-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Even though I don't follow this OOC chat much (partly because my email doesn't notify me of this thread's messages for some reason) and thus might be somewhat quiet, I do want to continue and play this game! Personally I have not lost interest in this game and I really find the rule changes you have made good.
I dunno what we should do to make this work...
I dunno what we should do to make this work...
I do want this to go on, but I have no idea on what would need to change if there is any need to.
Well we definitely have enough players to keep a game going, so I have no issues with that. The real question is what we're going to play: I kind of feel weird continuing a game where we've just started establishing the setting, and suddenly over half the players go missing. It feels like that calls for some sort of time skip to make things work, but we haven't really done enough for that not to be weird. :/
I'm in favor of having game skipped a bit by seria of multiturn events and gradually closing inactive players courts by "random events" or turning them into NPC. It'd be most realistic and reasonable option in my opinion.
As Adrian suggested, the players that no longer want to continue could be turned into NPCs or their houses could lose importance via some kind of events. But the events would indeed demand a time skip of some sort, which would be weird at the current situation. And I guess that turning everyone into NPCs would greatly increase your work as the GM, Schlieffen...
I ain't got any ideas of my own, I'm afraid. I hope you guys come up with something that'll work. Whatever it is, I'll be on board.
I ain't got any ideas of my own, I'm afraid. I hope you guys come up with something that'll work. Whatever it is, I'll be on board.
Well, here are the options:
1) Continue from here, with inactive players becoming NPC. That's a fair number of players though, including some important ones; dropping them off completely probably wouldn't work, and handling them "properly" is probably more than I can handle.
2) Fast-forward. The problem with this is we're skipping literally the first major event we've had; we honestly might as well just restart at that point.
3) Restart, maybe in a different setting.
Honestly, #3 is where I'm leaning the most. The rules & bookkeeping stuff are a lot more solid than when we first started so I think we can handle something more, and we actually have something of a community now so we can all have some input into the starting situation and maybe have some stories built-in to that a little more instead of "Everyone is a minor count with no real history".
1) Continue from here, with inactive players becoming NPC. That's a fair number of players though, including some important ones; dropping them off completely probably wouldn't work, and handling them "properly" is probably more than I can handle.
2) Fast-forward. The problem with this is we're skipping literally the first major event we've had; we honestly might as well just restart at that point.
3) Restart, maybe in a different setting.
Honestly, #3 is where I'm leaning the most. The rules & bookkeeping stuff are a lot more solid than when we first started so I think we can handle something more, and we actually have something of a community now so we can all have some input into the starting situation and maybe have some stories built-in to that a little more instead of "Everyone is a minor count with no real history".
As sad as resetting is, it really is the only option that works with how things are set right now.
Well that actually works kind of well on my end: I have a move coming up in March (maybe sooner), so having a bit of down time to update the map, etc. means that won't have to interrupt anything. 
Because the rules are based around characters & vassals, the only hard requirement I have is something where characters are closely intertwined — the kind of situation where player X could be acting within player Y's realm. Beyond that, pretty much anything goes: I'm partial to early-Medieval Germany myself, but I can tweak the rules to make most settings work, and I'm even fine with some heavy alt-history if everyone else is on board.
Because the rules are based around characters & vassals, the only hard requirement I have is something where characters are closely intertwined — the kind of situation where player X could be acting within player Y's realm. Beyond that, pretty much anything goes: I'm partial to early-Medieval Germany myself, but I can tweak the rules to make most settings work, and I'm even fine with some heavy alt-history if everyone else is on board.
I'm curious - what about making early medieval whole Europe, with players being able to choose different areas?
That would only really work if we had enough people for interactions, etc.
Not necessary. It'd mean more place for expansion and development even for four players.
If you look at the origin of this game version, originally there was a plan of having a large piece of land, i.e. the carlognian empire, but due to the lack of interest of players, the setting changed to England. So I do doubt that the GM would revert the change given that due to there being less players then expected he decreased the map in the first place and CKRPG's aim seems to be more about diplomacy, succession then expansion and development. At least that's my take on the situation. The GM will answer soon with his actual answer most probably
I wonder if Iberia could be a fun place to play in. You know, players could choose between playing as Catholic or Muslim and then we'd have a real fight going over the dominance of the peninsula. Then there could also be like Crusades, Jihads, holy orders and what not.
Just suggestions
Just suggestions
I think the same about Central Europe tooI wonder if Iberia could be a fun place to play in. You know, players could choose between playing as Catholic or Muslim and then we'd have a real fight going over the dominance of the peninsula. Then there could also be like Crusades, Jihads, holy orders and what not.
Just suggestions
.Playing as Silesian Prince would be nice for me, for obvious reasons
.
yeah. Or having the Middle East after the fall of the 1st caliphate, with a fight over the restoration of the Umayyad Caliphate could also be interesting I think with civil wars, defections, etc.I wonder if Iberia could be a fun place to play in. You know, players could choose between playing as Catholic or Muslim and then we'd have a real fight going over the dominance of the peninsula. Then there could also be like Crusades, Jihads, holy orders and what not.
Just suggestions
Yeah, a whole-map situation is a definite no-no: It's easy for players to become isolated, certain roles become super important and things fall apart if the player becomes inactive or no-one claims that role, etc. I'd love to do it for a future RPG, but for now I really think the single-kingdom route is the way to go.
To be more specific, I don't think the map scale specifically is a big problem; it's more players being detached from one another. For example, the Carolingian setting was starting players too small given the map size: A player in Brittany didn't really have much to do with a player in Saxony or Italy. I think even the England game also had a little bit of this going on because of the earl-level start: Players were more focused on their small territories instead of kingdom-level politics.
Anyway, to throw a thought of my own out there:
Barbarian invasion: Players are part of a (group of?) tribes raiding/invading/migrating Europe.
I'm obviously still open for ideas: If possible, I want everyone to be on-board so people who have stuck around can take on major roles they're excited to play.
To be more specific, I don't think the map scale specifically is a big problem; it's more players being detached from one another. For example, the Carolingian setting was starting players too small given the map size: A player in Brittany didn't really have much to do with a player in Saxony or Italy. I think even the England game also had a little bit of this going on because of the earl-level start: Players were more focused on their small territories instead of kingdom-level politics.
Anyway, to throw a thought of my own out there:
Barbarian invasion: Players are part of a (group of?) tribes raiding/invading/migrating Europe.
- Really flexible setting-wise: Pick a tribe & time period and go "These guys are fierce warriors now". I'm thinking East Germans pre-Charlemagne, but that's just my favoritism talking.
- Map "scales" based on players: If there aren't enough players to adequately control an area, control over that area lapses.
- Allows politics within tribes as well as in non-tribal areas. (Non-player areas aren't loyal to tribe A or tribe B: As long as a played tribe hasn't migrated into a province, the locals are NPC and can be dealt with accordingly.)
I'm obviously still open for ideas: If possible, I want everyone to be on-board so people who have stuck around can take on major roles they're excited to play.