Character-based gameplay in a non-Feudal setting – how would this work?

[icedt729]

There are a several reasons why the feudal setting works as well as it does, in ways that other settings can't fit.

For one, everyone at every level relies on the same basic resource: holdings. Counts, Dukes and Kings can be stacked up on top of each other, but all have at least one holding to their name allowing for more-or-less full playability across feudal ranks and government types.

Two, families allow you to groom your potential successors literally from birth. This allows for richer, less random-feeling characters than what you get in, say, Stellaris. By extension, the family politics this allows for its arguably the best aspect of Crusader Kings.

Three, relative stability. The same titles will stay in the hands of the same families unless something happens to drive them off of them (say, a Holy War). The same couldn't be said for a bureaucratic system, in which even the great families will sometimes go generations without office-holding and a successful career likely means holding different kinds of posts all across the empire, not staying near a personal demesne.

The feudal setting allows you to play a line of characters that you have a real role in shaping, holding titles for many generations, giving you an incentive to invest in demesne improvements, favorable laws, etc. Without those elements in place you need a different set of resources and motivations.

 

[Avian Overlord]

There are a several reasons why the feudal setting works as well as it does, in ways that other settings can't fit.

For one, everyone at every level relies on the same basic resource: holdings. Counts, Dukes and Kings can be stacked up on top of each other, but all have at least one holding to their name allowing for more-or-less full playability across feudal ranks and government types.

Two, families allow you to groom your potential successors literally from birth. This allows for richer, less random-feeling characters than what you get in, say, Stellaris. By extension, the family politics this allows for its arguably the best aspect of Crusader Kings.

Three, relative stability. The same titles will stay in the hands of the same families unless something happens to drive them off of them (say, a Holy War). The same couldn't be said for a bureaucratic system, in which even the great families will sometimes go generations without office-holding and a successful career likely means holding different kinds of posts all across the empire, not staying near a personal demesne.

The feudal setting allows you to play a line of characters that you have a real role in shaping, holding titles for many generations, giving you an incentive to invest in demesne improvements, favorable laws, etc. Without those elements in place you need a different set of resources and motivations.

And even CK2 bends towards the personal more than the real period did. Look at how the clergy are massively demphasized as power players in Europe, and even moreso everywhere else, where they don't even own land.

 

[gja102]

There are a several reasons why the feudal setting works as well as it does, in ways that other settings can't fit.

For one, everyone at every level relies on the same basic resource: holdings. Counts, Dukes and Kings can be stacked up on top of each other, but all have at least one holding to their name allowing for more-or-less full playability across feudal ranks and government types.

You raise some really good points. I would say though, that I don't think holdings are strictly necessary to the character system. I agree that they simplify it, because every holding is a self-contained little powerbase that provides varying amounts of the essential resources of CK (cash, troops, influence). If you transplanted this to a modern / future setting you would have Victoria-style Factory holdings generating the cash (these could be family-owned, corporate or state-run, depending on the society), military infrastructure providing the troops, and political appointments in each province determining influence. It'd take a bit of abstraction, sure, but I do still think it would be possible.

The same titles will stay in the hands of the same families unless something happens to drive them off of them (say, a Holy War). The same couldn't be said for a bureaucratic system, in which even the great families will sometimes go generations without office-holding and a successful career likely means holding different kinds of posts all across the empire, not staying near a personal demesne.

The feudal setting allows you to play a line of characters that you have a real role in shaping, holding titles for many generations, giving you an incentive to invest in demesne improvements, favorable laws, etc. Without those elements in place you need a different set of resources and motivations.

I think this is the crux of the problem - something needs to replace the concept of the personal demesne, for playing the 'builder' game across the centuries.

CK2's The Republic does try to address this with the Family Palace - an off-map representation of your presence in the Capitol, that you can add to over the generations. It's not a bad abstraction of an oligarch's powerbase, and the mechanics could be tweaked to fit other settings.

Oligarchs could also build up the reputation / abilities of the family business or corporation they're linked to, to give some sense of progress through the generations. I realise this is a little intangible, but politically active characters could also contribute to the attributes of a particular ideology (CK2 is introducing the ability to found and customise religions, so perhaps founding a Personality Cult in a more modern environment could work in a similar way).

One final idea, a really far-future setting could use large spaceships as a unit of transferable power, on the assumption that these investments would be upgraded year-on-year, rather than scrapped. Their captaincy represents influence as well as military might, and the capital ships themselves could develop character over time with the various events / upgrades they'd get to customize them.

 

[General WVPM]

You raise some really good points. I would say though, that I don't think holdings are strictly necessary to the character system. I agree that they simplify it, because every holding is a self-contained little powerbase that provides varying amounts of the essential resources of CK (cash, troops, influence). If you transplanted this to a modern / future setting you would have Victoria-style Factory holdings generating the cash (these could be family-owned, corporate or state-run, depending on the society), military infrastructure providing the troops, and political appointments in each province determining influence. It'd take a bit of abstraction, sure, but I do still think it would be possible.



I think this is the crux of the problem - something needs to replace the concept of the personal demesne, for playing the 'builder' game across the centuries.

CK2's The Republic does try to address this with the Family Palace - an off-map representation of your presence in the Capitol, that you can add to over the generations. It's not a bad abstraction of an oligarch's powerbase, and the mechanics could be tweaked to fit other settings.

Oligarchs could also build up the reputation / abilities of the family business or corporation they're linked to, to give some sense of progress through the generations. I realise this is a little intangible, but politically active characters could also contribute to the attributes of a particular ideology (CK2 is introducing the ability to found and customise religions, so perhaps founding a Personality Cult in a more modern environment could work in a similar way).

One final idea, a really far-future setting could use large spaceships as a unit of transferable power, on the assumption that these investments would be upgraded year-on-year, rather than scrapped. Their captaincy represents influence as well as military might, and the capital ships themselves could develop character over time with the various events / upgrades they'd get to customize them.

Try the Sims (4), it seems to match all your requirements apart from military stuff. It even has cults.

 

[Susanna]

And it's the worst Sims game ever made.

 

[Milten]

CK2's The Republic does try to address this with the Family Palace - an off-map representation of your presence in the Capitol, that you can add to over the generations. It's not a bad abstraction of an oligarch's powerbase, and the mechanics could be tweaked to fit other settings.

Oligarchs could also build up the reputation / abilities of the family business or corporation they're linked to, to give some sense of progress through the generations. I realise this is a little intangible, but politically active characters could also contribute to the attributes of a particular ideology (CK2 is introducing the ability to found and customise religions, so perhaps founding a Personality Cult in a more modern environment could work in a similar way).

Given the setting it would be something immaterial, instead of wine cellars there could be various corporate/'corporate' practices, improving various aspects the company/family.

"Automatized audit" to decrease theft. "Charity traditions" to improve public opinion gain. And so on.

 

[Greene]

Maybe take a look at Rome 2’s political system. I imagine Imperator would look somewhat along those lines, with characters from different political factions fighting for senate offices. Obviously I expect a much deeper system in Imperator.

 

[Powerslave]

Interesting thoughts. I think characters are great, it's usually individuals or groups of individuals that have specific motivations to make things happen. I love this kind of games, however I don't think that player generally have to play a specific character or dynasty in the game. EU: Rome for example where you as a player play a nation have characters that have (limited) motivations and that alone makes that game fun as you are trying to balance your nations wellbeing and your own plans against important characters wishes. I suspect Imperator will be even more so, or atleast hope that it will be.

 

[Sininu]

(i came from the World of Darkness thread, and stumbled on this one, and therefore want to give my two cent, be aware, this is going to be a long post )

For a character based gameplay I would say keep the focus on the character, and therefore evolving their skills. (With vampires, werewolves and witches) you kind of 'dodge' the problem of mortality, since they can all 3 occasionally be very long lived. Now that said, this would be more of a "reward" but not necessarily the main objective:

Family/commune, while your character is long lived you'll still need to live somewhere, being able to buy a holding and take control of part of a city is part of what I think could make this game interesting.

Werewolves - tribes/septs, can start out outside of the city, but they can still vie for control of the city like any of the people, but they'll also be able to progress upwards in their own clan.

Vampires - Have their bloodline (house) but can also be fighting to raise their position in the vampire society, getting to the position of harpy and even prince (though this is separated from the city council)

Witches - Have their circles, though their community is less known from the get go and less of a straight path, compared to vampires and werewolves (in how they ascend in the hierarchy) witches can band together and communes of sorts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Scene

I would suggest putting it in a city/country could be all the same, though making the city a self-ruling government which opens up the play for political power from the different families. Having the different organisations control different part of the city etc. We'll then have the hierarchies within their respective "groups" and then a hierarchy when it comes to political power. Political power will be able to grand benefits as well as controlling important groups of humans (the police for example).

The government:

The government will cycle through: Democracy <-> Monarchy <-> Aristocracy <-> Democracy....etc.
So when there's no definitive leader pr. say or they don't have a lot of control, the government will act like a democracy. If there's 1 person who gains enough control he/she can be voted into an absolute power and become a monarch/dictator, abolishing the democracy (think what palpatine did). The monarch might then loose the support of his key players (influential figures who might be in control of the police, treasury etc.) who can then siege control of the government and it'll become an aristocracy etc.

The Conflict:
Vampires want control over the city and its population (blood) and be rid of opposition.
Sorceresses want to increase their magical abilities, and stop vampires from turning innocents (and themselves so they'll loose their abilities)
Werewolves want to keep a balance with nature, stopping both vampires and sorceresses from becoming too strong, which means stopping them before it's too late.

All 3 can improve their abilities, their holdings (which could generate an income) or unite and take control over parts of the city. (Think somewhat like the Originals)

Then there's also the "getting people to elect you into government" which will be possible with democracies, controlling parts of the city/commerce will give you a part to say with aristocracies and monarchies. If vampires for example get into the government, they could make the police stand down, and then slaughter the suspected "sorcerers", which is one of the powers that comes with controlling the government (so basically late game) there could be other ways of doing it, etc. But hopefully some of this sounds like it could be fun.

There's also the problem of daylight, if it needs to be in constant darkness, which I think would be fine tbh. I don't think the game will need "years" to go by, because it's the diplomatic intrigue that's supposed to be interesting, the control of territories, other groups/bloodlines/convents etc. But there also need to be somewhat of a stealth element to it, not knowing who's human, werewolf or vampire.

One could even add humans to the count, to spice it up, but you get my point. (What's to stop vampires from slaughtering every human player) <- the masquerade, werewolves won't start inside the city, so they'll mostly be doing the rite of passage and such, surviving I imagine in the first part of the game. And sorcerers/witches won't be strong enough to take down a vampire at the start of the game. Hopefully that would balance out the fighting.

Sorry, I'm going off a bit on a tangent, but that's my idea anyway for a character-based gameplay which still empathizes the elements I find some of the more fun (diplomacy etc.) in CK2 games etc.