A RPG campaign: discussion thread

[Hive]

I think 'guidelines' are the way of the future. Not strict yes/no rules but suggestions on how to play and game theme. With the right players and attitude i think the same goals can be acheived.

That's basically my philosophy. But I'm not sure it works. In NOIV, people have been screaming for rules on this and that and everything...

Here's a little suggestion, inspired by KotOR: How about setting all DP sliders for all player nations to 5 - and then give people 10 free moves to do before the game begins? Some of the sliders could cost 2 clicks (I'm thinking cent and inno, mainly). Thoughts?

 

[Fredrik82]

well in answer to bal's question the easiest way is leaders should be based on DP sliders, naval orinetated nations get explores of a better calibre or somethin similiar. Of course a really complicated way to do it is to base leaders genaeration on the missions one has attempted, someone who has done a lot of colonial ones at the expnense of land ones could get a better naval leader chance. Wow that is incredibly complicated

PS: Bal where are the missions for our game? steal the idea from this thread if need be but I want some missions

That is a very good idea, DPs do symbolice the nations policies so both leaders and/or mission type that is given out should depend on the nations domstic policies.

 

[BiB]

Random events, like random explorers for everyone, already have triggers based on dp settings. Why come up with such complicated schemes when something like it pretty much already exists in the game?

 

[unmerged(7276)]

Wont that just make nations even more polorised naval/land?

Hive you are right to say that guidlines can be ignored but i think if they are clear before the game, and the players are right, it will work. I have faith. It needs to be clear that success in this game will not be in reaking records in uber income or size, but in the level of roleplay. Surely the people who sign up for this game will have this in mind anyway? Few here have stated they want many rules anyway. I also suggest the GM plays a minor nation (imo a german minor) to give him more time to direct things.

 

[ForzaA]

Random events, like random explorers for everyone, already have triggers based on dp settings. Why come up with such complicated schemes when something like it pretty much already exists in the game?

noone trusts "random" events - better make sure by editing
besides, I have yet to receive a random leader through event that was better than 3/2/2

 

[BiB]

Well, I always immensily pitied myself because I could not participate in Machivalli

I believe Machiavelli ultimately failed (though I and II were still very nice games) because of the immense amount of rules. I hope this game will be a little more flexible.
Machivalli also did not reward player for behaving in a roleplayer manner.

Mach I had a surprisingly short list of rules. The first post was about only half as long as your opening one here and that included player setup and a list of scenario changes too and that pretty much was it

Of course, an all powerful GM who can decide all sorts of things along the way does help keep the ruleload down

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88821

Now that was cool!

 

[Fredrik82]

Random events, like random explorers for everyone, already have triggers based on dp settings. Why come up with such complicated schemes when something like it pretty much already exists in the game?

Because the whole idea is to add more leaders?
Or atleast create some sort of military tradition system that is generated depending on DPs maybe?

 

[BiB]

noone trusts "random" events - better make sure by editing
besides, I have yet to receive a random leader through event that was better than 3/2/2

I don't see a problem with that

 

[BiB]

Because the whole idea is to add more leaders?
Or atleast create some sort of military tradition system that is generated depending on DPs maybe?

Why do we need more leaders again?

Why should a nation get a good leader because it fought a lot of wars? What if I become filthy rich and I just want to buy the best military leadership out there? Why don't I get that option?

There are countries who win wars despite inferior leadership and there are countries that lose wars despite superior leadership. Why would a won war automatically equal an increase in leadership skill?

 

[Fredrik82]

I also prefer games with only a few rules. As a liberal, i belive in the individuals freedom to do what they want, and not being controled by "rules" in this case
But of course players can be guided to do stuff for RP missions but always have other possibilites.

 

[Fredrik82]

Why would a won war automatically equal an increase in leadership skill?

Because it increase the skills of the nations generals normally
There is a reason why nations like Sweden, Prussia, France etc did get high skilled generals, they fought alot of wars that improved the skill of there generals etc, and they did have a political system that prefered war over peace. atleast Sweden did, thus it is only natural to get skilled generals.
But the reason for a military tradition system is hardly for historical reasons, but to encourage wars and "reward" them that fight em

 

[unmerged(27108)]

If they're willing to fund these men's expeditions, I don't see why they wouldn't/shouldn't be able to.

I don't see Columbus refusing Ottoman funding because they can access the spices overland (he might be refusing because of religious circumstances, but that's a different matter)
Or the Ottomans could RP tales of woe and destruction, and Persians that block their caravans, so that they, too, need to go overseas.

I see no reason why they should not be able to fund expeditions. They might have a worse chance with the explorers because of a lack of colonial tradition
(see mention of modifiers) but I don't think you can say "Austria may not bid on explorers".

I do agree. I wasn't trying to say that Austria can't bid for explorer. I was more trying to open the discussion for modifiers to apply to different nation.


edit - After re-reading my post, I do agree that it sounds like you understood.

 

[BiB]

Because it increase the skills of the nations generals normally
There is a reason why nations like Sweden, Prussia, France etc did get high skilled generals, they fought alot of wars that improved the skill of there generals etc, and they did have a political system that prefered war over peace. atleast Sweden did, thus it is only natural to get skilled generals.
But the reason for a military tradition system is hardly for historical reasons, but to encourage wars and "reward" them that fight em

And there we are, it is because it rewards war! But why do we want war to be rewarding? And why not other play? This is an RP oriented game, not a war one, there are incentives at stake for RP play, I don't see why there should be any for waging war. I don't want to play in a war oriented game, I want to play in a game where there are wars for RP reasons, not where there is war for war's sake.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

And there we are, it is because it rewards war! But why do we want war to be rewarding? And why not other play? This is an RP oriented game, not a war one, there are incentives at stake for RP play, I don't see why there should be any for waging war. I don't want to play in a war oriented game, I want to play in a game where there are wars for RP reasons, not where there is war for war's sake.

While I do see your point, the problem with just historical leaders is that it forces the flow of a game in a certain direction, IE: The nations with the best historical leaders dominate the wars. Even if the original historical reason for that isn't present anymore.

In Machiavelli countries like Portugal complained they did not have good admirals while her enemies did. Wasn't that justified?
What if the Portugal in our game stays competive on the naval front, has a decent naval tech all the time and fights (and wins) wars on top of that. Would it then not be silly if she gets swamped by England after 1700 anyway, because of the superior English admirals?
Even with England doing nothing till that time but sit on her arse?

The game is about RP, not about rewarding wars perse. However, when a country does wage a war a lot (with good historical reason) it is only logical she benefits from her military tradition.
So, if we get a Denmark that controls the seas like England did, that manages to rival with the other naval countries, it would be strange if that Denmark will not get a good leader eventually.

Therefore, in addition to the historical leaders, I want to give each country the benefit of an extra leader each session that can be strong based upon the military activeness of the country. Since it is only one extra leader we're are not talking about a huge disturbion of the balance. Napoleon, Suvorov, Karl, Freddy will still be there to give some nations a historical push.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

It needs to be clear that success in this game will not be in reaking records in uber income or size, but in the level of roleplay. Surely the people who sign up for this game will have this in mind anyway? Few here have stated they want many rules anyway.

I agree with this. So, not much rules, if any, but guidelines and GM's intervention to help the RP of the game. And rewards for players if they do act in a RP manner.

 

[Hive]

And there we are, it is because it rewards war! But why do we want war to be rewarding? And why not other play? This is an RP oriented game, not a war one, there are incentives at stake for RP play, I don't see why there should be any for waging war. I don't want to play in a war oriented game, I want to play in a game where there are wars for RP reasons, not where there is war for war's sake.

I must say, this is an excellent point... this military tradition system might be good in an ordinary game, where lots of people hypertech instead of fighting wars. But this is an RP game, it is to be expected that the people signing up don't mind fighting wars for no profit. So is this really needed?

 

[unmerged(10146)]

I agree with this. So, not much rules, if any, but guidelines and GM's intervention to help the RP of the game. And rewards for players if they do act in a RP manner.

What kind of GM's intervention did you have in mind? One possibility Wyvern did in one of Machiavellis as GM was using his mighty France and some other nations willing to cooperate to influence the game from within.

The other possibility the GM to watch carefully what is going on during the game and influence the history through his decissions during the game and through editing between sessions.

Clearly, a GM's choice of a country is affected: for the first model the GM should rulea strong country like France or Spain, and for the other a minor country without much interference with others and free to watch the events. Pope for example (good for RP) for example?

 

[unmerged(10146)]

I must say, this is an excellent point... this military tradition system might be good in an ordinary game, where lots of people hypertech instead of fighting wars. But this is an RP game, it is to be expected that the people signing up don't mind fighting wars for no profit. So is this really needed?

Well...
I also find excessive funding of wars of some countries that historically don't have much money VERY disturbing for a balanced or historical or RP game. Better DOW yourself than do that sort of scheming.

 

[Hive]

Well...
I also find excessive funding of wars of some countries that historically don't have much money VERY disturbing for a balanced or historical or RP game. Better DOW yourself than do that sort of scheming.

I disagree; scheming like that is excellent.

 

[unmerged(10146)]

I disagree; scheming like that is excellent.

Definitelly not if it leads to gangbangs or every war becomming world war instead of staying limited conflict for limited goals.
Besides, how historical is it? Where is RP in it? Did Kings of Spain really generously finance all the enemies of France?