Do most player see CK3 as a strategy game to conquer the world against other AI factions, or do they see it as a role-playing game?

[ray243]

I wonder if there's a way to understand the playstyle of most of the userbase when it comes to playing CK3. How many players are playing it like a grand strategy game where the main objective is doing world conquest and defeating other AI realms?

Or do most players actually play it for role-playing reasons, with the option of military expansion? Honestly I never play any CK3 game for the sake of world conquest, as I find that to be boring and pointless.

After my empire grew to certain size, like restoring the Roman Empire, I tend to spend more time just going around role-playing as the emperors and managing the realm many noble families so they become more and more Romanised.

So the "strategy" part of fighting other AI realms only matters to a certain point, and for me my focus is more on roleplaying the management of the realm.

 

[Strompator]

There is a rising faction of players that defend this snoozefest as a 'story generator'.....but the stories it generates lack context and have no relation to the traits of the characters. That, and it's hard to 'role play' when these traits have little to no weight during the game.

Right now, it's a map painter.

 

[vandevere]

I don't know about other players, I don't go to war at all if I can avoid it. I also enjoy managing my vassals and filling Court Positions, and developing my domain. Lastly, I enjoy marrying my kids off. I even enjoy marrying my courtiers off at time. Also watching what the AI gets up to can be very entertaining...

 

[Cronus865]

How many players are playing it like a grand strategy game where the main objective is doing world conquest and defeating other AI realms?

I don't think grand strategy games are about world conquest, but having specific strategic goals you're trying to accomplish. I've always characterized CK games as a strategy/character mix, and I think CK3 is pretty poor at the strategy portion of the game. It definitely has some interesting character mechanics though, but characters aren't as interesting when they don't have many obstacles to overcome. Maybe the new hard mode will help.

 

[The Shacks]

I want a grand strategy that challenges me....whilst i'm roleplaying. I immerse myself in any game thats good, thats secondary to gameplay loops being challenging and rewarding. If a game isent hard or a deeply responsive simulation ( or multiplayer ofc ) why would I 'get into my character' it means nothing.

 

[MyLordFellington]

It's supposed to be a grand strategy game with role playing elements. Not the other way round. At least that's how CK2 played to me. World conquest shouldn't be possible because we're dealing with decentralised governments and societies. Unless you are the Mongols I guess.

Crusader Kings does not have in-depth social mechanics to lean into the role playing. Role playing in video games requires mechanics. Stress is nice but not punishing. The Sims is kinda superior on that front. I would know cuz I play the Sims all the time.

 

[Voidian]

I see it as much as a roleplaying game as Doom is.

Just because you're playing a character it doesn't mean it's a game about roleplaying anything, there's far more RP to be done in games like Stellaris than CK3 and cycling though event spam you've read a thousand times to get the same results over and over again isn't related, at all, to a roleplaying experience.

CK3 is a grand strategy game with a double layer of strategy, while you're playing the usual "map game" which is all about borders, and the only way to interact with the game itself is by changing those borders (IE: Warfare) it also has a second layer of strategy, the dynastic part, in which you're also playing a "map game" (sucession lines, muder plots, marriages), trying to expand your borders, except you're doing it within your kingdoms and territories, trying to land and increase the power of your own dynasty while being greatly rewarded for doing so.

 

[peteoj]

You can have both good strategy and roleplay. I never understand why people try to justify the mechanical shallowness of CK3 with “it’s supposed to be for roleplay,” especially when the game rarely gives you a real reason to engage with its roleplay mechanics in meaningful ways. The roleplay systems are there, sure, but the game doesn’t incentivize you to use them in interesting or impactful ways.

Also, let’s clear this up: grand strategy doesn’t mean “world conquest.” It means layered, interlocking systems designed to simulate the complex reality of governing a state. That includes economics, diplomacy, military logistics, internal politics, all of it interconnected and working together. That’s what makes a great grand strategy game. Now imagine CK3 if it actually leaned into that. What if, as a player, you had to seriously weigh the economic consequences of going to war? What if overhauling your military to focus on land forces had long-term budget implications, but a strong navy was still required to get your troops to the Holy Land, forcing you to squeeze money out of estates and nobles, cut deals, and make tough decisions?

Imagine a diet system, where you call your nobles into council to discuss the state of the realm and ask for funding to achieve specific goals. Or mechanics that let you negotiate treaties involving land exchanges, tributes, or marriage alliances with real diplomatic weight. These aren’t just “strategy” systems. They’re immersive roleplay opportunities because they require you to think about how your ruler would navigate complex political realities. You can immerse yourself and roleplay all you want, but it gets to a point where nothing really matters because there’s no mechanical support for it. The AI is inept. Wars are shallow and repetitive. Diplomacy is nonexistent. The economy is surface-level. And there’s no real internal political system to engage with.

The fanbase needs to stop excusing the lack of depth by claiming the game “isn’t trying to be grand strategy” and is instead “focused on roleplay.” It can and should be both. The best roleplay emerges when strategic systems create tension, choices, and consequences. Right now, CK3 is missing that crucial connection.

 

[rasuuru]

I just like to bully AI, do something to AI and see what happens. Map painting becomes boring, and AI is too dumb for roleplay. Right now, I play as immortal, overpowered adventurer seducing everyone I like and killing everyone I don't like. But it's all vanilla. Maybe, I could try some total conversion mod or create my own mod based on stories I used to write years ago.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Whatever Crusader Kings is as a franchise, a map painter for map painting's sake isn't it. It certainly hasn't been since very, very early in CK2's lifecycle. Neither has it been complex and difficult realm management- though admittedly that was only 'relatively' early in the CK2 lifecycle, or however early you consider artifacts and vice royalties to be.

 

[CrazyRat]

Okay, so generally I think I prefer it to RP. If I am totally honest, I don’t think CK3 supports it to the extent that CK2 does. I mean, CK2 had two things that I absolutely loved: Bloodlines, and Great Works.

Now, I will concede that Bloodlines may not have made the most sense, but to me they fulfilled one crucial purpose: they actually nudged me to form some goals aside from ‘paint everything your color’, and they acknowledged how far I have gone afterwards.

To give an example: CK3 has arguably much more Tournament depth than CK2 had Warrior Lodge depth. My issue, however, is that if I dedicated entire life of my Duke to pursuit of Hastiluder proficiency, then – at the end – I could have maxed all the traits track, and achieve godly proficiency… and that’s it. I would probably be the greatest knight of my age, yet the game never deigns to acknowledge that. There is no payoff. Meanwhile, in CK2 I would probably have gone on the Legend quest – and provided that I would have persevered, I would probably ended up with Bloodline. Whether that Bloodline would have done me any good is secondary: but I would have been content that my character would have been remembered.

I could say the same about practically everything: whether it is throwing maximized Grand Activity one after another, ruthlessly sacrificing more prisoners to the gods than anyone else, or doing infamous shit, there is nothing in CK3 meant to give me any payoff for anything. (and I don’t mean some lame bonuses from the Grand Tour, I mean narrative payoff.)

In CK3 the entire payoff is concentrated around the strategy: ‘oh, you are great, you have… (check) become the Greatest of Khans!’ ‘oh, you are great, you have East Roman Empire!’, and so half of the system introduced doesn’t really have that much to offer me.

(also that came off way more rambling than I intended, lol)

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Ck3 is meant to be a gsg with roleplay elements, but no grand strategy is required when you can blob in 50 years, and no roleplaying can happen when people cheat on their soulmates

 

[Benismann]

There is a rising faction of players that defend this snoozefest as a 'story generator'.....but the stories it generates lack context and have no relation to the traits of the characters. That, and it's hard to 'role play' when these traits have little to no weight during the game.

Right now, it's a map painter.

And a very easy map painter at that.
I for the longest time said that RP and strategy dont have to conflict with each other for attention in the current state of ck3. Better internal politics, for example, would naturally make the strategy part more engaging alongside with making RP decisions like, idk, marrying your vassals daughter so they dont revolt, actually grounded in the game state instead of "well they wouldnt rise up, and even if they did i would crush them easily and they certainly wont try to kill me, but i'll PRETEND like they're a threat" and, ideally, add more opportunities for RP decisions if said decisions were added (as they will add more depth and thus, strategy).

All that would also require AI to be better at doing stuff, and i dont think that harms RP in any way too. If anything, having an actual threatening realm or an actual liege that you can't overthrow at a whim sounds like much better RP experience than pretending like that's the case.

 

[guiskj]

I see CK3 as a roleplay game first and foremost, which is why its most important feature "opinion" is extremely underwhelming. The ENTIRE simulation seems like it is built based on how characters view each other, except it doesn't because the Devs never really commit to it. It is undermined time and again, and relegated to a side-stat.

 

[Toleora]

I think CK3 nails both grand strategy and roleplay perfectly—Paradox really outdid themselves! Honestly, I don’t get the complaints about it being shallow or too easy. To me, CK3 is the ultimate hybrid game, blending deep strategy and immersive storytelling better than anything out there.

For the strategy folks, the game’s got everything you need: dynastic plotting, warfare, and managing vassals feel like a medieval chess match. The AI might not be perfect, but it’s challenging enough when you’re juggling alliances and rebellions. The economy and diplomacy systems are streamlined, sure, but that keeps the focus on strategic decisions like marriages or murder plots. I’ve had epic campaigns forging empires that felt like a true grand strategy masterpiece—way smoother than CK2’s clunky mechanics.

As for roleplay, CK3’s story generation is incredible! The events, traits, and opinion system make every character’s life feel alive with drama. Maxing out a tournament track or throwing grand feasts creates unforgettable moments, even if the game doesn’t always spell out the payoff. It’s all about the journey, not just some bloodline reward like in CK2. Compared to something like Stellaris, CK3’s personal stories hit harder with betrayal and ambition—pure medieval magic.

I get that some of you want deeper mechanics, but I think CK3’s balance of strategy and roleplay is spot-on. It’s easily the best Paradox game yet, and I’m hooked on every playthrough.

 

[naq29]

I see it as an alt-history game, where my characters changed history.

 

[JM Tiberius]

For the strategy folks, the game’s got everything you need: dynastic plotting, warfare, and managing vassals feel like a medieval chess match.

The events, traits, and opinion system make every character’s life feel alive with drama ... Compared to something like Stellaris, CK3’s personal stories hit harder with betrayal and ambition—pure medieval magic.

It makes me happy that you and others still enjoy the game like this. I envy you, in fact, but I don't begrudge your enjoyment.

To answer OP's question, I've always seen CK as more of a strategy game like other PDX GSGs. That's not to say I don't role play in those games, though. My favorite runs are the ones where I start small, don't expand until much later, make decisions based on opportunity and circumstance, and focus on diplomacy and economy rather than military. It's fun to watch my nation, my region, grow over time through the choices I've made.

The focus on characters in CK3 makes playing small regions like that (in theory) way more viable! Playing an OPM in EU4 is pretty dull on the management size, and you pretty quickly want to control your state just so you don't die, but in CK3 you can theoretically remain a count forever. Someone made a comment in the forum (might even be this thread?) that they house rule not using their court priest to fabricate claims. I do the same, because I think it's way more interesting to expand in other ways, and creating claims feels like cheating, from a role-play perspective. If my character is ambitious or something like that, I'll think about it. I would like to stay as a count or a duke forever, but damn if this game doesn't just throw titles at me, be it through marriage, elections, deaths. I don't have to try to win, and in fact to remain a smaller player, I MUST NOT BUILD OR USE THE MECHNICS. If I build buildings and use MAAs, I'm already way stronger than anyone else and the HRE electors love me. CK3 just has a strange way of making me not want to use any of the tools they give me, because then I become a superhuman playing with dolls.

I just wish I could feel that magic again.

 

[xking]

I wonder if there's a way to understand the playstyle of most of the userbase when it comes to playing CK3. How many players are playing it like a grand strategy game where the main objective is doing world conquest and defeating other AI realms?

Or do most players actually play it for role-playing reasons, with the option of military expansion? Honestly I never play any CK3 game for the sake of world conquest, as I find that to be boring and pointless.

After my empire grew to certain size, like restoring the Roman Empire, I tend to spend more time just going around role-playing as the emperors and managing the realm many noble families so they become more and more Romanised.

So the "strategy" part of fighting other AI realms only matters to a certain point, and for me my focus is more on roleplaying the management of the realm.

It can be either I guess

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

I like realm building. I want the holdings built up. I want the average development of my realm to be 100. I want every vassal obediently sitting under the primary title I gave them. Every ruler and county must be my correct culture and faith.

If that requires I conquer more land to fit entire de-jure kingdoms into my realm, or with mods conquering the entire world to catch all holy site pokemon, so be it.

 

[tilly]

its a sandbox to play with medieval dolls in. its the sims

or it would be i guess if the whole approach to storytelling wasnt events taking your dolls and forcing them to do whatever, regardless of their traits and circumstance. characters dont act in character, they just arbitrarily take actions because game said so, so theres no reason to care about anything or anyone

its at its most fun when youre shit at it and have no idea whats going on. as soon as you have a basic grasp on the mechanics you have the freedom to pay attention, which it turns out is a mistake. take heart lads, it fails at being a roleplaying game just as much as it fails at being grand strategy, any amount of competence at all and the whole thing immediately crumbles