I'm guessing the the core requirement for such a game is that there is a goal that all players want. (Winning is the classic).
Also, no player by themselves can achieve the goal.

It also seems from the board game Diplomacy that you need at least half a dozen players.

Would this style of game where the premise was that you were the councilors to a under-age ruler work? That he will follow the guidance of select people and everyone tries to position themselves as those people.

Could this work?
What rules would work for to codify the power struggle? (With influencing, favors and gifts?
How could you get enough interest to keep at least half a dozen players?

I think getting and maintaining that many players would make it near impossible.

"House of Cards"?

I lurked in one recently at RPOL. England and France allied against Germany. The German player quit at the end of turn three and said that Germany was doomed. I took over Germany and Germany was gone in two turns...what I did was meaningless. Then, before the next turn, England, France, and Russia announced they were allied and had enough for victory.End of game.

Were I ever to play this back-stabbing game, I'd try to ally with three other countries so we four would announce victory at turn 1. Then we could, say, go on a picnic.

Diplomacy? Sure, it could be done, but Diplomacy is one of those games like Risk or Monopoly. People like the idea of them, but the only people who really like PLAYING them are the kind of people who would make decent politicians or campaign managers. And does ANYONE really like being around politicians and campaign managers?

A group of friends used to play Diplomacy years ago and its Renaissance cousin Machiavelli (which is superior in some ways). It was always a lot of fun, though my cunning ways were not forgotten from game to game, making it difficult for me to gain allies after a while.

I think we house-ruled that even in an alliance there could, in the end, only be one winner.

While not totally diplomatic, I think a game like Kingmaker could work here on RPOL, since even if one of your nobles dies, they (or more correctly the new head of the house) reenter the game eventually when their card comes back through the deck.

I've played Diplomacy on Rpol (maybe Ocean Lake's game), and I've GMed one. It works very well and is actually a very good medium for the game. The big problem you have here is flaky players.

If you're playing face to face with family and friends, everyone plays in a sportsmanlike way (unless they're children, of course), but with strangers who can hide behind online anonymity, there can be some childish behaviour - the most obvious of which is picking up your toys and storming off home if you start to lose.

If you can find a group of mature and dedicated players who are willing to play through to their last piece, win or lose, to give the rest of the players a good game, you'll have a lot of fun. If you find yourself playing with a bunch of spoiled brats who leave you in the lurch if things don't go their way, then it's not going to work very well.

In short, it's much like any other Rpol game - get the right players together and you can have a lot of fun, pick up a bunch of quitters and your game will quickly fold.

If you're going to announce victory on Turn 1, what is the point of playing? Just announce that you've won in your RTJ and go play something else from the start. I just don't get how winning is more important than having a good, long, fun game...

The game I played in was a standard Europe-wide board, but the one I GMed was played on a board of the British Isles, so it can certainly be played at different scales. However, it is essentially a geographical game, centred on strategic movement. I'm not sure how it would work for political maneouvring rather than geographical. In a non-standard game you also need to get your map right. Some of the maps out there are intrinsically unfair, providing natural advantages for some regions.

Diplomacy can be very absorbing, almost addictive, as you ponder your moves and guess at your opponents moves for hours or days before making your post, so make sure you have plenty of time on your hands if you want to play.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 04:07, Sun 01 Mar 2015.

In reply to Dara (msg # 5):

I think Kingmaker may be more what I had in mind than Diplomacy itself.

More along the lines of Succession: Intrigue in the Royal Court. Playing the head of a faction?

Still, are there enough players of this type of game to make a go of it or is it not popular enough in this playing format?

As was mentioned, when you are face to face there is usually more of a commitment to follow through on the game. How could you design it to hold enough interest?

I'm running a Domain level game that got 7 initial players and lost 3 almost immediately.
How do you work around that?
You need a certain critical mass of players to make such a game work, unless a GM runs everything. (Which is certainly not "fair".)

The commitment issue is a problem no matter -what- game you play. I'm not sure that kind of game would have any more issues than standard games.

In reply to willvr (msg # 8):

But desertions will greatly hinder such a game and replacements probably are stuck with a weak position that's not of their making.

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 9):

Exactly
So, any such game needs to be able to add a beginning player/replacement at any point,
without making the existing players feel like they have wasted their time.

Where new characters can be just as strong as old ones just with less of a range of options.

-= Aristocracy =-

Chamberlain, Steward, Constable, Chancellor, Seneschal being the top positions to achieve.
Maybe starting from:
Gentleman / Lady of the Chamber > Chamberlain
Gentleman / Lady-in-Waiting > Chamberlain
Mistress of the Robes > Chamberlain
Master of Revels > Chamberlain
Captain of the Guard > Constable
Castellan > Constable
Gaoler > Constable
Sheriff > Constable
Bailiff > Seneschal
Master of the Hunt > Seneschal
Master Falconer > Seneschal
Master of Horse > Steward
Marshal > Chancellor

(These are the historical positions)

Something where fraud, intrigue, bribery, corruption, embezzlement, even extortion,
blackmail and assault can be used to gain influence and position.

I would think TIME is the goal.
The more time the Monarch spends on your area of influence the less is available to others.
So you would draw the Monarch's interest and block others from doing so.

But, it would be a balancing act because the Kingdom must still be maintained.

If a player has the Monarch spend all their time looking at their outfits in the mirror,
the overall Kingdom suffers from neglect.
At some point the Monarch will be mad that you distracted them from "More Important Matters" unless,
you can continue to convince them "Those Matters are NOT Important".

Basically you would want 5 players that were stable or had replacements waiting to move up.
The players that were not in the top five would ally themselves with those that were.
Forming a web of intrigue.

Random and calendar events, that needed to be responded to, would drive play.

Is something like that a pipe-dream or practical?

What I've usually found (though granted this is for more typical adventures than this kind of game), is you get your initial group. Then you lose some, though usually keeping one or two. Eventually, you get a stable group together, that only rarely loses someone.

Once the group is stable, when you recruit for replacements, in my experience, you're more likely to get a new player who's fairly stable; though occasionally you run through a position where you have to recruit 2-3 times before getting someone else stable.

I can say such a game is possible. I've been running one here for about three-four yearsish. It's definitely a different sort of game. It has it's pros and cons. I'm doing a L5R court based game, but if I could do it over I would just use Fate or some similar generic system and base it in Feudal Japan. I recommend doing it sandbox. If I had done it as 'teams', the desertion rate Gaffer mentioned would have killed me. Now, I just plug new players in to whatever faction appeals to them, give some vague objectives, and see what they come up with. I have an overall story arch that slowly...my players would probably say as slowly as glaciers move...comes into play. We finished one such story arch and I am now working on introducing the second. In the meantime there are all kinds of subplots I can keep them busy with.

That all being said, I've had some major snafus. Of my original six players, I have two left and two others who came in after. I think I've had about fifteen total come through the door. It's not a game style for everyone. The objectives are more vague. Most of the time, there is no clean victory. Understandably, that turns a lot of players off.

Back in college, I had a friend who had a game of intrigue within the Kremlin.  You at the start of the game bought influence over party leaders and you vie for getting someone you control up to the top slot.  You could do that.  You declare some amount of influence on people to control them.  You don't have to declare all you bought.  As someone can if they have more hopes to declare theirs if it is higher as take over them if you don't have more than they revealed.

I think you were limited from taking influence over people per a certain age( the oldest guy was on top). You tried to win votes toget the person they think they control promoted into the top (or certain other useful spots)

In reply to LoreGuard (msg # 14):

That sounds interesting and like it could be applied to other settings/situations.
What rules were used?

In reply to warjoski (msg # 13):

That sounds great, but L%R is not something I'm familiar with. If you ever get a FATE version going (particularly Renaissance Europe) I hope I make it in.

I had hoped for more Diplomacy type interaction in my An Echo Resounding based domain level game but, so far we are just in the Explore and Expand phases of the game.

Even with that I lost 4 of 7 initial players and recruited 1 replacement.

You can't make players engage in diplomacy but I hope that as easy location grabbing ends border discussions will start.

If I had enough players to have multiple per Domain, things could get heated.
You could have a player for Armies,
one for construction and upkeep,
and one for exploring and Obstacle resolving.

I could see a game where that was how you started and the "Team" (or a couple of teams) would oppose the GM.
The rules could support it since the negotiations would be between the players.
Would you even need written rules for that?

One thing here:

This style of game-play is actually a GOOD candidate for GM-PCs who can readily stir-up the mix.  If the GM plays PCs, without the other Player's Knowledge - you can, hopefully, keep things bizarre enough to keep such a game going: otherwise people really just might come together and play in an alliance! (which ironically, is really what diplomacy-type games WANT TO PREVENT. - they want backstabbing - it's more fun.)

Just a thought.

In reply to GreenTongue (msg # 15):

I believe the game I played was below:

http://www.fatamorgana.ch/fatamorgana/kremlin.asp
This message was last edited by the user at 01:17, Wed 04 Mar 2015.

In reply to LoreGuard (msg # 19):

"A game for 3-6 players aged 50 and upwards, lasting from 20 minutes to 2 hours."

It does look very interesting.

I think that bolder part was a joke.  I think that the volk started at age 50 going up to whatever the age of the starting part chief was.

Makes me wonder if one could use the concept to build a game to simulate a goblin's or kobold's tribal intrigues.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:34, Thu 05 Mar 2015.

In reply to LoreGuard (msg # 21):

Maybe combined with the Fiasco Playset for Goblin World?
http://apocalypse-world.com/fo...dex.php?topic=2139.0