Delatores - closed
Author
as there are no more responses, i will shoot this old dog of an idea...- closed
[Edited by - Borkhan on November 28, 2006 12:01:41 PM]
Sounds like an interesting game with strong elements of espionage. Slander a person to get a minimal reward, but uncover a true villain for a good reward? Make out a good person to be a villain for an even better reward? Perhaps uncovering and disgracing their associates to make them look worse?
Are there other Delatores at work, working against your targets as well, seeking the property for themselves? Do they covet the property you already have an are working against you? Your anonymity is precious to you, but is there a benefit to revealing your "loyalty" to the state? Is it a double edged sword, in that you become the enemy of the public? Does it make you less credible? What if the republic finds out you've been a fraud?
Interesting indeed.
Are there other Delatores at work, working against your targets as well, seeking the property for themselves? Do they covet the property you already have an are working against you? Your anonymity is precious to you, but is there a benefit to revealing your "loyalty" to the state? Is it a double edged sword, in that you become the enemy of the public? Does it make you less credible? What if the republic finds out you've been a fraud?
Interesting indeed.
It took me a minute to realize that you had responded inside the quote tags.
I was throwing out ideas. I'm curious, based on these assertions:
1. There's no rebuttal against your accusation
2. The Delatores don't work against each other
3. Even if the Delatores work against each other, there's no rebutting them
4. Accusations need no credibility in any circumstance
What's the goal? Where's the conflict?
I can make baseless accusations against random people on Slashdot. I understand the motivation of the game, but what makes it a game?
I was throwing out ideas. I'm curious, based on these assertions:
1. There's no rebuttal against your accusation
2. The Delatores don't work against each other
3. Even if the Delatores work against each other, there's no rebutting them
4. Accusations need no credibility in any circumstance
What's the goal? Where's the conflict?
I can make baseless accusations against random people on Slashdot. I understand the motivation of the game, but what makes it a game?
On a side note, just respond, don't quote if you're just going to respond inside the quote. Besides, it's just us so far.
Regarding point 1:
So the higher the stature of the accused, the greater the potential reward, but the less of a chance the accusation will be taken seriously. Could this be altered in the accusation is true or grounded in truth?
Regarding points 2 & 3:
So the Delatores may be working against you if you become of high enough stature, and your credibility may save you from their accusations. However, how do you get credibility if anonymity is important?
Regarding point 4:
Assuming that the government is corrupted or at least corruptible, they would be more willing to accept wilder accusations against wealthier people, but then they are willing to take accusations against you more seriously. If they are less corrupted, you task is more difficult, and you need better 'proof' as it were. Is this what you have in mind?
On the end note:
Isn't the success of an accusation based on the corruption of the government, your own standing, the standing of the accused, and the credibility of the accusation? When you make an accusation against a person, what determines if it succeeds or fails? Can it backfire?
I suppose my largest concern, is that it seems like the scams are largely unopposed. I understand the goal is your own wealth and power, but without some challenge, where is the game? What opposition does the player face?
Regarding point 1:
So the higher the stature of the accused, the greater the potential reward, but the less of a chance the accusation will be taken seriously. Could this be altered in the accusation is true or grounded in truth?
Regarding points 2 & 3:
So the Delatores may be working against you if you become of high enough stature, and your credibility may save you from their accusations. However, how do you get credibility if anonymity is important?
Regarding point 4:
Assuming that the government is corrupted or at least corruptible, they would be more willing to accept wilder accusations against wealthier people, but then they are willing to take accusations against you more seriously. If they are less corrupted, you task is more difficult, and you need better 'proof' as it were. Is this what you have in mind?
On the end note:
Isn't the success of an accusation based on the corruption of the government, your own standing, the standing of the accused, and the credibility of the accusation? When you make an accusation against a person, what determines if it succeeds or fails? Can it backfire?
I suppose my largest concern, is that it seems like the scams are largely unopposed. I understand the goal is your own wealth and power, but without some challenge, where is the game? What opposition does the player face?
Well, what i think (and i am not saying i am right) is, that this is totally amoral concept. the rattest rat will win.
and you get it wrong, more people you snitch, more human heads on platter you will give to Sulla (yes they did it) more points you have with the Sulla. And more points you have with Sulla, better is the chance that your next slimy snitching will succeed.
And you are getting it wrong second time, as, the ONLY measurement in Sulla's time was, points with the authority. So, what i am sayin is, in this game truth does not matter at all. just who will get money is the only measumerement of the success.
Then: anonymity is not important; when you decide to go the next level, from a spy to the power behind the throne. it is just a question of qualitative development. What you do not understand is, that credibility is not measured by ratio, but by the wishes of the governement. so, real credibility, is totally over in this game. basically, money is all that is.
You are missing a point here too. The governement, will not take/protect you, as the delator, ; as you are so below the roman society, that even the dogs would not piss on you. so, you play on that. as it can change.
yes, accusation can backfire, if you did not prepare it. (pay the slaves, etc.)But if you a rat enough, if you find personal data, pay people to lie at the court, counterfeit the proofs, you will win.
and you get it wrong, more people you snitch, more human heads on platter you will give to Sulla (yes they did it) more points you have with the Sulla. And more points you have with Sulla, better is the chance that your next slimy snitching will succeed.
And you are getting it wrong second time, as, the ONLY measurement in Sulla's time was, points with the authority. So, what i am sayin is, in this game truth does not matter at all. just who will get money is the only measumerement of the success.
Then: anonymity is not important; when you decide to go the next level, from a spy to the power behind the throne. it is just a question of qualitative development. What you do not understand is, that credibility is not measured by ratio, but by the wishes of the governement. so, real credibility, is totally over in this game. basically, money is all that is.
You are missing a point here too. The governement, will not take/protect you, as the delator, ; as you are so below the roman society, that even the dogs would not piss on you. so, you play on that. as it can change.
yes, accusation can backfire, if you did not prepare it. (pay the slaves, etc.)But if you a rat enough, if you find personal data, pay people to lie at the court, counterfeit the proofs, you will win.
I may be getting it wrong when it comes to credibility, but you're giving me some mixed messages about it:
So, gathering information: truth is important
Truth is unimportant, but creditibilty is.
Truth is unimportant, credibility is unquestioned.
Truth is irrelevant.
Credibility is important.
Credibility is somewhat important.
Truth and credibility are both irrelevant.
Credibility is important, but truth isn't.
Credibility is unimportant
Truth is important.
So, forgive me if it's still unclear the third time around.
Taking it slow, answer yes or no. You don't have to explain Roman politics to me, even if I was an uneducated man, I can just ask my buddy Google. I want to know more about your germ of an idea.
1. If I accuse a man, and the accusation is partially or wholly true, does it positively affect my chances of convincing the authority of my accusation?
2. Over time, can I convince the authority that I am a reliable source of information?
3. Does being a reliable source of information increase my chances of convincing the authority in further accusations?
4. Is anonymity important?
5. Does revealing myself as a source, in order to become more credible, have a negative impact on my anonymity?
And, one last question, answer how you like:
6. Who is the antagonist in this situation?
Quote:spying on the unsuspecting people and denouncing them behing their back
So, gathering information: truth is important
Quote:There is no need for truth in their accusations, only that the authorities, the moderators of life and death will believe it
Truth is unimportant, but creditibilty is.
Quote:You cannot be a fraud in delatores business, as the moment you snitch, you are true, even if your victim is not.
Truth is unimportant, credibility is unquestioned.
Quote:1. There's no rebuttal against your accusation= that is true
Truth is irrelevant.
Quote:3. Even if the Delatores work against each other, there's no rebutting them (yeah and no. depends how much points you have with the authority
Credibility is important.
Quote:4. Accusations need no credibility in any circumstance (yeah and no. [...]
Credibility is somewhat important.
Quote:the base of accusation is irrelevant, the success of it is all.
Truth and credibility are both irrelevant.
Quote:more people you snitch, more human heads on platter you will give to Sulla (yes they did it) more points you have with the Sulla. And more points you have with Sulla, better is the chance that your next slimy snitching will succeed.
And you are getting it wrong second time, as, the ONLY measurement in Sulla's time was, points with the authority. So, what i am sayin is, in this game truth does not matter at all.
Credibility is important, but truth isn't.
Quote:credibility is not measured by ratio, but by the wishes of the governement.
Credibility is unimportant
Quote:if you find personal data,
Truth is important.
So, forgive me if it's still unclear the third time around.
Taking it slow, answer yes or no. You don't have to explain Roman politics to me, even if I was an uneducated man, I can just ask my buddy Google. I want to know more about your germ of an idea.
1. If I accuse a man, and the accusation is partially or wholly true, does it positively affect my chances of convincing the authority of my accusation?
2. Over time, can I convince the authority that I am a reliable source of information?
3. Does being a reliable source of information increase my chances of convincing the authority in further accusations?
4. Is anonymity important?
5. Does revealing myself as a source, in order to become more credible, have a negative impact on my anonymity?
And, one last question, answer how you like:
6. Who is the antagonist in this situation?
So, would this be single player? Would it be interesting as a multiplayer game?
It seems like, in a somewhat dynamic world, you have a small city comprised of people of various wealth, political stature, and loyalists (the marks). You also have a smallish collection of largely unaffiliated, competing delatores (I wonder if there is a circumstance requiring cooperation). You also have the current political atmosphere, with the Emperor at the top. Each major political player having their own wealth, large political stature, and cronies.
So, how to ruin a man's life for a cut, without getting strung up by his friends. How to avoid other delatores cutting you down if you're too successful at their game. How to sweeting the politicos into your sympathy, so that you may become one of the powerful?
Interesting indeed.
Before you go looking for tech people, why not banter about gameplay? What do you think a typical game would be like? Is this a short game? Would you play it all at once or over days? Is there a clear ending, or is the goal of game to keep in the game?
Would your character have 'stats', or are all players created equal? Does a lawyer have a better chance than a slave? Do you start with 'friends'? Is there a way to have friendly or unfriendly relationships with other delatores? (Although your chance of being targeted is of course, proportional to your own worth, friends or not.)
How do you imagine a typical play session going, from start to finish (or relative success)?
It seems like, in a somewhat dynamic world, you have a small city comprised of people of various wealth, political stature, and loyalists (the marks). You also have a smallish collection of largely unaffiliated, competing delatores (I wonder if there is a circumstance requiring cooperation). You also have the current political atmosphere, with the Emperor at the top. Each major political player having their own wealth, large political stature, and cronies.
So, how to ruin a man's life for a cut, without getting strung up by his friends. How to avoid other delatores cutting you down if you're too successful at their game. How to sweeting the politicos into your sympathy, so that you may become one of the powerful?
Interesting indeed.
Before you go looking for tech people, why not banter about gameplay? What do you think a typical game would be like? Is this a short game? Would you play it all at once or over days? Is there a clear ending, or is the goal of game to keep in the game?
Would your character have 'stats', or are all players created equal? Does a lawyer have a better chance than a slave? Do you start with 'friends'? Is there a way to have friendly or unfriendly relationships with other delatores? (Although your chance of being targeted is of course, proportional to your own worth, friends or not.)
How do you imagine a typical play session going, from start to finish (or relative success)?
Would it be viable to try to influence who has support as the next Emperor? If the goal is power, then helping to discredit other contenders could earn a powerful ally.
As far as other delatores, I think it would be novel to persuade them with money, information, and favors. The idea being that if you keep paying off, it may not be worth it to undermine you just yet. Not until 25% of your estate is a better reward, or you're cutting into their profits too much. Of course, successfully accusing them or trying to break their bank would be the way to stop them.
As a note, I completely agree with the single player perspective.
As far as other delatores, I think it would be novel to persuade them with money, information, and favors. The idea being that if you keep paying off, it may not be worth it to undermine you just yet. Not until 25% of your estate is a better reward, or you're cutting into their profits too much. Of course, successfully accusing them or trying to break their bank would be the way to stop them.
As a note, I completely agree with the single player perspective.
I like it, nice fresh idea.
It may well work as a film as a game. (just a thought)
I'm not really up on Roman politics but the whole a-moral thing caught my interest because it sort of questions what is a societys morality and most peoples reactions here seems to be based on sugar coated idealism of how the world should work, not how it has and how it continues to work. Your concept draws many parrallels between things such as:
-The Machiavellion ideal of life (Shakespearian villians probably the clearest examples)
-Life under Stalin in the Soviet Union during the 1930's purges where people for example even children were encouraged and often did denoucnce their parents as spies/traitors and had them 'removed', a society ruled by fear and Stalins instability. (One of the reasons Russia had no real military when Hitler invaded, all the senior and most officers were purged with inexperienced 'yes men.')
-Modern politics is a mud-slinging sport where people denounce each others faults to secure their own positions. Rather than promising positives, its a race to point out whos faults are biggest to secure the voting public.
-American hyper capitalism rewards a select minority that through a combination of deciet and treachery pay off tremendously while the majority live to serve the machinations of a few. Those who fall from grace have the ability to fall all the way down with no social net to secure the basics of life. Make or break its an urban jungle with everyone attempting to claw their way upwards on the backs of their fellows. Hyper competitive society, constantly accelerating in pace based everyone shouting to be heard to try and gain notice to be realised as an individual above the masses.
Just a few thoughts.
It may well work as a film as a game. (just a thought)
I'm not really up on Roman politics but the whole a-moral thing caught my interest because it sort of questions what is a societys morality and most peoples reactions here seems to be based on sugar coated idealism of how the world should work, not how it has and how it continues to work. Your concept draws many parrallels between things such as:
-The Machiavellion ideal of life (Shakespearian villians probably the clearest examples)
-Life under Stalin in the Soviet Union during the 1930's purges where people for example even children were encouraged and often did denoucnce their parents as spies/traitors and had them 'removed', a society ruled by fear and Stalins instability. (One of the reasons Russia had no real military when Hitler invaded, all the senior and most officers were purged with inexperienced 'yes men.')
-Modern politics is a mud-slinging sport where people denounce each others faults to secure their own positions. Rather than promising positives, its a race to point out whos faults are biggest to secure the voting public.
-American hyper capitalism rewards a select minority that through a combination of deciet and treachery pay off tremendously while the majority live to serve the machinations of a few. Those who fall from grace have the ability to fall all the way down with no social net to secure the basics of life. Make or break its an urban jungle with everyone attempting to claw their way upwards on the backs of their fellows. Hyper competitive society, constantly accelerating in pace based everyone shouting to be heard to try and gain notice to be realised as an individual above the masses.
Just a few thoughts.
..... the irony.....somebody not understanding what you're talking about because it lacks continuity...lol
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
