[ABANDONED] Deal or No Deal

by **Fontenais** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:58 am

Wow. I use the word 'deal' a lot - especially in the description. Anyway I have put up a second draft - I just hope character 3 isn't too Mary Poppin-y (pulling things out of thin air).

Validity: Must not have Autarky.

Description:

Foreign leaders from @@REGION@@ will be converging in @@NAME@@ next week to propose a multilateral trade deal. Political commentators are hopeful that the trade deal will be advantageous to @@NAME@@, however some other leaders already appear to to be hesitant to compromise on their nation's interests. Worried that the trade deal won’t go ahead, your Cabinet has barged into your office to demand action to secure the trade deal.

Draft 1

Draft 2

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:05 am

Minor suggestions:

Fontenais wrote:@@LEADER@@, The Book of Violet by the National Theatre Company will debut in @@CAPITAL@@ in two weeks.

Not sure if it's tracked (it's not a publicly visible policy), but the National Theatre Company won't be playing if I've shot poets and writers as a result of 56.3.

Fontenais wrote:‘Leader, Nation will be the laughing stock of the @@REGION@@

Should this have been @@NATION@@? And "the @@REGION@@" should be just "@@REGION@@", otherwise you'll end up with "the The North Pacific" or similar.

Fontenais wrote:present a three-hour lecture on Cheese Exports.

The three-hour lecture should be on @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@, because I might have no cheese export industry.

by **Fontenais** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:02 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:Minor suggestions:
Fontenais wrote:@@LEADER@@, The Book of Violet by the National Theatre Company will debut in @@CAPITAL@@ in two weeks.

Not sure if it's tracked (it's not a publicly visible policy), but the National Theatre Company won't be playing if I've shot poets and writers as a result of 56.3.

I really hope it isn't tracked, because I absolutely loved the Book of Mormon. I'll leave it as is for now, but if someone says it is tracked, I'll change it to Swan Lake or something because I don't think a composer would techically fall in the poets and writers category.

SherpDaWerp wrote:
Fontenais wrote:‘Leader, Nation will be the laughing stock of the @@REGION@@

Should this have been @@NATION@@? And "the @@REGION@@" should be just "@@REGION@@", otherwise you'll end up with "the The North Pacific" or similar.
Fontenais wrote:present a three-hour lecture on Cheese Exports.

The three-hour lecture should be on @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@, because I might have no cheese export industry.

Thank you I'll just edit the issue now to fix these problems up

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:40 pm

Must not be vegan

by **Fontenais** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:54 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Must not be vegan

Ah I didn't even think about that - I'll edit the issue now to fix it

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:14 am

Description:
@@NAME@@ is hosting an economic summit, and leaders from all over @@REGION@@ will be converging in @@NAME@@ next week to discuss trade deals. Last night, the State Dining Room burnt down in a tragic incident involving a baked Alaska flambé, sending plans for a state banquet up in smoke. A meeting has been called to discuss alternative plans for entertaining the foreign leaders.

There's some good humour here. The premise reminds me of some other issues though, with the question of how to host the summit sounding very similar to 581 while the mention of food suggesting it might echo 358. Honestly, it's pretty unexpected following a title of Flambé Fiasco and the emphasis on the dining room for this issue NOT to be about food.

Your options go on to make this more distinct, but I think the core premise needs to make clear what the issue's unique premise is. "How do you want to host the summit?" is too much of an overlap with 581, so I think you need to focus it on an different specific question.

by **Fontenais** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:47 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote: Honestly, it's pretty unexpected following a title of Flambé Fiasco and the emphasis on the dining room for this issue NOT to be about food.

I know, but I couldn't think of anything more appropriate. I'll have another think about it.

by **Fontenais** » Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:55 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Your options go on to make this more distinct, but I think the core premise needs to make clear what the issue's unique premise is. "How do you want to host the summit?" is too much of an overlap with 581, so I think you need to focus it on an different specific question.

I didn't even know about issue #581! I was searching for 'state banquet', 'summit', 'diplomacy' etc and it didn't come up! But I can see how this issue is similar to #581.

Anyway, I have been mulling it over for a bit, and this is the best (and only) idea I could come up with for a different specific question: Leader wants to sign a multilateral trade deal. Leader wants to 'wine and dine' the other parties to the trade deal, without actually 'wining and dining' them (due to flambe incident).

What do you/everyone else think? I'll see if I can put up another draft to reflect this when I get the chance.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:30 am

Fontenais wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Your options go on to make this more distinct, but I think the core premise needs to make clear what the issue's unique premise is. "How do you want to host the summit?" is too much of an overlap with 581, so I think you need to focus it on an different specific question.

I didn't even know about issue #581! I was searching for 'state banquet', 'summit', 'diplomacy' etc and it didn't come up! But I can see how this issue is similar to #581.

Anyway, I have been mulling it over for a bit, and this is the best (and only) idea I could come up with for a different specific question: Leader wants to sign a multilateral trade deal. Leader wants to 'wine and dine' the other parties to the trade deal, without actually 'wining and dining' them (due to flambe incident).

What do you/everyone else think? I'll see if I can put up another draft to reflect this when I get the chance.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but my first thought is re: player autonomy. You can't dictate to the player what their character's intentions are.

by **Fontenais** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:12 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Not entirely sure what you mean, but my first thought is re: player autonomy. You can't dictate to the player what their character's intentions are.

Sorry I should have said Nation, not the leader

As for what I meant: Taking your advice of not having the issue as 'how to host the summit', I was thinking that instead, the premise should be that Nation would like the other Nations to sign a trade deal, and that Nation is trying to think of ways to 'sweeten the deal'. So the options would be (1) Entertain them (2) Threaten them (3) Rely on the merits of your arguments

I will have to put up a draft 2, but do you think this new premise looks to be sufficiently different from #581?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:29 am

When you say "the nation wants" something, don't you mean the government? If so, that's still a player autonomy violation. You could claim that there's popular calls for something, but that too seems unnecessarily didactic.

A better approach is to present the opportunity for trade deals, then let the player decide.

by **Fontenais** » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:43 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:When you say "the nation wants" something, don't you mean the government? If so, that's still a player autonomy violation. You could claim that there's popular calls for something, but that too seems unnecessarily didactic.

A better approach is to present the opportunity for trade deals, then let the player decide.

Ok, I see. How about: There is a trade deal being negotiated, which, if signed, would be very advantageous to the Nation. Your ministers are trying to be helpful, and come up with ways to encourage the trade deal to go ahead.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:04 pm

Better to say that a trade deal is being proposed.

by **Fontenais** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:30 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Better to say that a trade deal is being proposed.

Ok I'll edit the description now hopefully it sounds alright

by **Fontenais** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:47 am

I haven't heard anything in a while, so I'm thinking of submitting it. Does anyone have any final opinions on the draft before I do so?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:01 am

As I mentioned in your other draft, you need to spoiler tag your first post differently. The opening description is part of the draft, and your "draft 1" no longer contains any trace of what your previous opening looked like.

Anyway, let's see where we are:

Foreign leaders from @@REGION@@ will be converging in @@NAME@@ next week to propose a multilateral trade deal. Political commentators are hopeful that the trade deal will be advantageous to @@NAME@@, however some other leaders already appear to to be hesitant to compromise on their nation's interests. Worried that the trade deal won’t go ahead, your Cabinet has barged into your office to demand action to secure the trade deal.

Excessive framing here, when most of this information could be transmitted in the options.

Just make it:

Foreign leaders from @@REGION@@ will be converging in @@NAME@@ next week to propose a multilateral trade deal.

The rest is redundant.

Okay, let's hit the options.

Option 1:

Your flamboyant Minister for Culture @@RANDOMNAME@@ sashays towards you with outstretched arms, bowling over several ministers in the process. '@@LEADER@@, The Book of Violet by the National Theatre Company will debut in @@CAPITAL@@ in two weeks. I’m sure that if you make a generous donation to the arts, the Theatre Company can arrange an exclusive preview performance. Undoubtably, you will be the toast of @@REGION@@, and it will simply be très chic to sign the trade deal!’

Effect: Foreign leaders often contact @@LEADER@@ to get VIP tickets

Yeah, that seems a little narratively disjointed. What does theatre have to do with a trade deal? Shouldn't we be examining whether we want a trade deal or not rather than discussing the entertainment?

Option 2:

Amongst the mounting uproar of arguing ministers, your Army Chief @@RADNDOMNAME@@ pulls out a pistol and fires a few shots into the ceiling, sending several ministers ducking for cover and silencing the room. Your Army Chief proudly announces, ‘@@NAME@@ should organise a military show to demonstrate that @@NAME@@ is a bedrock of security in @@REGION@@. Imagine – pyrotechnics, simulated anti-terrorism operations, and most importantly, tonnes and tonnes of explosives! I’m sure that the foreign leaders will realise that it is in their best interests to sign the damn trade deal!’

Effect: @@NAME@@ often forces foreign leaders to sign trade deals at gunpoint

Right, again, isn't there a bit of an assumption here that we WANT a trade deal? I mean really, why this obsession over the entertainment?

Nations don't decide whether or not to sign a trade deal based on ephemera like this: they examine mutual interests, the pros and cons of free trade vs protectionism, and so on.

It seems like the issue you want to write is "what entertainment shall I put on for some foreign dignitaries?"

I suggest that for that, you need an entirely different premise.

by **Fontenais** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:39 pm

Well, I will abandon this issue, since 'how to entertain foreign leaders' is too similar to #581, and I don't see how else this could work. Oh well.

[ABANDONED] Deal or No Deal

[ABANDONED] Deal or No Deal

Who is online