The SWC Galactic Senate Game - Discussion and Brainstorming

So, the last few attempts at this game have been met with some enthusiasm, but ultimately an early end as it seems to drop off quickly. This game used to be one of the more popular games in the forum, bringing in users from around the board and providing a fun atmosphere to challenge our minds and our creative juices.

So ... let's start with some simple questions:

1. What's good about the game?

2. What needs improved?

3. What needs added?

4. What needs dropped?

5. What would make you more likely to be a long-term player of the game?

6. Do you have any wacky suggestions?


Let's get to it people ... let's solve this problem together.

 

1. What's good about the game? It generally Flows smoothly

2. What needs improved? Senario topic flowing. to continue the time line.

3. What needs added? I think longer terms

4. What needs dropped? Nothing i don't think

5. What would make you more likely to be a long-term player of the game? Some leeway on the no-rpg.

6. Do you have any wacky suggestions? Let planets declare war on each other, trade embargoes ect... and let the senate try and help the disputed terms.

 

1. What's good about the game? Its fun of course, plus it lets you become politicians, what fun lol.

2. What needs improved? Um the election progress maybe starting at the end of the last term with the first day of the new term election day.

3. What needs added? Back room dealings, aids, treaties, ability to declare war.

4. What needs dropped? Limits on offic in times of crisis

5. What would make you more likely to be a long-term player of the game? Make some of the changes people suggest

6. Do you have any wacky suggestions? A bomb blows up the senate building one day and it really affects everyone.

 

Can you give me some specific examples here, Sinre?

 

So ... let's start with some simple questions:

1. What's good about the game? It's about the Senate so that is a unique and special group that needs to be explored more.

2. What needs improved? Improve the randomness of things that occur. Have a covert operative in the game (like Palpatine, Vader, Tarkin, etc.) that can have random acts of aggression, abduction, fighting, plagues, etc. thrown in to mix things up a bit, but also have a special Jedi (maybe Obi-Wan, Anakin, Yoda) that is the hero to the Republic when bad things happen.

3. What needs added? I would say make it more open-ended. Have it where the Senators controlling their respective systems can send soldiers into harm's way without Senate support. Have it where there is corruption and other sinister actions occurring in the background and then it becomes a main problem for the galaxy to either a certain extent or even as a whole. In other words, just coming up with rules, regulations, motions, and acts that are approved upon are just one small part. Have systems break the rules. Have unrest like there actually should be. The galaxy is never one big happy group of Senators. Random acts of aggression or even kindness need to happen without the full approval of the Senate. Systems need to have secret things happening in the background. Just voting on motions and acts becomes boring if nothing else beyond that scope can happen.

4. What needs dropped? Maybe all the basic parts of the Senate and its motions that should already be in place. Have the Senate already with its basic set of rules and regulations and laws and orders. Only have new motions for whatever randomness that happens (plagues, fighting, aggression, abduction, etc.) or the creation of the Grand Army of the Republic.

5. What would make you more likely to be a long-term player of the game? Again, make things happen that normally do happen to worlds. Plagues, fighting, aggression, abductions, famines, droughts, floods, assassinations, etc.


6. Do you have any wacky suggestions? Have a mole in the game as well. He does bad (or good) things in the background to systems depending on what he can gain in return (money, land, whole worlds, ships, slaves, etc.)

 

Let me see if I'm hearing people correctly here:

Would you be in favor of playing as en entire planet/system, and one of your duties being to serve in the Senate, but you would also retain other rights (control over armies, trade routes, etc) for your planet?

In addition, there is a desire to separate the position of Gamemaster and Chancellor. The Gamemaster would be a permanent position (or semi-permanent) and would oversee the flow of the game, the Chancellor would be a monthly elected position that would oversee the formation of policy and try to guide discussion towards advancing the game. The Gamemaster would craft an overall storyline, while the Chancellor would deal with day-to-day issues of trying to lead the Senate to solve the problems.

Am I correct in seeing an overall desire for these two things?

 

Yes, those two things would definitely help the game playability.

 

Yes I like that idea as well. The major thing that has stopped us in the past is the lack of being able to control our systems.

 

Indeed. Both of those things should benefit the game greatly. I saddly have few other ideas for the game at the moment, but I will chime in when I actually get something.

 

Yes would like to play this way.

 

It could be more work, but the idea that every system has resources that its player can offer up would give more quid quo pro politics to the game.. If you had a dedicated gamemaster to handle keeping track of resource management and the supeme chancellor to handle the voting.... Could be fun.

Maybe each system would have certain resources for the month... This wouldn't represent all the planet has to offer, just what the government has "made available" to the senator as a part of galactic political maneuvers..

Maybe we could make the resources random? I know that's going to urk some folks... "But I control Planet WARMONGER, why don't I have more troops???"

To make it simple, maybe we should have just a few kinds of resources? Military, Information, and Raw Materials? So maybe every planet gets a random amount of each from 1-100??

Then scenarios or what not might provide resource need estimates... "For the senate to solve this problem will require 10 military, 10 information and 20 raw materials.." and then the senators can come up with alternatives..."For the senate to solve the problem in that way would require only 6 military, but 20 information and 30 raw materials..."

Then when a vote occurs, senators can pledge resources as well... and if they don't like the idea of course they can choose to pledge nothing!

 

This actually sounds like a really good idea.

 

I like the idea, too, Lemming. But I'd rather see control remain with the player rather than it being Random. Random might make for a more interesting game, but having control might lead to more dedicated players, always a bonus in my opinion.

 

again sounds great

 

Maybe when a user signs up to play she gets 100 points to put into the three kinds of resources?

so....

1. RandomDude - Bespin - 10 Military, 30 Information, 60 Raw Materials
2. AnotherUser - Coruscant - 30 Military, 50 Information, 20 Raw Materials
3. AThirdExample - Rederan - 1000 Military, 1000 Information, INFINITE Raw Materials

the first two would be fine because they add up to 100 (or whatever amount we pick) and the third user gets adjusted or asked to come down to reality.

Or do you think that they shouldn't have equal resource totals? I'd rather keep things more equal.. I know some people will look funny at the situation where Coruscant has as much or as little military as Endor, but there's that "fairness" concept pulling on me again. Maybe that's why I thought randomizing might be good.. at least then everyone would have the same chance..but then again, that provides the the possibility that Endor will have more military, information and raw materials resources availale that Coruscant all at once...

We could ASSIGN values to like 20-40 planets from star wars and let people pick amongst them on a first come first serve basis to make it more relatable. Realistically some planets are going to have more resources then others.

Since this is supposed to be a game of equality, I'd prefer to give everyone the same total resources and describe discrepencies as "although planet x has a bigger badder fleet than planet wimpy, it still doesn't have all that much its willing to "share" with the allied command...

 

I don't want to be a sour grape here, but I thought I'd play Devil's advocate for a bit, since I think this needs to be addressed.

If we make the changes that are being suggested, this will be moving into a full-fledged RPG. So what's the rationale for this remaining in the SWC, and not moving to the RPF?

I don't really have an opinion on this one way or the other, but I thought it'd be good to get a solid answer.

 

That is a good point. I believe that if we are going to represent Senators in a Political Setting, then we must act like them. If that means taking Bribes ok, Adultery or other things, ok. Making alliances with like minded senators, ok. We need to be able to do those kinds of things.

 

Now, things are taking a nice turn in terms of similarity to reality.

 

On lemminglord' s post I think that the amounts should not be equal. example.
Naboo: small military, but large agriculter center.
Coruscant: Tons of credits.
Planets with shipyards. Large naval forces.

Ect...

It would make it a bit more of a reality ish

 

I agree Integral, but the only thing is that this will lead to a lot of people abusing the system, so we'd need to work out some way to prevent that. I'm sure that goes without saying, but I just thought I'd throw it out in the open.

This too ios a good point that had crossed my mind, and I have no answer. I would assume that Integral would be okay delving into RP'ing slightly, as this was his idea, but aside from that, I don't have an answer.

 

To be honest, I don't see it developing into a full-fledged RPG. What I do see is it evolving. Away from the Galactic Senate game and into more of the Galactic Game. Players would take control of a planet. One of their roles (and the only required role) would be to represent their planet in the Senate. But, they could also take on other roles, including making decisions for the planet's military, economy, diplomacy, etc. But, again, the only the required would be to act as a Senator.

It's not so much an RPG game, as much as it's a RTS game that's modified for a SW Forum.

 

Adding resource management is in no way making this a roleplaying game. A roleplaying game has people playing characters. This does make the game more of a "boardgame" perhaps. It would make the game more like diplomacy or risk.

I am intrigued by the way we are using the word "role." We aren't meaning it like it is used in "role-playing game." We aren't being actors getting "in character." We are discussing topics and managing some hypothetical resources that will allow for more negotiations.

Senators have resources.

Gamemaster comes up with a problem.

Supreme Chancellor guides discussion to solve them.

Senators come up with solutions which include how to pay for solution with the resources at hand.

Keeping track of the dangerous liasons of every player so it has an impact on the game would be quite the challenge... How do we keep something like that simple to administrate? A 20 player roleplaying game is out of the question. A 20-player discussion game where each has resources is much easier to work with.. Maybe we should leave the "bribes" and such as just simple color.

 

Listen to the wise Lemming lord.

What's a Lemming?

No really I agree with him on this.