Let's Play a Game!


SoAMadDeathWish

Recommended Posts

This will be a politically themed turn based forum game, meant to illustrate the relationship between politics and policy. I don't have a name for it yet, and proposals are welcome.

There are 5 roles:

1. Emperor- Only one player can be Emperor at any given time. At the beginning of the game, a player will be chosen at random to be Emperor. If the current Emperor is deposed, he becomes an officer.

2. Usurper- Each turn, a person will be chosen at random to be the Usurper. Obviously, a player cannot be both Emperor and Usurper at the same time. This person will receive a private message from the moderator notifying them of their status. The game will end when everyone has been a usurper at least once.

3. Officers- Any player who is not currently the Emperor, Usurper, General or a Rebel General.

4. Generals- Officers chosen by the Emperor to lead his armies and keep him in power. Only Generals may receive Gifts from the Emperor.

5. Rebel General- Officers chosen by the Usurper to lead his armies and get him in power. If the Usurper becomes Emperor, then the Rebel Generals will become the new Generals.

Here's how the game works each turn:

0. Before the stuff in 1. happens, you guys are allowed to talk to each other and discuss imperial politics.

1. In the thread, the Emperor picks his Generals from among the Officers. He may pick as many as he likes, but he needs to pick 10% of the officers at minimum or just 1 General, whichever number is bigger. So if there are 20 players, then there are 19 officers, and the Emperor therefore needs at least 2 Generals.

2. A player is chosen via random number generator to be the Usurper. The Usurper will receive a PM from the moderator if he is chosen. The Usurper will then send a PM to the moderator naming his Rebel Generals, his proposed tax rate, his level of spending on Bread and Circuses, and the amount that he will spend on Gifts to his Rebel Generals. The Emperor also sends a PM to the moderator, giving his tax rate, spending on Bread and Circuses, and Gifts. After both PMs are received, the moderator will post the information in the thread.

3. All Officers, Generals, and Rebel Generals then choose between either the Emperor or the Usurper. The Emperor is deposed if both of the following conditions are met:

i) Of the Generals, less than the minimum number required remain on the Emperor's side.

ii) Of his Rebel Generals, at least the minimum number required choose to join the Usurper.

(Note that this is not a democracy. The votes of the unchosen officers carry no weight. This is entirely intentional. However, that does not mean that they are not important.)

You are allowed to talk to each other and change your votes during the voting stage. All votes will be finalized within 24 hours.

4. The moderator then determines the outcome. The chosen leader's proposed plan is put into effect, and the moderator determines its effect on the economy through complicated mathematical equations. The moderator will then post the total amount of government revenue, and how much money each player receives as a result. Any money not spent on Gifts or Bread and Circuses will go to the leader. If the leader spends more money than was produced by the economy, the difference will be taken from his score. If the Usurper fails to depose the Emperor, he gets $0 for that turn. The player with the most amount of money at the end of the game wins.

SPECIAL TERMS:

Gifts: The amount of money that each General will receive from the current Emperor. Only Generals may receive Gifts.

Bread and Circuses: Every player in the game (including the Emperor) will receive an equal share of this amount.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sign ups:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it will replace Monopoly...

Are you suggesting that in politics the only thing that matters is who the generals are loyal to? In the United States the generals are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution... You know, that Oath thingy... I think you've removed too many variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it will replace Monopoly...

Couldn't hurt to try it out. ^_^

C'mon... sign up. You know you wanna....

Are you suggesting that in politics the only thing that matters is who the generals are loyal to?

In the ancient world, in most places, it was a pretty big deal, yeah.

In the United States the generals are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution... You know, that Oath thingy...

The game engine doesn't support democracies yet. Maybe in a future game, we can do one.

I think you've removed too many variables.

I tried to make it as simple as I possibly could. Adding more things might be overwhelming for a first game, and it would also mean I'd have to figure out a lot of equations to make the game work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dollhead,

I want to say this gently because I respect people who do stuff and put themselves out there.

You just did and I respect that. My image of you just jumped a gazillion points.

You have a mismatch with the target user, though. You have a game based on money and power in a traditionally viewed relationship of cause and effect.

(Sex is missing--the traditional trifecta is sex, money and power, but I won't quibble. :smile: )

People interested in Ayn Rand see money as an outgrowth of productive work. And they see productive work tied up with their personal morality. The system that best suits this approach is capitalism, not rulers who dispense favors.

The world of your game is seen by this kind of person as a world of second-handers and scumbags. So you are asking people to play a game where everybody is the bad guy, and not just colorful villains, but people they generally despise.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not interested. I'm not trying to be snarky and rain on your parade, either. Like I said, I respect you for actually doing something like that. But my reaction is visceral. I really don't like the kind of people in the roles you presented. Not even the usurper, who is simply someone else who wants power, not someone who wants to build something.

I suspect a game based on a true moral dilemma would be a much bigger hit within the context of a discussion site centered around Objectivism.

That's my view based on knowing the audience I (and others) built here on OL, but people always surprise you.

Let her roll, I say, and good luck.

I'm interested to see if I am wrong.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

I suspect a game based on a true moral dilemma would be a much bigger hit within the context of a discussion site centered around Objectivism.

end quote

I agree though I would not play “Rand Clue” either. Twister Concepts? Causal Chutes and Ladders? Measurement Omitted Hungry, Hungry Hippos? Sorry, Introspection Required? Operation Premises? Battleship Logic? Doll-head’s idea seems a bit juvenile and nerdish. Maybe Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, Raj, and Penny will participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Here's a good moral premise problem for a role-playing power game that would be more in the ballpark for this target public.

You are a member of a new opposition movement against a bloody dictator in a Central American country. The leader is a childhood friend who's family sponsored you through school (seeing as how you were dirt-poor). Your friend has a lot of wealth and has opened all kinds of business opportunities to you after school so now you are relatively set in life.

You both share loathing of the dictator's oppression of the rest of the people. So you go all in with your friend and help him make a movement. You both risk life, limb and fortune.

After a huge struggle, you beat the dictator and your friend becomes the leader of the country, put there and acclaimed by a grateful population.

Then shit starts happening.

It's not big, just small things. A person you knew who was always arguing with your friend disappears. A company here and there gets nationalized by the new government. Your friend decrees a "temporary measure" to restrict certain kinds of programming on TV. A huge staff of yes-men come out of nowhere to study an overhaul of the country's charter documents. Money men with fishy demeanor and strange-sounding social development projects show up out of nowhere. The secret police get bigger, get more funding, but their actions become more and more occult.

These things grow. The reason your friend says is there is a backlash from the deposed dictator's cousin, who is hellbent on getting his own hands on the power. And he is far more bloody and ruthless than his deposed cousin. That backlash must be fought and contained.

It gets harder and harder to talk to your friend like you used to, yet he still listens to you. Some of the time.

You owe everything you have to this friend, you love him like the brother you never had, but you see him sliding down the slippery slope of becoming a dictator himself.

Does he see it, or is he becoming inadvertently corrupted from holding power? Is he aware? Does he care?

What does he really believe anymore?

People come to you in secret begging just to let their brash college-age kids, who are now in jail for political crimes, live. To not be destroyed themselves by the new taxes. To request help in getting your friend to deliver on some of the promises he made where things would be good for people.

It becomes clearer and clearer to you that you will have to betray your values to some degree. And each choice comes with a high cost. So which ones do you sacrifice? Do you betray your friend and risk everything your life has stood for until now, with even a worse dictator waiting in the wings? Or do you betray your integrity and close your eyes to each act of injustice?

What do you do?

The game starts...

Something like that, to me, would get some traction. And be fit for a psychological experiment like the opening game seems designed to be. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent idea, though like Deanna, I am doubtful I would play. I suppose a site like OL could have a crossword puzzle or links to scrabble, with ads of course, to pay their way. I am not sure role playing games are what objectivists would want to play. Delaware just struck a deal with Vegas for online Poker. When I think of the games I do play over and over, it would be games played alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

there's nothing in the current game's rules that prevents you from setting a 0% tax rate, spending nothing on bribes... *cough*... gifts and bread and circuses and just letting the economy grow, if you were emperor. The trouble is, can you trust the people under you not to betray you if you rule righteously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Here's a good moral premise problem for a role-playing power game that would be more in the ballpark for this target public.

You are a member of a new opposition movement against a bloody dictator in a Central American country. The leader is a childhood friend who's family sponsored you through school (seeing as how you were dirt-poor). Your friend has a lot of wealth and has opened all kinds of business opportunities to you after school so now you are relatively set in life.

You both share loathing of the dictator's oppression of the rest of the people. So you go all in with your friend and help him make a movement. You both risk life, limb and fortune.

After a huge struggle, you beat the dictator and your friend becomes the leader of the country, put there and acclaimed by a grateful population.

Then shit starts happening.

It's not big, just small things. A person you knew who was always arguing with your friend disappears. A company here and there gets nationalized by the new government. Your friend decrees a "temporary measure" to restrict certain kinds of programming on TV. A huge staff of yes-men come out of nowhere to study an overhaul of the country's charter documents. Money men with fishy demeanor and strange-sounding social development projects show up out of nowhere. The secret police get bigger, get more funding, but their actions become more and more occult.

These things grow. The reason your friend says is there is a backlash from the deposed dictator's cousin, who is hellbent on getting his own hands on the power. And he is far more bloody and ruthless than his deposed cousin. That backlash must be fought and contained.

It gets harder and harder to talk to your friend like you used to, yet he still listens to you. Some of the time.

You owe everything you have to this friend, you love him like the brother you never had, but you see him sliding down the slippery slope of becoming a dictator himself.

Does he see it, or is he becoming inadvertently corrupted from holding power? Is he aware? Does he care?

What does he really believe anymore?

People come to you in secret begging just to let their brash college-age kids, who are now in jail for political crimes, live. To not be destroyed themselves by the new taxes. To request help in getting your friend to deliver on some of the promises he made where things would be good for people.

It becomes clearer and clearer to you that you will have to betray your values to some degree. And each choice comes with a high cost. So which ones do you sacrifice? Do you betray your friend and risk everything your life has stood for until now, with even a worse dictator waiting in the wings? Or do you betray your integrity and close your eyes to each act of injustice?

What do you do?

The game starts...

Something like that, to me, would get some traction. And be fit for a psychological experiment like the opening game seems designed to be. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of inventing a game:

There are so many games, card games and computer games, that the world probably does not need any more games just to increase the number of games. But there seems to be a shortage of games in 2 categories of games: educational and philosophical.

By educational game, I mean a kid spends 5 hours having more fun than a barrel of monkeys and at the same time he gets 5 hours of education. I don't see a lot of games that strongly fit that description. A game like that might be worth inventing and you might even make some money out of it.

By philosophical game, I mean a game that illustrates or expresses or even teaches a philosophy. The game of monopoly is a negative example. It is based on "capitalism". Notice I put that word in quotes. It is based on the typical socialist view of capitalism, not real capitalism. Maybe someone (maybe someone in OL) could invent a game that is based on real capitalism. Nope, I don't mean several games that have already been invented that are about capitalism and are so complexicated that any philosophical meaning is lost in the details.

Here is a half baked idea. No, not even half baked, maybe a quarter baked. I didn't work out the details or test it or anything. Maybe it doesn't even qualify as an idea. It's just something that popped into my head as a result of this thread.

Start with scrabble. Ayn Rand played scrabble and had a funny way of playing scrabble. To simulate capitalism, we want to avoid games that have opponents. That would lead to the idea of winning by a lose-lose proposition where your opponent loses more than you do. Capitalism is win-win. Each player has a separate scrabble board. 10 players, 10 scrabble boards. Each player has gold, not real gold but pretend gold. Tiles can be bought and sold for prices agreed on by the buyer and seller. You try to build the highest score you can for yourself, you don't care about the other guy. You can buy or sell tiles as a group if you want. You can take apart words that you have already made and sell the tiles, together or separately.

(Getting the h.. out of here as fast as I g..d... can to escape from the tomatoes and eggs about to be thrown at me.)

(I'm sure all those people throwing tomatoes and eggs at me can come up with a better idea.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 5 roles:

1. Emperor- Only one player can be Emperor at any given time. At the beginning of the game, a player will be chosen at random to be Emperor. If the current Emperor is deposed, he becomes an officer.

2. Usurper- Each turn, a person will be chosen at random to be the Usurper. Obviously, a player cannot be both Emperor and Usurper at the same time. This person will receive a private message from the moderator notifying them of their status. The game will end when everyone has been a usurper at least once.

3. Officers- Any player who is not currently the Emperor, Usurper, General or a Rebel General.

4. Generals- Officers chosen by the Emperor to lead his armies and keep him in power. Only Generals may receive Gifts from the Emperor.

5. Rebel General- Officers chosen by the Usurper to lead his armies and get him in power. If the Usurper becomes Emperor, then the Rebel Generals will become the new Generals.

I can respect your creativity to think up a game even though my game of choice is played in the real world. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concepts in a hat game:

Many years ago an Objectivist (I don't know who) invented a game called "concepts in a hat" to help to learn Objectivism. The hat has maybe 20 concepts. Pick 2 concepts randomly from a hat and connect them. For example 'capitalism' and 'logic'. How would you connect capitalism and logic?

Variation, concepts in 2 hats: (my weird idea)

One hat has 20 or so Objectivist concepts. The other hat has non-philosophical concepts or even concretes. Pick 1 from each hat. Connect them. For example 'capitalism' and 'electric can opener'. How would you connect them? After you have learned the theory of Objectivism via the original version of the game, the purpose of this game is to learn the practical application to real life things.

(making another hasty exit to avoid tomatoes and eggs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should re invent wheel of fortune using the Chinese alphabet.

OmFG what do you mean there are 931 letters!??

Gimme a lower diphthong!!

How about doing long division with the Roman Numerical system...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An economics simulation/game where you are in the role of government. There is every imaginable temptation to do something but whatever you do makes it worse. The only way to win the game is to do nothing. The game is so cleverly designed that few people figure this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jts wrote:

An economics simulation/game where you are in the role of government. There is every imaginable temptation to do something but whatever you do makes it worse. The only way to win the game is to do nothing. The game is so cleverly designed that few people figure this out.

Keynes vs. Calvin Coolidge. That idea is inspired but now you have given it away, so there would need to be other outcomes. Time is a factor. As you may have seen, predicted ill affects of government meddling and inflation, are frequently postponed.

There is a generation or two of Americans in their twenties and thirties who will be very pissed off. I have already heard younger people are angry about needing work to pay for the “old farts” who were hippies. And the young’ins are already seeing a falling standard of living and lose of jobs. I am also astounded that young people don’t ALWAYS vote for more freedom. Even the hippies wanted more freedom although some personally lived in “communes.” As usually happens the stronger, dominant personality makes life hellish for the other “long hairs.”

In may be hard to fathom but there are very smart, very “libertarian” people like Allen Greenspan who truly think they can do government bigger and better. Ooops.

Say, jts are you a chimp or a bonobo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say, jts are you a chimp or a bonobo?

I am an anthropoid ape. I am told that there is a 2% difference in DNA between me and the other anthropoid apes. I figured nobody will notice such a small difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say, jts are you a chimp or a bonobo?

I am an anthropoid ape. I am told that there is a 2% difference in DNA between me and the other anthropoid apes. I figured nobody will notice such a small difference.

The way most people behave, there's no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now