Some ideas about a non-violence based game

1 hour ago, Daniel13 said:

is it possible to make such a game exciting and interesting enough?

Absolutely yes. It is definitely possible.

Just now, Tom Sloper said:

Absolutely yes. It is definitely possible.

Could you please provide some examples of existing games like that? Or maybe some ideas?

I don't have either of those things.

1 minute ago, Tom Sloper said:

I don't have either of those things.

Well, at least thanks for the reply!

So, to make things clear: you want not only a game without violence, but a game specifically about non-violence?

(For an example of a strategy game that's not focused on "units blowing each other up", take a look at Offworld Trading Company (TIL it now has a free to play version). It's not about non-violence, but it may give you some inspiration.)

As for actual non-violence gameplay, think about what a strategy game is at its core, it's about making decisions: you organize your economy to obtain resources, you use those resources to make units, and then you use those units against an opponent and their units. In most cases this translates to armies and war (i.e. violence) but it doesn't have to be, it can be anything you want. Your "attacks" can be peaceful protests, radio/tv broadcasts, activism of any kind. As long as you can use your units to gain resources/territory/advantages and make your opponent lose them, the strategy is there. It doesn't matter what it looks like visually.

By the way, you mentioned you don't want "politics and war". You can't avoid politics, because strategy is about making decisions, and "making decisions" is politics. Gandhi's actions counts as politics too

11 minutes ago, 1024 said:

So, to make things clear: you want not only a game without violence, but a game specifically about non-violence?

(For an example of a strategy game that's not focused on "units blowing each other up", take a look at Offworld Trading Company (TIL it now has a free to play version). It's not about non-violence, but it may give you some inspiration.)

As for actual non-violence gameplay, think about what a strategy game is at its core, it's about making decisions: you organize your economy to obtain resources, you use those resources to make units, and then you use those units against an opponent and their units. In most cases this translates to armies and war (i.e. violence) but it doesn't have to be, it can be anything you want. Your "attacks" can be peaceful protests, radio/tv broadcasts, activism of any kind. As long as you can use your units to gain resources/territory/advantages and make your opponent lose them, the strategy is there. It doesn't matter what it looks like visually.

By the way, you mentioned you don't want "politics and war". You can't avoid politics, because strategy is about making decisions, and "making decisions" is politics. Gandhi's actions counts as politics too

Thanks for the reply!
A game about non-violence (to be more accurate: about Gandhi)
Well, I used to think in this way: in order to make a game about Gandhi I should look at Gandhi's actions in real history and translate them into game mechanics. And then, Gandhi organized peaceful protests, tried to spread ideas....
It's a bit hard to turn into a fun gameplay, isn't it?
For intance, as for resources. It would be nice to add "inspiration" points and "supporters" as a resource. But how would players use them? Just clicking on buttons like "call for peaceful protests"? But it's boring... And as for some other things: I thought about adding a global map of India with different regions (Delhi, Bombay etc) and the player can interact with them. But it means that I need a lot of them, doesn't it?

This game sounds like it would take mechanics of spreading ideology/religion/whatever that is sometimes found in many 4x or Civs style games. Civilizations 5 and others actually had a mechanic for spreading religion. That is a great starting point I think for getting inspiration.

I could see this being similar to Stellaris or other Paradox games, minus the combat. There are mechanics in those games that would be worth looking into.

1 minute ago, Daniel13 said:

And then, Gandhi organized peaceful protests, tried to spread ideas....

It's a bit more in depth than that. Gandhi's central tenet was Satyagrah, which literally translates to churning of truth. It's true he didn't believe in violence and had peaceful protests but much of it also centered around the concept of civil disobedience. Look up Dandi March (Salt March) to get an idea. The Quit India movement was similar. There were also many many elements at play in India. Religion, caste were big issues. There were also very violent figures as well that did not agree with Gandhi, including, but not limited to, Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, etc.

Then there was the British response of violence, such as the Jalian Wala Bag in Amritsar, where the British massacred peaceful protestors.

The focus of your game is non violence but there are many elements to consider for inspiration. Random events could be interesting in this vein.

I could definitely see something like a 4x game built around this concept though, which is my initial sort of thought.

Just now, deltaKshatriya said:

This game sounds like it would take mechanics of spreading ideology/religion/whatever that is sometimes found in many 4x or Civs style games. Civilizations 5 and others actually had a mechanic for spreading religion. That is a great starting point I think for getting inspiration.

I could see this being similar to Stellaris or other Paradox games, minus the combat. There are mechanics in those games that would be worth looking into.

It's a bit more in depth than that. Gandhi's central tenet was Satyagrah, which literally translates to churning of truth. It's true he didn't believe in violence and had peaceful protests but much of it also centered around the concept of civil disobedience. Look up Dandi March (Salt March) to get an idea. The Quit India movement was similar. There were also many many elements at play in India. Religion, caste were big issues. There were also very violent figures as well that did not agree with Gandhi, including, but not limited to, Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, etc.

Then there was the British response of violence, such as the Jalian Wala Bag in Amritsar, where the British massacred peaceful protestors.

The focus of your game is non violence but there are many elements to consider for inspiration. Random events could be interesting in this vein.

I could definitely see something like a 4x game built around this concept though, which is my initial sort of thought.

Yeah, I've read about Satyagraha. But what would be the core mechanic of such a game...
In real life Gandhi's work was hard because there were a lot of different social groups that didn't agree with his ideas. But adding a complex social system is a bit tricky.
I've read that the first game should be as simple (in terms of mechanics) as possible.

To put it in a simple way:
we have a map of India with some regions. Each region has some parameters:

• Player's ideas support. Decreases slowly as the time passes.
• Population number. The more it is, the harder it is to increase player's ideas support.

We have inspiration points + supporters. We can use inspiration to:

• Unlock non-violent political tools
• Spread ideas among population - increase player's ideas support in regions

We can use supporters to:

• Stop player's ideas support from decreasing

We also have some historical events that can be activated. Like, players can start the Salt March. This requires support in some regions, some inspirtation and some free supporters. The game's goal will be like this: activate the "independance" event as soon as possible.

But this sounds extremely boring and simplistic. And what will be challenging enough to excite the player...

24 minutes ago, Daniel13 said:

And then, Gandhi organized peaceful protests, tried to spread ideas....
It's a bit hard to turn into a fun gameplay, isn't it?

The difference between "sending your followers to spread ideas through a region, causing the residents to reject their current rulers, causing more local people to follow you" and "sending your riflemen across the border to attack the defenders in the neighboring region, so that you take over the region and it's resources" is purely graphical

5 minutes ago, 1024 said:

The difference between "sending your followers to spread ideas through a region, causing the residents to reject their current rulers, causing more local people to follow you" and "sending your riflemen across the border to attack the defenders in the neighboring region, so that you take over the region and it's resources" is purely graphical

I would disagree, because one won't be able to use the region's resources
The only availible resource with such a concept is more followers. Which is rather boring... Or am I wrong?

This screenshot illustrates my current concept and what I've already created

51 minutes ago, Daniel13 said:

It's a bit hard to turn into a fun gameplay, isn't it?

So it's hard. Stop talking about how hard or how possible something is.

54 minutes ago, Daniel13 said:

how would players use them? Just clicking on buttons like "call for peaceful protests"?

Lines of dialogue are more interesting. A lot of subtlety can be contained in dialogue. A player can choose which dialogue to use at various junctures.

Just now, Tom Sloper said:

Lines of dialogue are more interesting. A lot of subtlety can be contained in dialogue. A player can choose which dialogue to use at various junctures.

Oh, sounds interesting, thanks a lot!

3 hours ago, Tom Sloper said:

So it's hard. Stop talking about how hard or how possible something is.

Lines of dialogue are more interesting. A lot of subtlety can be contained in dialogue. A player can choose which dialogue to use at various junctures.

Dialogue can be subtle, but communicating subtlety in text alone can be difficult --especially when you might be thinking about multiple languages (one could argue humor is worse--Knights of Xentar scribe here. Google it and see the insults of my weak jokes and equally weak voice direction)

Alternately, colors, symbols, numbers and icons and communicate a great deal (insert caveat about clutter and overcomplication). Kismet: just today I was reading about the leftist Paris protests of 1968, and unease many felt with the adulation of Che Guevara and opposition to war in Vietnam did not mean philosophical alignment with the Vietcong. Later I heard a news piece about those who voted for Obama and Trump.

In a game, commitment is something to be nourished in your people, but 100% commitment? Those are fanatics and it could go sideways.

To go back to the just like a wargame perspective, replace "commitment" with "morale"...

5 hours ago, 1024 said:

The difference between "sending your followers to spread ideas through a region, causing the residents to reject their current rulers, causing more local people to follow you" and "sending your riflemen across the border to attack the defenders in the neighboring region, so that you take over the region and it's resources" is purely graphical

This. So much this.

Think of your game this way: it's warfare of ideas. So a lot of concepts of warfare, like shoring up defenses, defending, attacking, armies clashing etc, have analogues here to, like defending is propaganda, attacking is spreading your ideas aggressively, armies clashing could be something like civil disobedience etc. This is possible inspiration as well.

The sims???? Is close to a non violent success story?

The truth is non violent... Isnt so peaceful... Like the monks burning themselves to death. People starving themselves to death. Even if you take the peaceful route... The other side typically doesnt resort to a peaceful route... Many non peaceful protests can result in violence.

Humans are omnivores... And the traits associated with that prevail through.

Non violent games have a low appeal... Lets be honest sports games are violent... Truely non violent games make 1-5% sales and the market?

Its a non sense argument fundamentally that violence in games is the root of all evil as is being portrayed... Its the same thing pushed upon smokers and gun users... That an object is evil... And that a person is evil because they posses an object. And somehow if they didnt have an object would be cured and good again... If a person doesnt play videogames they will find another outlet of self destruction or violent outbursts... Video game violence is a way to place blame upon a persons horrible decisions upon someone else.

Hey, maybe you can consider something similar to the game Plague, Inc. where you have to "infect" the world with your ideas of peace step by step. Players can choose between different upgrades or events like a protest and need to share the idea of peace, while some enemies try to stop the idea from spreading and to defeat you.

3 hours ago, Logende said:

Hey, maybe you can consider something similar to the game Plague, Inc. where you have to "infect" the world with your ideas of peace step by step. Players can choose between different upgrades or events like a protest and need to share the idea of peace, while some enemies try to stop the idea from spreading and to defeat you.

Yes, I've played that game, thanks. It may be a nice source of inspiration, though, may also require some research on how core systems work there.

Are adding money and separating inspiration and influence good ideas to implement?
Money could be used to:

• Provide financial help to different provinces in order to make them loyal to the player
• Strengthen the player's movement

Influence could be used to:

• Call for peaceful protests
• Negotiate with the British
• Gain other leader's support (gives various bonuses)