Topic: My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
Started by: Bret Gillan
Started on: 4/6/2004
Board: Indie Game Design
On 4/6/2004 at 11:08pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
Hey folks. Cranked out a mini-game of sorts on my website - Pundits & Pollsters. Nothing special. It basically came about after some pondering on my part about whether a voting-based resolution mechanic would work.
It's been collecting dust on my web page for awhile, and it needs to be fleshed out a bit more (example stories, how to run a game, etc.), but I figured I'd share it here and collect some comments.
Sorry for the writing quality. I'm not the greatest writer out there, and the only way for me to get something done is just sit down and write until it's done. I try and revise and polish it afterwards, but that doesn't always work out.
On 4/7/2004 at 1:40am, Jasper wrote:
RE: My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
Welcome to the Forge, Ben!
Nothing special.
Here's a question that you should ask yourself: If it's really nothing special, why should I care? Now I'm not being hostile, but quite serious: if you yourself don't think the game is special, then why work on it? Would you yourself want to play it? If you have interest in the project, that's enough -- do you? I'll procede on the assumption that you do.
(Also, FYI, posting about a game you're developing here is basically equivalent to committing to being a game designer. Just tossing out random ideas that you don't plan to follow through on isn't really thought well of. I'm not accusing you of this, since your intentions are a little unclear from your post, but just so you know....)
I like the voting mechanic, works for the game's topic. It doesn't seem to me that favors add a little complexity to a simple system (voting): but that favor is itself the core of the game -- voting is just a means of expressing it.
I think you need to frame the competitions much more. Players are supposed to be competing with one another but if I'm playing, how do I know what I'm competing for? Is it part of chargen to define my agenda? Are their parties or coalitions I can belong to that say what I need to accomplish?
Also, were you imagining more complex scenarios actually involving politics, or it is strictly an out-of-session game?
I think it would be really cool to have more relationships defined within the game, like senior and junior members of a party, coalitions over particular issues ("I'll align with Bob on environmental issues, but I also want to part of the coalition that Julie heads because I want a tax break for the middle class.")
You might consider defining characters a little more as well. Besides agenda, how about each character can take a special ability: seniority, fillibuster, powerful lobby, skull & bones good old boy, national prestige, camera friendly, etc. They could allow a vote to be shifted in some way at a relevant time.
I think it's a decent core, but as you say it's pretty basic. You need more.
On 4/7/2004 at 3:56am, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
Jasper wrote: Welcome to the Forge, Ben!
Bret, but thanks for the greeting Jasper. ;)
Here's a question that you should ask yourself: If it's really nothing special, why should I care? Now I'm not being hostile, but quite serious: if you yourself don't think the game is special, then why work on it? Would you yourself want to play it? If you have interest in the project, that's enough -- do you? I'll procede on the assumption that you do.
My mother raised me to be modest. You're assumption is correct. If I didn't care about it, I wouldn't have devoted time and thought to it.
(Also, FYI, posting about a game you're developing here is basically equivalent to committing to being a game designer. Just tossing out random ideas that you don't plan to follow through on isn't really thought well of. I'm not accusing you of this, since your intentions are a little unclear from your post, but just so you know....)
Shouldn't the link be evidence I've followed through? This wasn't a random brainstorming post. This was a, "Here's what I did, what do you think?" sort of thing. The game exists as a freeware sort of RPG, even though it might not be as slick and polished as most.
Yes, compared to some of the games that other people in this forum have produced, it's a nothing, but I think it's still every bit a roleplaying game as, say, Baron Munchausen.
And making it slicker and more polished is the reason why I'm posting here. ;)
Mind you, I'm not trying to be defensive, but this is a confusing sort of warning/greeting. I read the rules of the forum before I posted, I understand them, and as far as I know I'm complying with them.
If you think I'm not, could you be more specific? I'm an internet veteran, and I've posted to a lot of message boards. I've also seen newbies unwittingly stumble into board taboos. If I'm doing so, please help me out and let me know. I know you said you weren't accusing me of anything, but I must've done something to red-flag my post.
I think you need to frame the competitions much more. Players are supposed to be competing with one another but if I'm playing, how do I know what I'm competing for? Is it part of chargen to define my agenda? Are their parties or coalitions I can belong to that say what I need to accomplish?
I envision the game being one of Paranoia-esque comedic competition. Not always competitions of a political nature - often mundane situations that are exaggerated. Battling for the last parking spot, competing for the affections of an intern, etc. Most likely the competition will be set by the GM. I'll be sure to include this more explicity in the game.
Also, were you imagining more complex scenarios actually involving politics, or it is strictly an out-of-session game?
I'm not sure what you mean by "out-of-session game," but I don't see the game as being suited to serious political maneuvering, and someone would probably have to do some serious arguing for the possibility of it being a serious game in order to change my mind.
I think it would be really cool to have more relationships defined within the game, like senior and junior members of a party, coalitions over particular issues ("I'll align with Bob on environmental issues, but I also want to part of the coalition that Julie heads because I want a tax break for the middle class.")
You know, I've put a lot of thought into this. At one point I was thinking about having various political positions that you can run for at chargen that would give you various "powers." The President could reverse the outcomes of votes unles overruled. Tie votes could be determined by the Vice President. Etc.
I ended up ditching them in favor of simplicity. Perhaps I could include them as optional rules.
You might consider defining characters a little more as well. Besides agenda, how about each character can take a special ability: seniority, fillibuster, powerful lobby, skull & bones good old boy, national prestige, camera friendly, etc. They could allow a vote to be shifted in some way at a relevant time.
That's a great idea, though I'll probably be adding that as an optional rule as well.
I'm a big fan of simplicity, and I worry about complexity cluttering up the design. Optional rules can never hurt, though.
I think it's a decent core, but as you say it's pretty basic. You need more.
I think my biggest problem is that it needs more bulk really. I'm not a very prolific writer, and sometimes I let my desire to get the idea out there get in the way of creating the game the way it should be created.
But I just tell myself that's what revision is for. ;)
Anyhow, thanks for the input, Jasper! You've helped me a lot.
On 4/7/2004 at 5:04am, Jasper wrote:
RE: My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
Hey, Bret, sorry about the names mix up!
Mind you, I'm not trying to be defensive, but this is a confusing sort of warning/greeting. I read the rules of the forum before I posted, I understand them, and as far as I know I'm complying with them.
You're absolutely complying with them, as is now obvious to me. Sorry if I came off sounding dire -- the "red flags" were more or less the phrases "cranked out," "mini-game," and "nothing special." As you probably know if you've lurked though, it's pretty typical to make sure people are here for the right reasons. No worries now.
Oh, but if you have any specific questions about the game, that'll tend to produce better responses.
I envision the game being one of Paranoia-esque comedic competition. Not always competitions of a political nature - often mundane situations that are exaggerated. Battling for the last parking spot, competing for the affections of an intern, etc. Most likely the competition will be set by the GM. I'll be sure to include this more explicity in the game.
Okay, awesome. This it what I was referring to with "out of session." I meant: do the politicians compete over things in a session of congress, or only outside of it? I think focusing on the latter is definitely viable. You might consider taking some political things that you won't actually be dealing with and showing exagerated links with them elsewhere: like the Green party candidate has to have a Toyota Prius and drink from Nalgene bottles or whatever. Just for color mostly.
Regarding coalitions , I was mostly thinking of less-than-formal coalitions between players for whatever they're competing for. Maybe if two players team up, they can pool their efforts and split the rewards? Maybe several can form a bloc that outvotes anyone who opposes them. This may totally not be what your after, but I thought it worth suggesting.
On 4/8/2004 at 2:37am, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
All right Jasper, I went to work on the old gal based on some of your suggestions and my general desire to make it look respectable. I basically started from scratch and did a complete rewrite, with some copy & pasting of the actual mechanics because I thought they were okay as is and because I really didn't feel like rewriting them.
Same link: http://gillan.coopster.net/pundits.html
Some things that were mentioned before: positions and skills. I know I talked about including them as optionals, but I'm married to the idea of keeping the game nice and simple. I think the beauty of the voting as a resolution mechanic is its simplicity. Maybe someday I'll create a Senators & Scandals expansion with optional rules. :p Sorry if I disappoint.
What I tried to do was expand upon the various sections and make more explicit what my intentions were with the game. It's a free game, so I had no qualms about knocking down the barrier between author and reader, and I think it helped my writing a lot.
I included some advice on running the game, and incorporated your suggestion for Voting Blocs as a team-based mode of play, because I liked it that much. I also lifted your "Green party member who drives a Toyota Prius and only drinks from Nalgene bottles" for an example. Hope you don't mind.
So, I'm a lot happier with the game than I was. I think it's got more substance, I think it's more entertaining (there goes my humility, right?), and I think it's clearer.
You recommended that I ask more specific questions, and you're right. A vague sort of, "Here's my game, look at it for me post" isn't very effective in terms of soliciting feedback. So here's my questions:
- See anything it needs? And I'm talking about clarification, examples, advice, and so on more than rules additions. I know, the game is still very basic, but I like it that way and I don't think I'm going to change it anytime in the near future.
- See any possible problems with the mechanics of the game?
- Is having credits in a little game like this bad form? Yeah, you'll hurt my feelings if you tell me yes, but this is a legitimate concern. I don't want to come off looking like a putz, but I want to give mad props to my peeps. Even if it's on a free, html-published RPG and not a bound, commercial deal.
Anyhow, as the game stands right now I don't think it's perfect, but it's looking a heck of a lot better, and I think I'd be a lot more comfortable setting it down and saying, "Okay, this is done. I can go work on something else now," than I was.
On 4/8/2004 at 5:43pm, quozl wrote:
RE: My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
First, I like this game idea.
Now, here's a few suggestions:
Make favors be represented by colored chips. Each player uses a different color and is limited to sone number, say 5 chips.
Now, when a player needs a vote in her/her favor, he/she can either:
give someone a favor chip (any color that the player may have)
or take a favor chip of that player's color from any other player
Either of those two actions requires the other player to change his/her vote in the player's favor.
On 4/8/2004 at 5:59pm, Jasper wrote:
RE: My Game: Pundits & Pollsters
Hey Bret,
I definitley like the clarified format now. You lay out the important bits right up front, and I think that helps. It's like what my intro biology professors always said about technical writing: it's not a novel, and you're not trying to keep anyone in suspense until the end -- lay it all out. I think the informal style works too. I especially enjoyed these two:
In the rules of the game, Bret wrote: Creating a character for P&P is a hundred times easier than actually getting elected for office. No fundraising. No negative ad campaigns. No kissing babies or shaking hands. All you need to do is grab a pencil and a piece of paper.
...
Coming up with the Office your character holds requires some knowledge of politics, which should really only be a problem for Americans.
Heh. (Speaking as an American.)
However, I did find "This is why I introduced Favors." a bit jarring and...unprofessional? Makes it sound like you didn't think the whole thing through before penning it -- which may be true, but why let anyone know that? Maybe change it to something like "This is where favors come in."
Bret wrote: I included some advice on running the game, and incorporated your suggestion for Voting Blocs as a team-based mode of play, because I liked it that much.
Cool. As you envision the blocs, are they constant and mutually exclusive, or can people be in multiple overlapping blocs? I think this would be more interesting, because right now I can't see any reason for people in the same bloc to not vote together -- in which case the blocs seem to make it kind of boring. Or am I not seeing how you imagined them working?
Is having credits in a little game like this bad form? Yeah, you'll hurt my feelings if you tell me yes, but this is a legitimate concern. I don't want to come off looking like a putz, but I want to give mad props to my peeps. Even if it's on a free, html-published RPG and not a bound, commercial deal.
I really don't think you have to worry. Most games I see online at least thank the designer's friends who helped him playtest the thing. I don't think giving credit can do anything but help you, by making you look like you care about your design, and encouraging other people to make suggestions, knowing they'll get a mention.