Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

A RPG campaign: discussion thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
I was thinking about this game and proably the biggest challenge will be to encourage proper roleplay and not just made up exuses for powergaming. Ive come to the conclusion that the best thing would to be to have the GM in a minor power. Every time someone wants to declare war they should inform the GM of why and reasons. The GM should hold the right to refuse if he feels it is bad roleplay(i wouldnt expect this too often though). I think another potential problem would be people accusing each other of bad roleplay or being powergamers. This could be even worse!

I think the key guideline should be that people set roleplay style objectives for themselves. All out war wasnt common in EU times. Limited expeditions should be more common. Also people should certainly more open with their policies. There werent that many 'pearl harbours' back then. In 99percent of wars the demmands would be made at the start. This is not to say they didnt change at the end. Would be nice to see a lot of activity on the forum. Lots of deals and accusations being made.
 
cheech said:
I was thinking about this game and proably the biggest challenge will be to encourage proper roleplay and not just made up exuses for powergaming. Ive come to the conclusion that the best thing would to be to have the GM in a minor power. Every time someone wants to declare war they should inform the GM of why and reasons. The GM should hold the right to refuse if he feels it is bad roleplay(i wouldnt expect this too often though). I think another potential problem would be people accusing each other of bad roleplay or being powergamers. This could be even worse!
Click to expand...

I don't like this... too much control is put on the players.

And like Wyvern, I too think it benefits the game the most if the GM plays an important and central nation himself. FAL will also have a much eaiser time showing people the road of true RP.
 
How about you give exceptional leaders for players when they accept certain missions, as a means to do it or help it along and give random leaders (3-3-3 to 4-4-4 level leaders) for free. Like say I'm France, I take mission of to make Chambers of Reunion, make Rhineland part of France, I would get into my disposal a leader like Turenne.

EDIT: Limiting this only to generals and admirals, while making expos and conqs available with the bidding system described earlier in the thread.
 
I don't like this... too much control is put on the players.
Click to expand...

On second thoughts your right. It is too much control....
 
cheech said:
I think the key guideline should be that people set roleplay style objectives for themselves. All out war wasnt common in EU times. Limited expeditions should be more common. Also people should certainly more open with their policies. There werent that many 'pearl harbours' back then. In 99percent of wars the demmands would be made at the start. This is not to say they didnt change at the end. Would be nice to see a lot of activity on the forum. Lots of deals and accusations being made.
Click to expand...

A few points I definitelly agree with:
- set and in more or less detailes announced RP objectives
- less all out wars, more limited wars: wait for your turn for 1:1 or some "fair" odds, countries were net all the time ready to join wars
- no surprise attacks, goals should be pretty clear from the forum diplomacy as well as which are friendly countries and which are enemies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back