED doing it ind Steam and Steel

[Dahak]

Don't really have that much to lose, we won't need an OOB thread unless it becomes popular and we start needing refferences. Just kick it off and if it turns to shit then we can abandon it and go with something else while having no real loss of time investment.

A lot of people really get much out of writing their OOB, down to the last tiny laser cannon, so I think no OOB = no good. But that's just my 0.02€...

Perhaps we should make it optional? I don't know about you, but I LOVED doing it ind Steam and Steel

Well, I kept it mostly to the bare limit I just like to think and write out a history
Anyway, if we play then arrogant, xenophobic space-aristocrats will be put to duty again

[Thirdfain]

Ah, the Dahak plan returns once more

So, where should we place it? I was thinking that it might not be a bad idea to set an STGOD in the STGOD4-verse... the one with the Machines, and the UP, and the Ousters et all. Thoughts?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Of the two STGODs I participated in, I had to drop out of the first unexpectedly (STGOD 2007{?}) and the second, which I was more interested in since I was at it from the start and was really worked up about(Steam & Steel), never got off the ground.

But if this one starts up, I'm totally in.

[Hotfoot]

Frankly, yes. STGODS are "dead art", and to be honest, I kind of hope it stays that way. Every STGOD I've witnessed has boiled down into a massive debate on how to play the game, virtually every battle sparked some kind of argument or another, one person would say such and such was a good idea, someone would say it's a bad idea, arguments would commence in the OOC thread, then whoever won the debate would invariably win the battle, unless they were feeling "gracious". Then you'd get into debates of what would make sense, what would be lame, etc., you'd always get some lame motherfucker trying to get some stupid technology approved so they could do some unblockable, untraceable shit without really putting any thought behind the plot. Invariably, by the time a sensible method of combat, ship construction, tech, etc. had been hammered out, the game was already over.

Add to this, any game that started with decent structure never went anywhere because people were informed enough not to make fucking stupid decisions, which of course are the catalyst for any STGOD, because the first person to fuck up calls in the bangbus, and only from that point can people capitalize on the lesser mistakes people made in joining the bangbus to start larger conflicts over a longer scale.

Moreover, these affairs are multi-month games with tremendous scale, but god help you if you're not online 24/7, because people will bitch you out for being offline for classes, work, or being in the fucking hospital, and if you miss one of the posting sprees, well tough shit for you.

[Stormbringer]

Thoughts? Comments? Interest? Confusion/questions? This fine BBS has gone too long without the specter of interstellar warfare and politics, and I for one would like to see that situation rectified.

I'd really like to see a continuation of the STGOD1/STGOD4 universe. I always rather liked it and would gladly return to it.

I think a basic points system should be in place. Nothing so complicated as the Steam & Steel, at least not as a mandatory. I think it's fair to have a baseline for comparison after all since that does help cut down on some of absurd combat situations.

I think another thing that needs to be done is make it so that alliances and intrigue need to be conducted in-game or not at all. I'm not saying don't strategize over IM, or don't suggest deals in PMs, but rather that any thing done in the STGOD show up in game.

No carryover from previous powers. Some one can't "abandon" a nation yet some how have them show up in their new power (as has happened) with out going through the same difficulties that any other player would. That's been a bad idea and it's bit a few STGOD's on the ass.

Lastly, my suggestion for avoiding the disputes over battles that people have had before. I would suggest that we resolve these in a manner a bit more like a pen and paper RPG, the two combatants submit what they want to do in the out of game thread, a mod or other chosen person reads them and gives an impartial result, and the players are free to write their action/reaction out. It might save the numerous brawls that typically follow combat.

[Starglider]

Every STGOD I've witnessed has boiled down into a massive debate on how to play the game, virtually every battle sparked some kind of argument or another, one person would say such and such was a good idea, someone would say it's a bad idea, arguments would commence in the OOC thread, then whoever won the debate would invariably win the battle, unless they were feeling "gracious".

Wait, why would you be playing a rules-free or even rules-light to win? Playing games with no real objective standard of victory in a seriously competitive fashion is just retarded. I thought the point was to have fun pulling cinematic maneuvers, write long descriptions of raging battles without the fanfic requirements of plot or sanity, and die gloriously. If actual competitive play is the goal surely a online game of MOO3 or similar would suffice, with a narration thread to satisfy any creative writing urges?

[Thirdfain]

Frankly, yes. STGODS are "dead art", and to be honest, I kind of hope it stays that way. Every STGOD I've witnessed has boiled down into a massive debate on how to play the game, virtually every battle sparked some kind of argument or another, one person would say such and such was a good idea, someone would say it's a bad idea, arguments would commence in the OOC thread, then whoever won the debate would invariably win the battle, unless they were feeling "gracious". Then you'd get into debates of what would make sense, what would be lame, etc., you'd always get some lame motherfucker trying to get some stupid technology approved so they could do some unblockable, untraceable shit without really putting any thought behind the plot. Invariably, by the time a sensible method of combat, ship construction, tech, etc. had been hammered out, the game was already over.

Add to this, any game that started with decent structure never went anywhere because people were informed enough not to make fucking stupid decisions, which of course are the catalyst for any STGOD, because the first person to fuck up calls in the bangbus, and only from that point can people capitalize on the lesser mistakes people made in joining the bangbus to start larger conflicts over a longer scale.

Moreover, these affairs are multi-month games with tremendous scale, but god help you if you're not online 24/7, because people will bitch you out for being offline for classes, work, or being in the fucking hospital, and if you miss one of the posting sprees, well tough shit for you.

Pee in someone else's cheerios, hmm? Are you implying that it is literally impossible to organize an STGOD which is fun? You may not have had a good time, but the interest many folks are showing seems to indicate that perhaps not everyone feels this way.

After all, no one is forcing you to play.

[Covenant]

I agree with Stormbringer's combat assessment. Allowing two highly partial observers to dictate the flow of battle is pretty insane. If there was a number system somewhere at the heart of this, then fine, but as it is, the game seems to be far too much about rule lawyering combined with epic levels of outwanking. If the game is for fun, then make it for fun. If it's for strategic challenge, then set down some more rules to make it more about planning than debating about the game system.

[Thirdfain]

Let's aim for fun, not strategic overwanking. The most successful STGODs have been the least rules-heavy. I see no reason to turn away from that.

[Starglider]

If the game is for fun, then make it for fun. If it's for strategic challenge, then set down some more rules to make it more about planning than debating about the game system.

Obviously I haven't participated in any here, but I have participated in comparable things on other forums in the past. My opinion is that mechanics somewhere around Axis and Allies in complexity are quite sufficient for establishing an objective game history (and providing a minimal level of gaming challenge). Narration can build on that without too much fear of contradiction.

EDIT: Incidentally if you'd like an objective dice roll system integrated into the board software, e.g. a [roll=d6] tag that automagically gets translated into an immutable random result when you post, I could put that into the proposed bag-of-updates. Subject to DW's approval as usual of course.

[Hotfoot]

Pee in someone else's cheerios, hmm? Are you implying that it is literally impossible to organize an STGOD which is fun? You may not have had a good time, but the interest many folks are showing seems to indicate that perhaps not everyone feels this way.

After all, no one is forcing you to play.

Tell me I'm wrong. Show me an example. Yes, I am implying that it's virtually impossible to organize an STGOD that's fun. Too much structure, and people bitch and moan that you're limiting their "creativity", too little structure, and people turn water into untraceable nukes. You can see right here in this thread that every person has a different idea on how to make an STGOD work, and many of them are mutually exclusive. Points, no points, more freedom, more mod control, etc. I'm sure if you ran a survey of how everyone would like to run an STGOD, you'll get a tremendous list of stuff that you really couldn't do anything with.

If people don't know what to expect from the game, they'll make their own assumptions, and they'll rabidly defend those assumptions when they are challenged, and unless they're really good debators or happen to have a reasonable assumption (and thus more support from other players), they're going to lose the debate, the battle, and quite possibly the game. They're going to be sore about it because if they had known what the result would have been beforehand, they would have altered their action to suit.

But make it so that everyone knows what to expect, and nobody makes a move, for fear of the bangbus.

You might not like that I'm pointing these things out, but frankly these are problems that need to be addressed any time someone suggests an STGOD if they expect it to go anywhere, on top of the usual, "who's going to be a mod" and other managerial stuff. So excuse me for taking the rose colored glasses off of your image of what an STGOD is, but how many times have you decided, "gosh, I had such a good time with the old ones, I wonder if we can get a new one started" and had it go nowhere now? Three times? Four? How many failed attempts have their been since STGOD4?

[Thirdfain]

Tell me I'm wrong. Show me an example. Yes, I am implying that it's virtually impossible to organize an STGOD that's fun. Too much structure, and people bitch and moan that you're limiting their "creativity", too little structure, and people turn water into untraceable nukes. You can see right here in this thread that every person has a different idea on how to make an STGOD work, and many of them are mutually exclusive. Points, no points, more freedom, more mod control, etc. I'm sure if you ran a survey of how everyone would like to run an STGOD, you'll get a tremendous list of stuff that you really couldn't do anything with.

Just because your iteration failed doesn't mean they all will. STGODs 1, 2, and 4 were unequivocable successes, which ran for long periods of time and were interesting and fun, at least for a while.

But make it so that everyone knows what to expect, and nobody makes a move, for fear of the bangbus.

I don't know about you, but even the recent lame STGODs have almost all featured brazen and violent conflicts and power-plays, which have not inspired bangbuses.

You might not like that I'm pointing these things out, but frankly these are problems that need to be addressed any time someone suggests an STGOD if they expect it to go anywhere, on top of the usual, "who's going to be a mod" and other managerial stuff. So excuse me for taking the rose colored glasses off of your image of what an STGOD is, but how many times have you decided, "gosh, I had such a good time with the old ones, I wonder if we can get a new one started" and had it go nowhere now? Three times? Four? How many failed attempts have their been since STGOD4?

All the best STGODs involved none of this bullshit. We've been trying to administrate away problems, I think it's clear that such administration has only lead to static, short, boring games. [/quote]

[InnocentBystander]

No carryover from previous powers. Some one can't "abandon" a nation yet some how have them show up in their new power (as has happened) with out going through the same difficulties that any other player would. That's been a bad idea and it's bit a few STGOD's on the ass.

While I totally agree with that, I think that was what made STGOD4 so lively. There was always a Lazerus or Alyrium or Capt. Tycho to do something stupid and give other people stuff to do without risking their hides. They were real catalysts for the game, with the machines as the biggest catalyst of them all.

[Hotfoot]

Just because your iteration failed doesn't mean they all will. STGODs 1, 2, and 4 were unequivocable successes, which ran for long periods of time and were interesting and fun, at least for a while.

This isn't just about me, jackass. Look at every other STGOD since 4, they've all been failures. I've pointed out why 1, 2, and 4 all worked, because stupid people made stupid decisions that started shit off. Ignore that all you want, but it's true.

I don't know about you, but even the recent lame STGODs have almost all featured brazen and violent conflicts and power-plays, which have not inspired bangbuses.

And yet they all failed.

You might not like that I'm pointing these things out, but frankly these are problems that need to be addressed any time someone suggests an STGOD if they expect it to go anywhere, on top of the usual, "who's going to be a mod" and other managerial stuff. So excuse me for taking the rose colored glasses off of your image of what an STGOD is, but how many times have you decided, "gosh, I had such a good time with the old ones, I wonder if we can get a new one started" and had it go nowhere now? Three times? Four? How many failed attempts have their been since STGOD4?

All the best STGODs involved none of this bullshit. We've been trying to administrate away problems, I think it's clear that such administration has only lead to static, short, boring games.

The best STGODs had no bullshit? Please. STGOD4 is what you commonly hail as the best STGOD, but all one has to do is look at the OOC thread and see the legion of bitching that went along with it. That bitching was part and parcel with how the game was run and how things happened.

You can pretend nothing bad ever happened in the "core" STGODs, but each one was frankly a controlled failure. That STGOD4 lasted as long as it did was a miracle, largely due to a large playerbase and recycled players that were largely allowed to continue because they were active more often than not. All of my criticisms still apply, and frankly if you want to play STGOD4 again with all the problems it had, I'm not interested, and I will point out the problems.

[Thirdfain]

This isn't just about me, jackass. Look at every other STGOD since 4, they've all been failures. I've pointed out why 1, 2, and 4 all worked, because stupid people made stupid decisions that started shit off. Ignore that all you want, but it's true.

... Or not at all true. STGOD2 is a perfect example of a "stupid shit" free game.

And yet they all failed.

...because of cumbersome rules system which lead to oversmall communities.

The best STGODs had no bullshit? Please. STGOD4 is what you commonly hail as the best STGOD, but all one has to do is look at the OOC thread and see the legion of bitching that went along with it. That bitching was part and parcel with how the game was run and how things happened.

So what? OOC threads are THERE so that players can work out their problems. Arguing in the OOC thread is a vital part of successful STGODing, and it did not detract from the grand sweep and drama of the game at all.

You can pretend nothing bad ever happened in the "core" STGODs, but each one was frankly a controlled failure.

I had a good time, and juding by the number of people who remained deeply involved with the STGOD for the better part of a year, it seems that I was not the only one. Ergo, it was not a failure. Just because it wasn't all clean and smooth and pretty doens't mean it wasn't fun.

That STGOD4 lasted as long as it did was a miracle, largely due to a large playerbase and recycled players that were largely allowed to continue because they were active more often than not. All of my criticisms still apply, and frankly if you want to play STGOD4 again with all the problems it had, I'm not interested, and I will point out the problems.

I would love to play STGOD4 again, and if you aren't interested in playing, that's your issue, not mine.

[SirNitram]

I am forced to wonder what a 'failure' of an STGOD is: One which dies down after a given time, one which doesn't have a signifigant fraction of the galaxy destroyed, or, in my own personal view, whether there was fun.

Now, I've had alot of fun with them. Even STGOD4, where I rightfully summoned the bangbus just to make things happen. I'll happily throw in again.

[White Haven]

My view? It's better than nothing, which is what we more or less have now. Worst case scenario and it decides to tank, well, then ya stop posting.

[rhoenix]

As I've never played in one before, I'd be interested this time. This most definitely could be fun.

[Thirdfain]

My view? It's better than nothing, which is what we more or less have now. Worst case scenario and it decides to tank, well, then ya stop posting.

That's the sort of depressing semi-optimism I like to see

[SirNitram]

To add, I'll volunteer to mod again. It's a simple job. You just wait until someone says 'And my magic thingie which got assigned no points blows up your capital' and then ballpunch them. Good job.

[Hotfoot]

... Or not at all true. STGOD2 is a perfect example of a "stupid shit" free game.

Water-nukes aren't stupid shit? Last I checked, they were.

...because of cumbersome rules system which lead to oversmall communities.

I'd rather have a smaller community of good players than dealing with hordes of shit players who inevitably fall to the good players amid massive debates and arguments.

So what? OOC threads are THERE so that players can work out their problems. Arguing in the OOC thread is a vital part of successful STGODing, and it did not detract from the grand sweep and drama of the game at all.

Yes, it did, because the fucking combat rules were STILL being argued in the final hours of the game, with significant changes to OOBs being made because of various arguments that were made, specifically concerning interdictors.

I had a good time, and juding by the number of people who remained deeply involved with the STGOD for the better part of a year, it seems that I was not the only one. Ergo, it was not a failure. Just because it wasn't all clean and smooth and pretty doens't mean it wasn't fun.

It was a failure because nobody was operating under the same versions of reality even until the very end, when the good players murdered all the poor players so that they could dominate the mediocre players.

I would love to play STGOD4 again, and if you aren't interested in playing, that's your issue, not mine.

Yes, heaven forbid I should point out the numerous flaws to the system that lead to removing fun from the game. I'm sorry, but bitching over what would work in combat because no commonly agreed upon rules had ever been made is stupid and not fun.

[Thirdfain]

Water-nukes aren't stupid shit? Last I checked, they were.

Umm, the water nuke was instantly slapped down by mod decision and had no effect on the game.

I'd rather have a smaller community of good players than dealing with hordes of shit players who inevitably fall to the good players amid massive debates and arguments.[/qupte]

I don't think it would be right to forbid players from joining. Everyone who wants to play, should.

]Yes, it did, because the fucking combat rules were STILL being argued in the final hours of the game, with significant changes to OOBs being made because of various arguments that were made, specifically concerning interdictors.

And the game was still fun.

It was a failure because nobody was operating under the same versions of reality even until the very end, when the good players murdered all the poor players so that they could dominate the mediocre players.

And it was still fun!

Yes, heaven forbid I should point out the numerous flaws to the system that lead to removing fun from the game. I'm sorry, but bitching over what would work in combat because no commonly agreed upon rules had ever been made is stupid and not fun.

Except it was fun, and we played for 140 awesome pages without hard-and-fast combat rules. Even you didn't have a problem with it, until the balance of power turned against you.

[Hotfoot]

I am forced to wonder what a 'failure' of an STGOD is: One which dies down after a given time, one which doesn't have a signifigant fraction of the galaxy destroyed, or, in my own personal view, whether there was fun.

I consider any STGOD that dies down into nothing with very little accomplished as a failure. I also consider any STGOD where nobody really knows what's going on a failure, because whoever argues their version of reality isn't a game, it's a glorfied debate on how a sci-fi story should be written. The game is both cooperative and combative, and yet people lose sight of that and fail to keep a balance.

Now, I've had alot of fun with them. Even STGOD4, where I rightfully summoned the bangbus just to make things happen. I'll happily throw in again.

I'll admit that I had a moderate amount of fun with 4, but that was quickly soured by the actions of numerous players both in and out of game.

[SirNitram]

I'll admit that I had a moderate amount of fun with 4, but that was quickly soured by the actions of numerous players both in and out of game.

This is a problem, but I don't know what, short of basically banning certain folks, can be done about it.