Resourciv: Letting The Days Go By!

-

Smaller post!

I've made a deranged change to the structure of Resourciv. Every team now acts at random intervals; initially, this can be once every 1 to 20 years, but the maximum possible frequency will decrease as individual teams discover communication technologies (not important yet). This means the game gets "faster" as time goes on, but not arbitrarily.

I don't like the tendency of later Civ games to railroad history. I'm thinking especially of the three-era system announced for Civ VII, and even the global era system in Civ VI, where historical eras are global rather than entered by individual civilizations. I don't like eras in general, since they reflect a specifically European teleology of history. However, it's better when (at least) these eras are civilizationally specific rather than imposed globally. It's even worse when specific cultures are put into specific era-buckets in Civ VII. Combine that with the world literally expanding between eras, an attempt to force the dynamic of discovering sailing in earlier games (or, the age of sail in history). It's boring, if not inappropriate—what's going to happen to those poor indigenous civilizations?

While thinking about this, I thought about a mechanic in most Civ games that each turn represents a shorter amount of time (from 40 years to ½ years in Civ VI). This is a pacing tool, entirely aesthetic, that reflects the perception that more history happens more often later than earlier. That's a mouthful lol. Anyway, although this makes sense, but is taken for granted and handled entirely arbitrarily. Why not make the passage of time a genuine factor of the game, that constantly shifts play dynamics and generates interesting situations?

It feels very weird while playing, in a good way! Keeps you on your toes, and I like that the year display isn't always evenly divisible by 10. The next related thing I want to do is random turn order for teams acting in the same year, but that might be more difficult structurally (somehow).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

D&D Fifth Edition: Death & Rebirth

-
Image
Hashtag OSRisOverParty, Hashtag RIPBozo, etc etc. The initial… “edition” of Dungeons & Dragons, Fifth Edition tried to present itself as a reactionary return to some ideal past paradigm of D&D —be it Third Edition to win back territory lost prior to Paizo’s Pathfinder , or an even older Gygaxian edition to get in the pants of the sort-of nascent OSR. Practically, this resulted in a final product that was like a simple Third Edition with dogwhistle-like nods to OSR conventions (since the play-style’s influence in the end was tenuous at best and mostly abandoned after the public test phase). It’s maybe more succinctly described as a people-pleasing game, with the caveat that people-pleasers don’t please anyone. So, how did it become popular? And how does the new 2024 not-edition reflect major differences between then and now, in terms of how D&D is perceived and played? This is my ramble. Sent from iPhone. Fifth Edition: Born in 2014 Of course, nobody plays D&D as ...
Read more

OSR Rules Families

-
Image
So, here’s the thing: originally I wrote this like a fucking research article with a hypothesis, a methodology, and all that stuff. I’m not even a scientific research person. That’s my partner’s job. Not mine. So, instead of walking you through every single step I took, I’m going to take the journalistic approach and start with the big picture before I zoom into it and tell you about the little details. I read, reviewed, and statistically organized 38 different rulebooks considered to be OSR or OSR-adjacent. These include four rulebooks from TSR-era Dungeons & Dragons , as well as ten rulebooks from the 2000s and 2010s. The remaining 24 rulebooks postdate the closure of G+ in early 2019. Please refer to the bibliography at the bottom of this post for more information. After having collected and organized a dataset with ~90 variables, I found the statistical similarity between each pair of rulebooks based on that data. Finally, I ran an algorithm to determine clusters of these bo...
Read more

Bite-Sized Dungeons

-
Image
Workbook Now Available On Itch! Bite-Sized Dungeons by Traverse Fantasy Edit: This whole time, I said that a first level dungeon hoard had 100 times d6 gold pieces when it actually has just 10 times d6. This means the average hoard has an XP value of 70 without gems, or ~110 with gems. By extension, the eighteen-room dungeon only has 350 XP without gems, or ~550 XP with gems. That is downright dismal and I don’t think works out with modern play sessions and party counts, so let’s pretend it said 100 times d6 anyway. I just read an article by Yora of Spriggan’s Den about extrapolating a scheme for an eighteen-room dungeon from the procedural generation rules in B/X (1981) [1]. As Yora points out, eighteen rooms is a great size for a mid-to-large dungeon or for a floor of a multi-level dungeon, and the checklist of rooms makes it easy to make sure that the final product has a variety of interesting play interactions. But, being as large as it is, it can still be a tall order on the ...
Read more