The Next Interactive AAR

[ThunderHawk3]

I don't know how things are going in all the other AAR forums, but over in the Victoria 2 forum, our interactive AARs are winding down. Shadow of the Andes is down to its last election, while The Presidents has entered the last two decades of its hundred-year story.

So, we'll soon be in the market for another Interactive AAR. I'd like to re-open the discussion about what the next interactive AAR should be. I'll list all of the ideas up here in this post. I've already included a few that I rescued from previous threads.

Setting Ideas:

• As the Confederacy (Vic2)
• As Socialist Germany (Vic2) (Sort of already done in Let the Ruling Classes Tremble)
• As Imperial Germany (Vic2/Hoi3/EUIII)
• As Roman Republic (modded base platform)
• As France (Vic2/Hoi3/EUIII)
• Post WWI Europe (Vic2, DH)
• Multiple countries
• As Japan (any)
• As any unciv (Vic2)
• Trade Republics (EUIII)
• Fictional countries (Any)
• Portugal (Vic2/Hoi3/EUIII)
• Capitalist States (Vic2)

Mechanic Ideas:

• You play as the legislature, electing one of you as President/Prime Minister (as in SOTA/The Presidents)
• You play as the legislature, electing one historical figure as President/Prime Minister (as in Building a Nation)
• Generals and Ministers are appointed, have in game effects (as in SOTA)
• Coups (as in SOTA)
• Multiplayer/Interwoven AARs
• Players adopt an in-game province with in game consequences, allocate resources between them
• An NPC Emperor retains ultimate control

With respect to Victoria 2 specifically, I know there are lots of new mechanics in A House Divided that could potentially provide great new ideas for interactive AARs, but I don't mean to confine this discussion to Vic2 alone. All ideas are welcome.

(With my apologies to the mods. I know there are already a few threads for this purpose, but I didn't want to necropost. And remember folks, you can't start an interactive AAR without mod approval)

[Mr. Capiatlist]

I have an idea for EUIII that will be starting soon after I get the mod for it working. Actually had some of the ideas you suggest because it has advisors and stuff. Should be pretty cool.

Edit: the plan will for it to be in the Presidents/Andes form rather than a multi-nation role play like my last one.

[Wave]

Sorry to go a little off topic but in case someone has spare time would (s)he describe me how interactive AARs work and how are they different to normal AARs? I have heard quite a bit about them but never found out what they really are.

Thankyous
- Wave

[Qorten]

It's an AAR where what the writer does is partly/completely decided by his readers.

[Tanzhang (譚張)]

As Socialist Germany (Vic2) (Sort of already done in Let the Ruling Classes Tremble)

What do you mean sort of?

Post WWI would be a terrible idea for a Vicky II AAR, but I could definitely see it working in DH. Personally, I don't think yet another German/US Interactive AAR is a great idea; what about France?

[Wave]

It's an AAR where what the writer does is partly/completely decided by his readers.

Well that's pretty much what I thought but if it is this simple why does it need an approval from a moderator?

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Well that's pretty much what I thought but if it is this simple why does it need an approval from a moderator?

Because it is not that simple. They have a tendency to go off topic or turn into arguments. So they require extra work from us.

[ThunderHawk3]

What do you mean sort of?

Post WWI would be a terrible idea for a Vicky II AAR, but I could definitely see it working in DH. Personally, I don't think yet another German/US Interactive AAR is a great idea; what about France?

I know what you mean about a post-WWI AAR, since it would be so short. How are you thinking you'd play a French AAR? One of the first things that comes to mind when we talk about France in the 1836-1936 period is revolution. Were you thinking like SOTA-style coup mechanics?

Well that's pretty much what I thought but if it is this simple why does it need an approval from a moderator?

What Mr. Capiatlist said. Arguments, OT posts, and spambots are common in the interactive AARs. They also require a lot of work from the person running the AAR to keep the thread operating smoothly.

[Soulstrider]

Well not of the options but still I am going to leave this here, an Interactive AAR featuring an unciv could be interesting.

[Kaioo]

France is always an option.
It would be quite intriguing to possibly be something like Spain,Britain, or maybe Japan?

EDIT: Has there been one of one of the Italian states? That could be an interesting one.

[FireBlaze]

For what my 2c is worth, I generally preferred the interactive style that "Let the Ruling Classes Tremble" used, in that the player interaction was a lot more limited and, therefor, easier for me, a casual, to keep up with. I never got into SotA or Presidents because it just felt too overwhelming to try and keep up with all the posts by all the different characters from all the different people in the thread. Though it may just be that I missed something that would've let me casual it up.

As for the setting, with a bit of modding, it might be interesting to try a VicII China AAR, given their unique situation with the substates.

[Morrell8]

Imperial Germany could work. We could all be Junkers under the Kaiser(GM).

[Tanzhang (譚張)]

I know what you mean about a post-WWI AAR, since it would be so short. How are you thinking you'd play a French AAR? One of the first things that comes to mind when we talk about France in the 1836-1936 period is revolution. Were you thinking like SOTA-style coup mechanics?

Well naturally, but I'd like to see an Interactive AAR rather than another RPG in the AAR forum. Revolutions (lets not limit ourselves to just military coups) should be tailored to fit the setting, so for example they'd be more common in a nation like Chile than a nation like France, more common in France than say Britain or the US. I'm of the opinion there should be maybe 3 or 4 at most during the course of the AAR, and that they should be treated by the author as a plot device. Players shouldn't have the power to start them themselves, only to react to them.

When the readers start dictating the plot to the author, it becomes a RPG, not an AAR. The readers become players, the author a Games Master, and the story plays second fiddle to the player-created characters. The ones where people can create their own political parties are the absolute worst; they create a lot more OOC posts, flaming and spam than the others and that's why "Realpolitik" and it's successors ended in tears.

It would be quite intriguing to possibly be something like Spain,Britain, or maybe Japan?

Britain has been done. Japan and Spain wouldn't be good ideas. You'd have the advantage of a great Civil War to start things off, but after that things would probably die down and get a little dull.

As for the setting, with a bit of modding, it might be interesting to try a VicII China AAR, given their unique situation with the substates.

It could work, but again i doubt it would be very interesting.

Imperial Germany could work. We could all be Junkers under the Kaiser(GM).

A country other than the US or Germany would make a nice change for once.

[ThunderHawk3]

As for the setting, with a bit of modding, it might be interesting to try a VicII China AAR, given their unique situation with the substates.

I've had an idea for an interactive AAR for a while. It would work well with a fractured North German Federation or in China where there is clearly a deeply divided country in a lot of ways.

Players tend to like to have their characters from certain regions, IE: the Senator from Michigan. I was thinking that you could have characters adopt a province or a region or something, where there are a few slots for representatives from each region. Then, they split some larger pie of the greater government's modifiers amongst their provinces by majority vote. This would incline itself to more realistic politics but it could get messy.

Here's an example: Suppose in a German game, Player A is a representative from Hannover, Player B represents Magdeburg (or Saxony-Anhalt, whatever), and Player C represents Brandenburg. (Let's say they're the only players in the game.) They can split a population growth modifier of say +.3% by majority vote amongst themselves. They could split it evenly, or Player A and Player B could team up to give +.15% growth modifiers to themselves and none to Brandenburg.

This system inclines itself to more natural party and coalition building, and very real-feeling political tensions, but it has downsides as well. My biggest concern is that this kind of system might create a lot of competition and it could get ugly.

[Mr. Capiatlist]

My idea for EU3 was something along these lines (still not telling what country, though):

The country I have chosen is a republic, so players would get to vote which seems to be the hallmark and helps move the game along. They would vote for a president/prime minster sort of figure who would be in charge of actually telling me how to play the game. A candidate would require at least 33% of the vote to actually win. They would have 27*% points to spend on stats rounded down. What this means is if they barely win with 33% their ruler would have 9 points for stats or would be a 3-3-3 ruler. I feel this better reflects government unity. Doesn't matter how good your are if the congress isn't helping you or even hindering you. Now, to make sure that not every ruler is a 3-3-3 the ruler can form coalitions. So there is one week for the vote, then one week for forming the government. To ensure that the pattern isn't vote, then everyone support him in the forming period and ensure yet another 9-9-9 ruler, the ruler only gets half the percent from government.

For example. Person A runs and wins 50% of the votes. After forming his government his vote is up to 80% he would get (50+(80-50)*.5)% or 75% of 27 to spend on points, which is 20. He can choose how to spend them. He could make a 9-8-3 ruler, or a 6-8-6 or a 7-7-6, doesn't matter.

When they form the government they will also have to pick three people to be the great men of the court. if it was their first time being picked, those people would have to pick an adviser type. If they've already served on the court they have to use what they were last time. The ruler can pick any three people, but they must agree to it. This might also be helpful in forming coalitions.

To ensure some division, I've added some religious differences and cultural differences and hopefully people will split along those lines or more political lines. Either way I don't think it is an issue that people will always unite.

[thekinguter]

I think having more RPG elements added to the military characters would benefit greatly the experience of the AAR. I remember generals in SoTA had to get involved in politics because there were so little roleplaying elements for the generals. Maybe a prestige score, like in AHD?

I like the idea of the unciv, maybe Japan?

I also had a weird idea the other day. Having the players play as legislators/councillors under an absolute monarch at the start and effectively progressing from AM to PC to HM government. The kings would be NPCs of course, but that removes the thrill of it, I believe. The thing about SOTA was the power struggle and the character build up. I played a dynasty in SoTA and it thrilled me that I developed certain characters that influenced the story of the game and certainly "went down in history" in-universe (My first character developed the idea of a nationalist party, my second character implemented the idea of a chilean SOI, my fourth character implemented fascism, etc). Having an NPC leading the country will force the players to unite against the NPC but it would be boring and limited. Playing against other players is what makes it interesting.

Also I thought about the multicountry thing. It would be very hard to implement in VIC2 I believe. But in EUIII you could split up England into York, Cornwall, Wales, Northumberland, Lancaster (all existing in vainilla EU3) and have the players be several princes/nobles from different nations/duchies. Therefore instead of the political parties like SOTA or The Presidents, you have the Yorkists, the Lancasters, the Welsh, etc. And only one of them will unite England, go on and form GBR and colonize the world and finally defeat France/Napoleon (you could script that with events). That idea has quite a plot, and if you could manage that three-way civil war in SOTA between the communists, fascists and liberals, then you could manage this.. Maybe just limit it to Lancaster, York and Northumberland and have the Welsh/Cornwall as separatist NPCs? It could also be implemented with the Daimyo mechanic in Divine Wind.. Though the HRE is a completely different matter as there are too many external factors (France, Poland, Bohemia..)

[Tanzhang (譚張)]

My idea for EU3 was something along these lines (still not telling what country, though):

Is it Venice? I think an Italian City state would work very well, as someone else suggested earlier.

The country I have chosen is a republic, so players would get to vote which seems to be the hallmark and helps move the game along. They would vote for a president/prime minster sort of figure who would be in charge of actually telling me how to play the game. A candidate would require at least 33% of the vote to actually win. They would have 27*% points to spend on stats rounded down. What this means is if they barely win with 33% their ruler would have 9 points for stats or would be a 3-3-3 ruler. I feel this better reflects government unity. Doesn't matter how good your are if the congress isn't helping you or even hindering you. Now, to make sure that not every ruler is a 3-3-3 the ruler can form coalitions. So there is one week for the vote, then one week for forming the government. To ensure that the pattern isn't vote, then everyone support him in the forming period and ensure yet another 9-9-9 ruler, the ruler only gets half the percent from government.

For example. Person A runs and wins 50% of the votes. After forming his government his vote is up to 80% he would get (50+(80-50)*.5)% or 75% of 27 to spend on points, which is 20. He can choose how to spend them. He could make a 9-8-3 ruler, or a 6-8-6 or a 7-7-6, doesn't matter.

When they form the government they will also have to pick three people to be the great men of the court. if it was their first time being picked, those people would have to pick an adviser type. If they've already served on the court they have to use what they were last time. The ruler can pick any three people, but they must agree to it. This might also be helpful in forming coalitions.

To ensure some division, I've added some religious differences and cultural differences and hopefully people will split along those lines or more political lines. Either way I don't think it is an issue that people will always unite.

That's all well and good from a game pov, but how would the court advisors affect the story? Say the President appoints me and I choose to be a Statesman, what power do I have? (apart from providing a net bonus to Government tech) Could I say, convince him to make peace with Bohemia and invade the Papal States? if I were an Inquisitor, could I convince him to send missionaries to x heretic province? What would natural scientists or philosophers do? etc.

I like the idea of the unciv, maybe Japan?

I think any unciv apart from Japan would make for a very boring game. Uncivs have fewer options gamewise, hence fewer options for readers to vote on.

I played a dynasty in SoTA and it thrilled me that I developed certain characters that influenced the story of the game and certainly "went down in history" in-universe (My first character developed the idea of a nationalist party, my second character implemented the idea of a chilean SOI, my fourth character implemented fascism, etc). Having an NPC leading the country will force the players to unite against the NPC but it would be boring and limited. Playing against other players is what makes it interesting.

This is the AAR forum, not the RPG forum. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Is it Venice? I think an Italian City state would work very well, as someone else suggested earlier.

No. Bit of an ahistorical thing.

I am actually working on a MEIOU sub-mod for it.

That's all well and good from a game pov, but how would the court advisors affect the story? Say the President appoints me and I choose to be a Statesman, what power do I have? (apart from providing a net bonus to Government tech) Could I say, convince him to make peace with Bohemia and invade the Papal States? if I were an Inquisitor, could I convince him to send missionaries to x heretic province? What would natural scientists or philosophers do? etc.

That is where a bit of RP comes in. I assume a player would listen to his advisors a bit more closely as that is sort of their purpose. I will admit, though, I still have a few things to figure out.

This is the AAR forum, not the RPG forum. Just thought I'd point that out.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Tanzhang (譚張)]

That is where a bit of RP comes in. I assume a player would listen to his advisors a bit more closely as that is sort of their purpose. I will admit, though, I still have a few things to figure out.

But I'm worried that Presidents would just ignore them completely. Maybe each reader would represent an "elector" (in a HRE sense), who would offer his support to a particular president in exchange for a certain policy (so for example: if one reader was a Catholic Bishop, he might ask the president to invade a nearby Protestant Duchy). The President would include this in his election manifesto and if he won, might appoint this Bishop as a Theologian advisor (in charge of converting the Protestant Duchy to Catholicism). Say you sent a missionary to this province and you got (or made up) a negative event "Missionary gets burned at the stake" or whatever; you'd write this into the AAR as a "failure" for the Bishop to perform his duties. He'd be sacked from the council and the president would have to choose another elector to replace him. (say a Philosopher who wanted to separate Church from State) Just a thought.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

AARs are not games, they are stories.

[Mr. Capiatlist]

But I'm worried that Presidents would just ignore them completely. Maybe each reader would represent an "elector" (in a HRE sense), who would offer his support to a particular president in exchange for a certain policy (so for example: if one reader was a Catholic Bishop, he might ask the president to invade a nearby Protestant Duchy). The President would include this in his election manifesto and if he won, might appoint this Bishop as a Theologian advisor (in charge of converting the Protestant Duchy to Catholicism). Say you sent a missionary to this province and you got (or made up) a negative event "Missionary gets burned at the stake" or whatever; you'd write this into the AAR as a "failure" for the Bishop to perform his duties. He'd be sacked from the council and the president would have to choose another elector to replace him. (say a Philosopher who wanted to separate Church from State) Just a thought.

Yeah, not sure how it will work. My assumption is that a ruler would use either his friends as advisers or political allies as a means of getting their support. If they feel they aren't being supported they can quit from their position.

I would agree though that an adviser should have a respected opinion in a given matter. But it is a Republic. A general doesn't always get a say in military matters concerning the government (like declarations of war or funding), though it might be different if a general is elected to be ruler.

AARs are not games, they are stories.

Not all RPs are "games" (in the sense of DnD or Skyrim). I would consider both Presidents and Andes RPs. People take over a persona, i.e. they play a role (of a person). So yes, RPs can exist in the AAR boards if they are using a Paradox game as a base.