The original note, as written at the time
A world building strategy game where, instead of directly acting, the player grants permission to several minor PC players that may have secret motives. The player may have a set of finite direct moves that he or she can make once every 30 turns. Once the player has permitted the PC players he cannot interrupt them until they have finished their task.
Ongoing development
A world-building strategy game in which the player does not act directly. Instead the player grants permission to several minor computer-controlled players, who may have secret motives, and cannot interrupt them once they have begun.
The direct moves are finite — a handful every thirty turns. Everything else is delegation, and delegation is irreversible until the task is finished.
That is a real design idea, because it replaces the fantasy of control with the actual experience of power. Anyone who has run anything knows the shape of it: you choose people, you give them scope, and then you watch, and the watching is the interesting part. A game that lets you intervene at any moment is not a game about power, it is a game about tidying.
The secret motives are what make it live. If the minor players were loyal instruments the game would be an exercise in scheduling. Because they want things the player does not know about, every grant is a bet on a person’s character, and every delay is evidence.
The thirty-turn limit does the pacing. Between grants you cannot do anything but observe, so the game is mostly reading a situation that is changing without you. That is uncomfortable and it is the point.
The failure mode is that it becomes a lesson rather than a game. If the system is legible enough to be played well, it is probably too simple to be interesting; if it is opaque, the player is not scheming, they are guessing.
The best version gives the player one honest instrument: the ability to choose whom to trust, and the obligation to live with it.