This thread is about testing the water for a new historical role playing game I am going to start after Throne of Heaven 2 has finished (probably after three weeks from now).
I want to see if there is any interest for it, if I can catch a good host for it (quite important) and above all, what you think about my ideas. I hope there is a good amount of people who would like to participate in a historical roleplaying game as I envision it.
The goal is to have a game with the focus on historical role playing, but with freedom for every country to act as it wants. So, it is all about trying to create a nice historical feeling for everyone, without having a forced historical path with determined outcomes.
To realise this, players which act in a good historical role playing manner get rewards.
Where this game is about
Some hints were this historical rpg game should be about:
So, how will this campaign differ from most regular campaigns?
The cornerstone of my campaign will be the missions.
Missions
After each session, every country will receive a global mission for the next session. Those missions will be based upon history if possible and otherwise about the in game situation.
Countries are free to accept these missions or not.
If they do accept a mission, they will get a reward after the attempt of completing it. It is not about succeeding, but about making a good attempt. The goal of the missions is to get players to behave more historical, even if it would mean their country gets slightly weakened by it.
Examples of missions
Example 1: Spain gets the mission to send an Armada to England, with the goal to land Farnese there and force convert England to the Catholic religion.
A difficult one, but it is the effort that counts, not success (though I expect you to make a good effort of course).
Example 2: The Ottomans get the mission to take Vienna next session. (controlling the province of Vienna).
If at least some countries accept such missions, it will lead to a more historical game flow.
The rewards will be based upon what the mission is about. It can be receiving an extra culture, free conversions, deflation or perhaps a manufactory.
But it is not only about accepting missions, it is about roleplaying in general.
Roleplaying behaviour as I would like to see it
I expect you to act as a monarch of your country would do at the time. It will probably mean you have to do a little research about your country to get used to it's history and why their history was like that.
Good roleplaying does not necessary mean you have to act historically. It means you behave like your country would probably do. However, I do expect everyone to avoid playing with hindsight.
So, with Spain you are not going to prevent a bankruptcy event if you have conquered the gold mines. You simply cannot know it will occur.
Don’t choose an event option because it will grant you a cookie later, choose the event option which makes the most sense for your monarch at that time.
It is difficult, but it can be done. Especially if you as a player don’t expect to let your country prosper all the time.
Everyone defines roleplaying differently, and the only thing that every player can agree on is that while he personally is doing great at roleplaying, making decisions based on the actual situation and such as his monarch really would like to act, while his enemies - particularly when they pursue succesful strategies - are not.
For this game you need to be flexible with other’s persons roleplaying behaviour. Of course, you can point out why the behaviour of a player isn’t exactly good roleplay, but try to prevent pointing fingers to others. Save the whining for when you see really anti-roleplaying behaviour. And you can then expect the GM to interverne.
Try to roleplay well yourself, even if you suspect others of just powergaming.
Example:
Austria and Ottoman Empire should be locked in deadly struggle over the balkans. Currently, game-wise, there is *no* incentive to do so for either country. It is a relatively poor area and it's expensive to convert once the other party has done its conversions. It is extremely convenient for both parties to just divide it between them and go about their more lucrative business elsewhere.
Good for the respective countries? Yes.
Good for the game? No.
The latter should be the deciding one.
It is about leading your nation to it’s destiny. Not about constantly making the best powergaming options for your country.
Play out the role of a nation following historical imperatives, whether or not it makes sense in the ongoing game.
More examples:
AARs
Players are also encouraged to write an AAR, or at least a small summary of what happened with their country.
A small AAR reward you with a small bonus. A big AAR rewards you with a bigger bonus.
It is not required to write an AAR, only encouraged, to improve the feel of the game. Write AARs when you feel like it. Not because you feel forced to do so.
Futhermore, I believe it is only the content of the AAR and not the length of it that counts. Spelling/grammar does not matter much either. Not everyone is very good at English.
It is also encouraged that players talk in character with each other.
Leaders
There will be the normal historical leaders, but with a small addition:
Every country will in addition to the historical leaders start the campaign with a 3-3-3 admiral and general. Each session this extra leader will be edited based upon the military tradition of that country.
I believe King John and Frederick have used something similar in their games as well, but they do it with random leaders. My idea is to use a set leader for it.
Basically it means your extra leader will come back next session a little stronger if you have fought (and won) wars with your country. In this way, countries which lack historical leaders like Portugal, will get them if they are military effective. And not only if they are lucky.
Countries who only concentrate on the economies will lack a good extra leader. Though they still will reap the benefits of their historical leaders.
A session without wars would mean the stats of the extra leader get lowered. All in all, this can mean that countries who fight wars every session get a very strong leader in the end. This rewards waging wars as well.
There will be of course a maximum to the stats of a leader. I am thinking about a maximum of 5/5/5.
Thoughts, opinions?
I want to see if there is any interest for it, if I can catch a good host for it (quite important) and above all, what you think about my ideas. I hope there is a good amount of people who would like to participate in a historical roleplaying game as I envision it.
The goal is to have a game with the focus on historical role playing, but with freedom for every country to act as it wants. So, it is all about trying to create a nice historical feeling for everyone, without having a forced historical path with determined outcomes.
To realise this, players which act in a good historical role playing manner get rewards.
Where this game is about
Some hints were this historical rpg game should be about:
- England, France, Holland, and Spain fighting for dominance over the Caribbean
- England and France (and perhaps Holland) fighting for dominance over North America
- Spain trying to fight heretics and infidels everywhere, especially in the first century of the game
- The Ottomans fighting with Austria over the balkan
- More colonial warfare, more wars in general, but with historical sense. (If you are a catholic Poland, you are not going to gangbang Austria with the Ottoman Empire without a very good reason to do so.)
- Mature players, who appear on time and help the game to improve. If you are a powergamer who can only think about making choices good for your nation then this game is probably not for you.
So, how will this campaign differ from most regular campaigns?
The cornerstone of my campaign will be the missions.
Missions
After each session, every country will receive a global mission for the next session. Those missions will be based upon history if possible and otherwise about the in game situation.
Countries are free to accept these missions or not.
If they do accept a mission, they will get a reward after the attempt of completing it. It is not about succeeding, but about making a good attempt. The goal of the missions is to get players to behave more historical, even if it would mean their country gets slightly weakened by it.
Examples of missions
Example 1: Spain gets the mission to send an Armada to England, with the goal to land Farnese there and force convert England to the Catholic religion.
A difficult one, but it is the effort that counts, not success (though I expect you to make a good effort of course).
Example 2: The Ottomans get the mission to take Vienna next session. (controlling the province of Vienna).
If at least some countries accept such missions, it will lead to a more historical game flow.
The rewards will be based upon what the mission is about. It can be receiving an extra culture, free conversions, deflation or perhaps a manufactory.
But it is not only about accepting missions, it is about roleplaying in general.
Roleplaying behaviour as I would like to see it
I expect you to act as a monarch of your country would do at the time. It will probably mean you have to do a little research about your country to get used to it's history and why their history was like that.
Good roleplaying does not necessary mean you have to act historically. It means you behave like your country would probably do. However, I do expect everyone to avoid playing with hindsight.
So, with Spain you are not going to prevent a bankruptcy event if you have conquered the gold mines. You simply cannot know it will occur.
Don’t choose an event option because it will grant you a cookie later, choose the event option which makes the most sense for your monarch at that time.
It is difficult, but it can be done. Especially if you as a player don’t expect to let your country prosper all the time.
Everyone defines roleplaying differently, and the only thing that every player can agree on is that while he personally is doing great at roleplaying, making decisions based on the actual situation and such as his monarch really would like to act, while his enemies - particularly when they pursue succesful strategies - are not.
For this game you need to be flexible with other’s persons roleplaying behaviour. Of course, you can point out why the behaviour of a player isn’t exactly good roleplay, but try to prevent pointing fingers to others. Save the whining for when you see really anti-roleplaying behaviour. And you can then expect the GM to interverne.
Try to roleplay well yourself, even if you suspect others of just powergaming.
Example:
Austria and Ottoman Empire should be locked in deadly struggle over the balkans. Currently, game-wise, there is *no* incentive to do so for either country. It is a relatively poor area and it's expensive to convert once the other party has done its conversions. It is extremely convenient for both parties to just divide it between them and go about their more lucrative business elsewhere.
Good for the respective countries? Yes.
Good for the game? No.
The latter should be the deciding one.
It is about leading your nation to it’s destiny. Not about constantly making the best powergaming options for your country.
Play out the role of a nation following historical imperatives, whether or not it makes sense in the ongoing game.
More examples:
- I am the king of my country and I decide what motivates me: Which nation do I hate? Who has backstabbed me in the past? I shall serve them revenge with cold steel!
- Someone wants a province from me because it is his ‘core’? Bah! My forefathers conquered it and it is now rightfully mine!
- Why should I give up this province to that country because someone claims that in the future it will give him a good ‘event’? It is my province.
- Making a deal with you? Hell no, you are an infidel and I am a staunch catholic defender of the faith!
- Why would I want to send money to you? Game balance you say? What is that? You mean nothing for my country.
AARs
Players are also encouraged to write an AAR, or at least a small summary of what happened with their country.
A small AAR reward you with a small bonus. A big AAR rewards you with a bigger bonus.
It is not required to write an AAR, only encouraged, to improve the feel of the game. Write AARs when you feel like it. Not because you feel forced to do so.
Futhermore, I believe it is only the content of the AAR and not the length of it that counts. Spelling/grammar does not matter much either. Not everyone is very good at English.
It is also encouraged that players talk in character with each other.
Leaders
There will be the normal historical leaders, but with a small addition:
Every country will in addition to the historical leaders start the campaign with a 3-3-3 admiral and general. Each session this extra leader will be edited based upon the military tradition of that country.
I believe King John and Frederick have used something similar in their games as well, but they do it with random leaders. My idea is to use a set leader for it.
Basically it means your extra leader will come back next session a little stronger if you have fought (and won) wars with your country. In this way, countries which lack historical leaders like Portugal, will get them if they are military effective. And not only if they are lucky.
Countries who only concentrate on the economies will lack a good extra leader. Though they still will reap the benefits of their historical leaders.
A session without wars would mean the stats of the extra leader get lowered. All in all, this can mean that countries who fight wars every session get a very strong leader in the end. This rewards waging wars as well.
There will be of course a maximum to the stats of a leader. I am thinking about a maximum of 5/5/5.
Thoughts, opinions?
Last edited:
