Potentially interested.  Will it be more than just a series of decisions or will there be player driven diplomacy and war?

I love Strategy about as much as Roleplaying. I love ideas such as this, especially when they worked. A user on here ran a fallout-themed Strategy game similar to the concept here, but unfortunately it started up about a month before Christmas I think, and it died. Still, count me in on this.

I would very much like to play a game of this kind.

I would generally prefer that the gods be mere myths (e.g., maybe they exist, maybe they don't, "divine magicians" have to learn their magic, etc), because I think that's rather more interesting, being generally more relate-able. That being said, it's not a dealbreaker for me.

I'd be interested.

I'm interested as well. Seems entertaining to play.

In reply to spyfox259 (msg # 8):

Interested

I'd run with this. I have been reading a number of books that have a feel similar to this.

What caliber of response would you be looking for?

I am highly interested.

This sounds like a really fun game. I am very interested!

Heh, the game can also work that you have a hierarchy if you have more players.

For example 1 player is King/Queen, 4 players are Duke/Duchess under the King/Queen, 8 players are Count/Countess with 2 of each under a Duke/Duchess.

Then you would have player alliances, rivarlies, and all that intrigue and politics, that players will use in order to advance in rank. Advancing in rank would mean that one of the higher players must fall. For example to become a Duke you must make sure your own Duke drops down to Count.

There are many possibilities to this game, I must admit.

How did that work out in the end? How many players did you have? Were there any issues that arose I should be aware of?  Any things you would have done differently in hindsight? Or altered so it ran smoother? Any advice would be most helpful.




Sort of, in truth you do most the work, I just apply causality. I can even recycle events nudging them slightly to better reflect the culture of each players kingdom. It is why I intend to keep the player base small so as not to get overwhelmed. I ran a God game once for just under a year. It would be nice to achieve similar with this.




Player driven diplomacy and war is certainly on the table. All the kingdoms reside on the same continent. You also have access to magical communication. Making diplomacy as simple as getting your arch Mage to set it up. Although you should likely send advanced warning or it could be mistaken as a magical assault. The choice of war and diplomacy is still driven by decisions and the consequences of those decisions.




I am glad it is not a deal breaker. The gods in truth are my wild card, they create an extra layer of politics to contend with along with various religious pressures. If you want a less god involved game you can choose to be a generalist. But that invites new issues, like appeasing the myriad of faiths that outright oppose one another.



Generally what you are comfortable with, in play tests in IRL it mostly ends up as a sort of speech of what you would like to enact. With some on the side discussion with the people that are petitioning the court or your advisors.

quote:

Percy
Heh, the game can also work that you have a hierarchy if you have more players.
For example 1 player is King/Queen, 4 players are Duke/Duchess under the King/Queen, 8 players are Count/Countess with 2 of each under a Duke/Duchess.

I have to say that is a fascinating idea. I am just not sure how that would work in practice. Or how much extra work on top of everything else that would require from me. I am also aware that this has generated a lot more interest than I was expecting. I could see the potential for non rulers to also be advisors. It would also allow more court drama and rulers to roleplay more direct with their lessers and involve themselves in player driven intrigue.

I would very much like others view on this potential development. Thanks for all your input thus far. I will start building my original vision and modify it accordingly, if there is greater interest in Percy’s idea.

Actually, in regards to player interaction, such as player intrigue and diplomacy, or the relation between a non-ruler player and a ruler-player, can all be done freeform I believe.

But then again, at the same time it just might complicate things.

If you want to make sure you are not overwhelmed, I suggest a bit of game-theory applied here. And by that I mean do the game in feature steps. Start with a few features, easily manageable, and see how the players handle them and how you handle them.

After that if you have the time and energy, and the players are up to it, add 1 feature at a time. Just be careful not to stretch your time and energy too far.

  What is the expected 'arc' of the game? Rule until something disastrous happens, or is there an expected end point, either generally or specific rulers retiring after N turns, etc?

  Are the ruler-characters expected to have or develop skills of their own? Some rulers might not need their foreign minister to tell them what the basked o' skull means, and the theocratic ruler might be able to read divine omens just fine by themselves, while (with apologies to Long Live The Queen) a third one has enough knowledge of who makes what to realize that they'd better not eat those gift chocolates.

I think having a hierarchy of PCs would reduce your workload considerably, since you'll only need to deal with a few foreign nations rather than dozens. You'd still need to come up with events and dilemmas for subordinate nobles.

My suggestion would be to enlist the help of the players. If someone wants to play a higher-ranked character, they should put more into the game as well. For example, if Count is the lowest PC rank, then Duke players might have to come up with some plots and developments for other Dukes' vassals, while the King/Queen/Emperor player has to come up with stuff for every player, both within their role (e.g., raising an army requires raising the levies of vassals) and OOCly (e.g., village X in player Y's territory has suffered a flood).

I also think you should recruit in order, starting with the King/Queen player, then the Dukes, then the Earls (or Counts, same rank), with each "level" of players providing more specific information about the PC kingdom. That is, the King/Queen player might define general geography, climate, and culture for the kingdom as a whole, while Dukes give more specific information for their areas, then Counts give the most specific information.
This message was last edited by the user at 03:20, Sat 24 Jan 2015.

 Hmmm, i had thought the idea was each player to run their own kingdom?, not to be part of one kingdom?.

  I don't think a hierarchy would work well. Not only would it create an immediate stratification between players (in a bad way), but it pretty much forces everyone to use the same political structure/culture/race/etc (namely, the one chosen by the 'top' player).

I'm very interested in playing!

I think the hierarchy would be excellent if taken the right way. I think AscendedMaster has a good idea. With every players input to the kingdom in some form it would make the players happy and less GM work in defining the kingdom.

Different ranks do have different jobs in the kingdom that are equally important and I think I would have that be stressed. Either way this goes I would be happy to play.

In reply to spyfox259 (msg # 20):

I completely agree.

I've been asking for a game like this for a while - I would be quite interested.

Unfortunately I ended up with only a couple of players and by the time I had more the early players had gotten bored, so the game didn't get off the ground. I also wasn't happy with the pace and mechanics - I erred to heavily on the RP side and whilst that was awesomely freeform for creating interesting characters it was unclear to the players the scope of their agency and unclear to me how I could easily resolve it... Plus RL intervened

Bits that seemed to be enjoyed was the richness and that it was placed in a fixed geography and historical socio-political context..

I have done very little free-form in my time storytelling. I can see the potential of it but I can also see how it alienates the players that have no power to alter the fate of the kingdom. AscendedMasters idea is interesting but I have no desire to simply have a single kingdom and the court drama attached becoming the focus. As that dilutes the original premise.

The core feature is the player is a ruler of a kingdom, steering the course of that kingdom via their decisions.

Further Clarification On Freeform.

If there were to be freeform it would be upto the player base how they want to express it and what kingdoms court they want to be part of. Lets say you have a classic noble Human kingdom, a savage primal Orc Kingdom and a  kingdom of sultry shadowy vampires. Freeformers can join a sub forums within those kingdom. The role play within then fits the theme of the kingdoms in question giving a lot of freedom for both the ruler and players to do what they want. This also opens up the option for those players to be rolled into events and becoming part of them, even addressing the king/queen. As part of an event chain, that maybe involves their fief. There will however be no jostling to overthrow the current ruler. I can see too many issues with that arrangement.

Various events themselves may well be inspired by the intrigues the players create. I could also view this pool of freeformers as ready to take over inactive slots when they arise. Or have them form their own kingdom. It may well over complicate things but I have seen entire freeform games dedicated to similar ideas, minus the kingdom simulation. All we can do is trial it and see.

Let me know what you think on that set up. Why you think that could work or is a terrible idea for various reasons. Thanks for your input. All of it is helping to shape a game I intend to dedicate myself to for a good while.



Syrris




There is no ‘arc’ beyond the shaping of your civilization, its rise and eventual fall. There are no victory condition beyond surviving through the gods making messes, subversive elements trying to poison your chocolates and how you deal with them. As well as making it through another event relatively unscatehed. Your rule and kingdom will eventually succumb like every kingdom before it. It is more the journey and how you shape it for your successor.


 


I had not even considered skills for rulers. The advisors are merely a tool, to give you a good idea about the world your ruler inhabits.  No dice are rolled, but if you want your ruler to be skilled in something. That is simply backstory, I will take account of when it is relevant. For instance an advisor may give you false advice, your natural knowledge would allow you to see through it.

I hope that is helpful.

Jhaelan.

I am sorry to hear that Jhalean. I also can get pacing wrong. Its easier with people at your table but forum based throws up extra issues. I have gone for something very structured this time round. I intend to be less hung up on small details and the minutiae of roleplay. I am hopeful it will work out.

Sounds like fun; Color me interested.

Also interested

Interested as well , even got an idea for a relatively unique kingdom in mind.

Just an update, I have been busy playtesting this with my usual troupe in person. Refining it as we go and working out the issues that certainly arose. Describing how the phases function is taking some time to write, but I am near done and just about finished on the different Gods. Then I got distracted at running it for a while. It turned out to be an amazing tool for world building and works well enough in person.  Then D&D 5th came to my attention and we ended up playing that amidst the very kingdoms and political landscapes created. All in all I have had fun with the process. My next update beyond this one should be a link to the game itself. Although it will be in its early experimental stage and I will only be able to take on two people to start. Then see how it goes from there.

Thanks for all your feedback.