The Campaign Builder's Guild

[note]The inspirations for this PbP game are, in order: Republic Reborn (http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,210146.msg229159.html), Civilization, and Crusader Kings II.[/note]
Welcome to the world of Arduenne.
Far from the reach of the great kingdoms and empires, nestled in the rich lands just north of the Tazian Sea, a vast patchwork of microstates – baronies, republics, democracies, and more – people the inlets and valleys of the so-called Kingless Countries.  You are one ruler among many, and your goal – through politics, diplomacy, and, if need be, pure force – is to ensure the longevity of your realm.

Master your realm
Whether you are the consul of a republic or the prince-elect of a constitutional monarchy, you are the master of your domain.  Your power balances on five factors – capital, authority, popularity, loyalty, and succession.  As the years go by, your goal is to consolidate your power and groom your heir.  You will be faced with a number of challenges, both from other players and the numerous non-player polities, and must navigate the complex intrigues and politics of the world of Arduenne.

Build alliances
Players are not obligated to cooperate, but it is highly recommended – the Kingless Countries are a treacherous place, and it is better to have more allies than enemies.  Although the Kingless Countries are renowned for their fierce independence, their strategic importance and relative wealth subject them to frequent invasions by foreign powers.  By building strategic pacts with both player and non-player powers, players increase their chances for survival.  

Make your fortune
Your realm is replete with natural resources, and your people are inclined to certain trades and profession.  You exert influence based upon the strength of your trade policies, the size of your private wealth, and the value of your realm's natural resources.  By regulating trade and enforcing tax laws, you can enhance your realm's economic power.  

Command your troops
Warfare in KINGLESS COUNTRIES can be highly perilous, but it can also be highly rewarding.  A wise commander knows when to wage war, and to what end.  Devise strategic goals and trust in the fates, or focus your resources on garrisoning your homestead.  Conquer the weak, invade your enemies, or defend your people – your ambition and your luck are your only limits.  

Behind the numbers
There are six values, known as Power Scores, that represent your character's prestige and influence.  These abilities are described in detail below.

Capital (Cap)
Your economic power is represented by Capital.  When trade is good and your investments are profitable, your Capital score increases.  When your government runs high deficits or large expenditures are required, Capital may decline.  Capital can be used to buy and improve sources of income, to hire mercenaries and other courtiers, to build monuments and fortifications, and to fund social programs.  

Authority (Auth)
The abstract legislative, executive, and judicial powers wielded by a ruler are represented by Authority.  This score represents both the formal and informal control that a ruler has over their realm.  Rulers in less representative forms of government, such as autocracy, possess more inherent Authority over their realm, but other regimes may build authority over time.   Authority, along with Loyalty, is one of the two ability scores that determine the size of a ruler's military; a ruler's Authority determines the maximum number of brigades a ruler may raise.

Popularity (Pop)
The will of the common people should not be underestimated, and it is represented by Popularity.  A happy and well-fed population will rally behind its ruler in times of crisis, while a disliked ruler may find his realm subject to rioting and violence when times get tough.  The love of the people is a fickle thing, however, and Popularity is closely tied to the military and political success of the realm as a whole.  

Loyalty (Loy)
While Popularity measures the happiness of the people, Loyalty represents the satisfaction of society's elites, particularly landowners and the military.  A ruler who inspires Loyalty will find himself surrounded by able ministers and ample soldiers, while a ruler with a low Loyalty score will be unable to raise armies without resorting to mercenary or tyrannical practices.  Loyalty is one of two Power Scores that determine the size of a ruler's military, as it determines the maximum number of units within a ruler's brigades.

Succession (Suc)
Rulers come and go, and realms rise and fall.  To be truly successful, a ruler must be able pass down power to a designated successor.  In KINGLESS COUNTRIES, the ability of a ruler to pass down his power to a chosen person is represented by Succession.  When a ruler's reign comes to an end, either voluntarily, by political or military means, or by natural causes, a player may make a Succession Bid to continue playing.  The longer a ruler grooms a designated heir and the higher the Succession score, the greater the chance the player will be able to stay in the game.

How to play
[Note]This is a new system.  By participating as a player, you agree and understand that the game is in an "alpha testing" mode, and you are effectively a playtester.  Rules may be changed or tweaked as appropriate to fix game balance issues.  I will, of course, try to keep this to a minimum.[/note]
KINGLESS COUNTRIES is a multiplayer play-by-post experience.  Each "round" of the game represents a season of in-world time, and four seasons constitute a year.  Each season is divided into three phases: the Action Phase, the Order Phase, and the Event Phase.  

During the Statement Phase, players are free to roleplay their characters through statements, for example, speeches, letters, and proposing new laws.  During this time, other players are free to react to events their characters would reasonably be privy to (subject to Game Master approval).  As in similar games (such as Republic Reborn), this phase is the heart of the game and, frankly, one of the most fun.

As the inimitable Polycarp said in Republic Reborn:

[ooc=Polycarp]Statements, to me, are the heart of this game.  Statements are how you bring your character to life, and how you interact with other players in the game.  I encourage you to be creative and expressive, and to make as many statements as you feel like making.  The more a character says, the more we learn about that character, and the more colorful the game is.

Statements can have an impact on your orders.  You can say that your character is going to raise a mob in your orders, but if you give us a stirring in-character speech intended to raise a mob, it might help your chances of success.  Don't worry if you don't think you're a great writer; it's the creativity and effort that matter to me, not your technical writing skill.

You can also use statements to give us stories, vignettes, descriptions, flavor text, and so on if you feel so inclined – I always welcome creative prose.  I may even try and find a way to use it in a future update.  To distinguish prose from actual things your character says and writes, please put it in italics.

Source: Republic Reborn (http://www.thecbg.org/index.php/topic,210146.msg229159.html#msg229159) thread.  [/ooc]


The Game Master may also choose to interact with the players during the Statement Phase, and may even pose specific questions or problems for the player to solve via letters, petitions, or in-character conversations.  

During the Order Phase, players put their realms into motion by issuing commands, finalizing policies, and making financial decisions.  This is the phase where players post their ruler's intended course of action for the remainder of the season.  The more care that the player puts into their Orders, and the closer those Orders match the Prestige available to the player, the greater the likelihood of success.  Warfare, in particular, is instigated in the Order Phase, and a detailed outline of strategic goals may enhance a player's likelihood of success.  (See Warfare section below.)

Finally, during the Event Phase, the Game Master processes the player's Statements and Orders and determines their success.  If a particularly urgent crisis or occasion arises during the season, the Game Master may also create a Special Event, which serves as a micro-round, where a player's Statements and Orders will heavily influence in the outcome of the event.

Getting started
Once I've finished posting the setting background and rules (over the next couple of days) and the number of interested players is established, I will post a blank map with pre-determined political subdivisions.  Players will then choose their territories (the order will be randomly rolled), without knowing what natural resources the territory possesses..  This is to prevent players at the top of the order from automatically selecting, say, a territory with gold deposits.  Each territory will have resources known to its inhabitants, but they will all also have an unknown resource that your ruler may discover during the course of the game.

The next step will be choosing your starting government type.

More on this as the number of players becomes clearer.

Warfare
Warfare in KINGLESS COUNTRIES can either be Player-vs-Player (PvP) or Player-vs-Enemy (PvE).  During a ruler's Order phase, a player may Levy, Hire, or Conscript an army (More on how these mechanics will function will be added later).  They may also Deploy or Marshal existing forces, or order a Retreat or Surrender if necessary.  A ruler may then Disband his brigades, or keep a Standing Army.

Forces are broken into Brigades and Units.   A ruler's maximum number of Brigades are determined by its Authority score, while the maximum number of Units is determined by Loyalty.  Regardless of a ruler's Loyalty score, a Brigade can never have more than 10 units.

To engage in combat, a ruler must devise a Strategy.  This Strategy is a specific Order that outlines what goals the military action is intending to accomplish, and how the ruler intends to accomplish them.  

[note]There are a lot of numbers in this section.  This is all handled in an Excel spreadsheet, which I will run and then post the results of with season updates.   I will also interpret the results based on a player's Order Phase and strategic goals, and provide a narrative of how the season's campaign occurred.  If warranted, a Special Event might also be created to give the player a chance to effect the outcome.  

Realistic combat is not the goal of this game and the combat mechanic is heavily streamlined.  Think of it as the board game Risk combat on steroids (and a tad bit less unfair)– thousands of d6 dice are rolled, but a wildcard Tactical Conditions Roll gives smaller armies a chance of achieving smaller victories against overwhelming odds.[/note]

Battle Score
A ruler's Battle Score is determined through the following formula:

([# of Brigades] x [# of Units])d6 x (Tactical Conditions Roll [(1d20/10)+1]), rounded to the nearest whole integer.

Example:  Roland raises 6 brigades of 6 units each (6b6u).  6 x 6 = 36, so Roland rolls 36d6.  

We'll say for the sake of example he rolled a 2 on every roll, totaling 72.  He then rolls a 3 on his Tactical Conditions Roll, indicating he has a relatively low tactical advantage.  3/10 = .3, +1 is 1.3.  Roland then multiples 72 by 1.3, for a total Combat Score of 94.

The two combatants' Battle Scores are then compared to determine the victory.  Depending on the margin of difference between the Battle Scores, one of the following results is possible:

Strategic Victory
Margin: 1000+
Result:  Absolute defeat of enemy forces, resulting in surrender or destruction of enemy forces.  Conclusion of campaign with extremely favorable result to victor.  Potential degradation of enemy's ability to wage war.  ++Auth, ++Loy.

Decisive Victory
Margin: 750 to 999
Result:  Likely conclusion of campaign, or at least major turning point, with favorable terms proposed to victor.   The enemy must retreat from the territory.  +Auth, ++Loy.

Major Victory
Margin:  500 to 749
Result:  Strong boost to morale and possible offer of settlement.  The enemy may retreat from the territory.  +Auth, +Loy.

Minor Victory
Margin: 250 to 499
Result:  Infliction of damage to opponent's forces.  The enemy may choose to retreat from the territory.  +Loy.

Stalemate
Margin: -249 to 249
Result: An inconclusive season of campaigning, with neither side gaining ground.

Minor Defeat
Margin: -250 to -499
Result:  A loss of troops and morale.  -Loy

Major Defeat
Margin: -500 to -749
Result:  The foe inflicts severe damage to your army.  -Auth, -Loy.

Decisive Defeat
Margin: -750 to -999
Result:  The enemy has severely reduced your military capacity.  --Auth, --Loy.
Crushing Defeat
Margin: -1000+
Result:  The bulk of your army has been destroyed.  Your remaining forces have all but deserted you.  ---Auth, ---Loy.

Occupation
When a ruler repels an enemy force from a territory that is not their own (either through a Decisive Victory or Strategic Victory), that ruler's army may then attempt to Occupy the territory.  Occupation requires at least 1 Brigade to remain in the territory.  An Occupying Force is treated as a garrison, but is not granted a homestead advantage.  A ruler may also attempt to Annex an Occupied territory (see "Annexation" below).

Annexation
A ruler may Annex an occupied territory.  Annexation increases the ruler's Authority by 5 points.  After 4 seasons, the Annexation is considered successful if no further battles occur within the territory (either due to outside invaders or an uprising/revolution event).  A battle in the Annexed territory restarts the 4-season Annexation period.  At the conclusion of the Event Phase of the fourth season after an Annexation, the territory becomes part of the occupying ruler's realm and the ruler receives any benefit or penalty from its resources, industries, and improvements.

Costs
There is a resource cost of 1 Capital per 5 Brigades for every season the Brigade is formed and outside the ruler's territory (a territory being Annexed is considered an outside territory for calculating the resource cost).  Brigades within a ruler's territory, even those fighting defensive campaigns, do not incur this cost. This cost may increase in periods of famine or when supply lines become difficult to maintain.

Brigades may move through up to 2 territories per season.  If every territory is connected via roads, Brigades may move up to 4 territories per season.

Base stats by government type (More on this later)
Autocracy
Base stats:
Capital: 4
Authority: 7
Popularity: -3
Loyalty: 5
Succession: -1
Sample titles:  Princess/Prince, Duchess/Duke, Dictatrix/Dictator, Autokrata/Autokrator, Lady/Lord, Consul, General, Colonel, Majordomo

When supreme power is wielded solely by the ruler, the resultant government is an Autocracy.  Many autocracies bear the trappings of other governments, such as a monarchy or republic, but this is nothing more than a façade; in truth, the realm and ruler are indistinguishable from one another.

A ruler of an autocracy is known as an autocrat.  Autocrats are not typically beloved by their people, and an autocrat must work especially hard to curry the favor of the populace.  Since autocrats are among the most tyrannical of governments, there is a high risk of civil unrest in a realm with such a government.  Often, this creates a vicious cycle of violence, as autocrats must continually suppress their dissidents, which inevitably creates further dissatisfaction, spawning more dissidents.  Autocrats often rule through sheer force, employing brutal military tactics to keep their subjects in line.

Because ultimate decision-making power rests with the ruler, an autocracy can respond more rapidly than other governments to a crisis that directly affects the ruler's interests.  The government is largely inefficient, however, and fails to address the concerns of those who do not benefit directly from the ruler's patronage.  Advisors are often sycophants, too afraid to give earnest counsel for fear of offending their benefactor.

Constitutional Monarchy
Base stats:
Capital: 3
Authority: 5
Popularity: 1
Loyalty: 5
Succession:  4
Sample titles:  Princess/Prince, Duchess/Duke, Countess/Count, Baroness/Baron, Lady/Lord

A Constitutional Monarchy is a realm government that vests many important functions in a single ruler, called the monarch.  Unlike an Autocracy, however, a ruler in a Constitutional Monarchy does not rule alone, with a division of power between the ruler and his social subordinates.

The most common division of power is that the ruler retains certain judicial and executive functions, while the minor nobility exercises a legislative franchise.  The nobility will likely form a body, sometimes called a parliament, congress, council, court, chamber, or chancery, which seeks to advise the monarch on legislative matters.  A ruler with greater authority and loyalty may find that the legislature acts primarily as an extension of her or his will; however, a deeply disliked ruler may find that resistance among the privileged class is high for even uncontroversial proposals.  

Importantly, a Constitutional Monarchy is distinguishable from an Elective Monarchy in that a Constitutional Monarchy's rulers are self-selected by a predetermined method, such as primogeniture hereditary succession (the first born son inherits the throne).  Elective Monarchy requires the affirmation of the aristocracy for a ruler to succeed, tying that ruler's base of power much more closely to the nobility.  

The extent to which the constitutional arrangement addresses the interests of commoners can greatly affect the popularity of the regime.  

Elective Monarchy
Capital: 3
Authority: 4
Loyalty: 4
Popularity: 2
Succession: 0



Plutocracy
Capital: 6
Authority: 2
Popularity: -2
Loyalty: 1
Succession: 3

Although many rulers are rich, a Plutocrat rules through wealth, and the regime's primary purpose is to advance the interests of the wealthy few.  This extreme concentration of power in the hands of rich elites is highly unpopular, as it has a reputation for breeding corruption, abuse, and mismanagement.  Nevertheless, Plutocracies exist for a reason, as power and money often go hand-in-hand.

Plutocracies rarely proclaim themselves openly, as a monarch or republican official might.  Typically, a successful Plutocracy requires the edifice of a different regime, and may bear all the trappings of a different government form (such as Constitutional Monarchy or Republic).  This illusion exists largely as a legal pretext, however, and both the nominal rulers and citizens of a Plutocracy are fully aware of how much power is held, albeit unofficially, by the Plutocrats.  

A Plutocrat may avoid titles altogether, or may accept an indirect, ceremonial title, such as "Matron of the Republic," "Guardian of the People," or "Custodian of the Realm."  Regardless, the Plutocrat exercises a high degree of control over nearly every aspect of government, so long as they maintain their wealth and prestige.

Democracy
Capital: 1
Authority: 1
Popularity: 5
Loyalty: 6
Succession: -3

Democracy, known as "rule of the people," permits the widest franchise of government types - every citizen is given a voice in how the realm is governed.  Democracy may either be direct, in which all legislative matters are put to a popular vote, or indirect or representative, in which the people elect their representatives, but may retain certain powers, exercised by plebiscite or popular assembly.

Democracies are renowned for their volatility, particularly when contentious issues cause factions to form.  Although power is technically vested in the entire citizenry,  in reality the majority opinion wins out in questions of policy.  This leads to detractors terming Democracy as "mob rule," although a given Democracy might institute certain limited protections to ensure the rights of all citizens. 

Democracies elect a representative to execute the will of the popular assembly or the legislative body.  Such leaders might be called a President, Chancellor, Governor, Tribune, or Consul, but the title varies from realm to realm.

Republic
Capital: 3
Authority: 3
Popularity: 3
Loyalty: 4
Succession: 2

A Republic is a realm which respects a civil constitution balancing the interests of multiple social classes.  This constitution may be written or unwritten, but nevertheless a certain degree of power-sharing exists between moneyed elites, lesser landowners, and the common citizenry.  The degree to which these interests are balanced and delegated is typically an ongoing project of a given Republic, and the participation of a particular class may change in time as their economic and social power ebbs or flows.

Successful Republics hold elections to certain political offices, although not all residents of a realm may be eligible to participate, depending on the constitution of the Republic.  No individual person holds supreme power, but a head of state is selected, either by popular vote, legislative consent, military acclaim, or some other constitutionally-mandated protocol, who embodies and executes the will of the Republic as a whole.  This individual may be called a Prince, a President, a Chancellor, a Governor, a Consul, a Seneschal, or any number of other titles.

Reserved.

Reserved.

Reserved.

Wow. Count me in.

Count me in as well!

Welcome aboard you two!  I added some basic outline information for how combat and the base stat packages will be assigned.  I'll add some more detail in the next couple of days and then I'll post the economic mechanics.

My goal is to have the bulk of the mechanics up by the end of the week and the setting background (this will be very basic initially, and players will have a decent amount of leeway in picking and choosing their own form of government, their character's personal history, and some of the details of their realm's history).  Ideally I'd like to be started by the end of next week, but that depends on how many players we get and if life and law school intervene!

Count me in with a definite maybe, time permitting. A few thoughts and critiques on the crunch and game so far:

You talk about the "Action Phase" but then call it the "Statement Phase." Are these the same thing?

I don't really like the idea of selecting territories without knowing what's in them. It seems like it's choosing somewhat blind, especially since (at least at this point) we don't really know much about the terrain or anything so it's difficult to really be able to say anything about what's on the map. While having more information might give some advantage to the player who chooses first, this could be mitigated from a game design perspective by ensuring that the territories were "balanced," at least somewhat. Fluff-wise, it would also let players add more color to their nations-- if I want to play a tribe of hardy mountain men known for their iron-forging, I'd want a territory that I knew had mountains and iron in it.

I'm also not so sure about the succession mechanic, from a gameplay perspective. It seems like the ease of succession could be inferred from the stability of one's government, so maybe a Stability stat would be more worthwhile to have, in general. But, even if you wanted to keep it a separate stat, I don't think having a condition where a player can be kicked out of the game is necessarily a good idea. I'm not sure how Crusader Kings works, but in Victoria, if your government gets overthrown by fascists or something you still get to keep playing, you just have to adapt your play style to the new system of government. I get the sense that this is more of a collaborative story than a competitive game, so having to adapt (and probably even changing your main character to a different leader with a different personality) seems more fun than a definite "lose" condition.

When you're rolling lots and lots of dice for combat, the bell curve tends to flatten out considerably, with outlying values pretty much never coming up. If you see this as a feature, you may want to consider using a different die to let players consider their options more intuitively. Since a computer is going to be rolling all the dice anyway, it doesn't have to match real polyhedra, and a d6's average of 3.5 makes quick estimates kind of hard. As an example, a zero-based d5 has a range of 0-4, and an average of 2, so a player's average roll is simply double their strength.

I would like more information on the different government types and what sort of effects it has on your ability to do things, but I assume that's forthcoming. :)

Quote from: sparkletwist
Count me in with a definite maybe, time permitting. A few thoughts and critiques on the crunch and game so far:

You talk about the "Action Phase" but then call it the "Statement Phase." Are these the same thing?

Yes!  Accidental inclusion from a previous draft.  Will revise!  "Statement Phase" is the official name.

Quote from: sparkletwistI don't really like the idea of selecting territories without knowing what's in them. It seems like it's choosing somewhat blind, especially since (at least at this point) we don't really know much about the terrain or anything so it's difficult to really be able to say anything about what's on the map. While having more information might give some advantage to the player who chooses first, this could be mitigated from a game design perspective by ensuring that the territories were "balanced," at least somewhat. Fluff-wise, it would also let players add more color to their nations-- if I want to play a tribe of hardy mountain men known for their iron-forging, I'd want a territory that I knew had mountains and iron in it.

This is a fair point.  Another thought I had is that going first, while letting you pick your resources, gives you less opportunity to choose your neighbors, which could be equally if not more advantageous for those later in the order.  Late-coming players will also have the opportunity to choose less blindly than others (with some GM fiat involved to make it jive in-world), so I'll be ditching the randomness I think and giving some more detail before the rolls and selections.  Conceded!

Quote from: sparkletwistI'm also not so sure about the succession mechanic, from a gameplay perspective. It seems like the ease of succession could be inferred from the stability of one's government, so maybe a Stability stat would be more worthwhile to have, in general. But, even if you wanted to keep it a separate stat, I don't think having a condition where a player can be kicked out of the game is necessarily a good idea. I'm not sure how Crusader Kings works, but in Victoria, if your government gets overthrown by fascists or something you still get to keep playing, you just have to adapt your play style to the new system of government. I get the sense that this is more of a collaborative story than a competitive game, so having to adapt (and probably even changing your main character to a different leader with a different personality) seems more fun than a definite "lose" condition.

Succession is something I've given the least forethought to, despite it being one of the first mechanics I had wanted to include when I was drafting the game.  Stability is already handled by a balance of Tyranny, Popularity, and Loyalty (which, not to become a bore, I will get into later), so maybe this mechanic can be ditched or replaced with something better.  Maybe Influence, a modifier for diplomatic relations.  Conceded!

Quote from: sparkletwistWhen you're rolling lots and lots of dice for combat, the bell curve tends to flatten out considerably, with outlying values pretty much never coming up. If you see this as a feature, you may want to consider using a different die to let players consider their options more intuitively. Since a computer is going to be rolling all the dice anyway, it doesn't have to match real polyhedra, and a d6's average of 3.5 makes quick estimates kind of hard. As an example, a zero-based d5 has a range of 0-4, and an average of 2, so a player's average roll is simply double their strength.

I like this, so 0-4 it is!  It's all a RANDBETWEEN function anyway.  (To everyone else: Dice! They're dice. Gamers love dice!)

Quote from: sparkletwistI would like more information on the different government types and what sort of effects it has on your ability to do things, but I assume that's forthcoming. :)

But of course!  And other government types, if requested, can be considered – for example, Theocracy.  (I have to tease out the way religion works first though!) Maybe another mechanic – Piety, and a choice to align with one of a few different religious factions.

Edits in the morning!

I noticed that the values on the government types don't seem to add up and I was wondering if this was deliberate or just an oversight?

Quote from: Rhamnousia
I noticed that the values on the government types don't seem to add up and I was wondering if this was deliberate or just an oversight?

Good question!  Deliberate, and the flavor text will discuss why the government types aren't all superficially balanced, at least in a numeric sense.  (Recall also that Tyranny is subtracted from the rest).  Autocracy, for example, provides a firecracker military with its high Authority and Loyalty, but sucks at just about everything else - this is, as will be discussed, because Autocracy is generally a less efficient form of government within KINGLESS COUNTRIES.  It has a high level of tyranny, and is not well-beloved by those who do not benefit directly from it.  So, in short, this is designed to address the principle that particular governments are more or less "efficient" in balancing the interests of the ruler, elites, and the populace as a whole, and the relative success of that form of government in balancing those factors.

In addition, high values in "harder" stats, such as Auth/Loy or Capital - are given a heavier weight, albeit in an "eyeball" fashion rather than a strict point-buy system, since having the ability to field a larger military early in the game may appeal to some players, or buying more improvements and developments right off the bat to jumpstart the economy, but players interested in more stable forms of government are incentivized to pick the higher-point-total forms.

I'll revisit this issue as I consider the role of succession!

I would love to give this a go if you'll have me. What is the flavor of the roleplay? Medieval?

One option to help fill out the map is for (potential) players to start brainstorming ideas of the kinds of nations they might like to play as and what might be found therein, so that could help determine what territory is what. Rejected ideas could become NPCs. From a purely simulationist standpoint this is doing it backwards, of course, but collaborating on the world-building seems like part of the fun of this sort of thing.

Quote from: sparkletwist
One option to help fill out the map is for (potential) players to start brainstorming ideas of the kinds of nations they might like to play as and what might be found therein, so that could help determine what territory is what. Rejected ideas could become NPCs. From a purely simulationist standpoint this is doing it backwards, of course, but collaborating on the world-building seems like part of the fun of this sort of thing.

I completely agree with this.

There is, perhaps, a way to balance each player's backgrounds so as not to elevate a specific player above the others. A system of kingdom generation, where you'd get to choose your own rare and more common resources, demographics and geographic features. Obviously, we would need a base on which to our creation must be founded. That would be climate and base geography. This whole region covered in your map; is it mountainous, desert, steppes, tundra? How's the weather, generally? Where are the big lakes and the rivers? What about the land that surrounds it, and the major powers that call these lands their home?

If it was a mountainous area in a temperate climate, maybe we'd find iron and silver, enough game to allow a moderate population size to thrive and leather. If it was tundra, good fur and leather could be found, as well as diamond deposits, but the population would certainly be much lower in size than where game and agriculture is strong and abundant.
The point is, depending on the overall climate and geography, there'd be a set number of rare resources, common resources and, depending on these, a trade-off to determine an individual province's population size. This would allow us to help you in the creative process, and perhaps speed this up a little bit.

Concerning the government types offered and the stats attributed to them, I think that for a game which seems intent on allowing a lot of freedom when it comes to diplomacy and social/public policy, the choices now offered are thin and look set in stone. I think that instead of defining a type of government, you should merely stick to statistics and let the different players the freedom to call themselves and their peers whatever they want. They would of course supply their first background with details as to how the government machine works (i.e ruled by a strongman and his goons, ruled by some sort of council, ruled by a prominent priest of the faith, etc). It just seems to me that defining too much in whatever that implicates politics and power plays is a farce because power itself is in constant flux, shifting from one hand to another, from one place to the next, as circumstances dictates. There are tyrants (tyrannos) in history who've enjoyed immense popularity, either with a segment of the population or its entirely. Tyrant was merely a word, like king, to define a ruler. As history unfolded, the term became corrupted, especially by the Romans, even though they themselves plunged deep into the follies of tyranny during the Empire. (Caligula naming his horse Consul and ordering his troops to slash at the water in his war against Poseidon; Elagabalus having no care whatsoever for his people and instead indulging in orgies and a foreign worship; countless Roman emperors suppressing the senatorial class; the persecution of minorities like the Jews and the Christians; etc.)

And the last point, Tyranny. In my mind, this comes as a worthless statistic because it can easily be represented by the mix of Authority, Popularity and Loyalty. A tyrant will have an incredibly high Authority score, but his Popularity and Loyalty score are likely to be and remain low, if not decrease, even. A democratic type of government is likely to maintain a low or medium Authority score, but the Popularity and Loyalty scores of such a government would skyrocket, because the people have a stake and most people don't like to be wrong, so they'll keep supporting those they put in power unless something terrible happens. This brings me to link this point to that of government types.
For example, Stephen Harper in Canada went from being a very minor force to a major one, his promises to build pipelines and rape the country's natural resources for quick mega-bucks pleased Albertans who were themselves restrained by previous Liberal governments. At the beginning, he definitely enjoyed the full backing of his supporters, but since he couldn't deliver on his promise even after 10 years in power, 4-5 of which he was blessed with a majority government (which gives a Canadian Prime Minister absolute power if he can whip his caucus properly), they withdrew their support and removed him from power. In the meantime, during his majority government, he removed freedoms, built prisons which the Canadian people did not need, and broke with a tradition of Canada to remain as neutral as possible in conflicts that erupt around the globe and sided fully and blindly with Israel. This was the final nail in his coffin; as he became more authoritarian and less democratic, he lost power.
What I'm trying to explain with this is, as in the example, governments often change the workings of their machine to suit the leader's style. It makes a lot of sense, but that means you cannot define a government as you are trying to in this game. We could say, for instance, that X kingdom traditionally was ruled by a monarch, and that they repeatedly emptied the pockets of their subjects using force and other cruel means, but today that kingdom was inherited by the latter's son, and he has a gentle soul and has begun reforms to democratise the government in order to refuel the ruling machine with much needed popular support.
I hope I make sense?

Maybe I have another comment, this one is about succession. I've played countless hours of Crusader Kings 2. The succession mechanic in that game is pretty cool. Time advances much faster in Crusader Kings, however, so it's more pertinent, but still a lot of inspiration can be drawn from that game and could probably be used as a focal point for anything internal policy-related for individual provinces in this game.

Additionally, I understand I was first to voice my interest, but I'm not -necessarily- interested in having a first-come-first-serve type of favour as to when it comes to choose which territory I will take possession of.

My question is: how do you plan for us to make that choice? Will it be first-come-first-serve? We send you pictures and the most beautiful chooses first? We roll dice, aka exploit sparkbot, in IRC and send you a screenshot and then the highest number chooses first?

I have a partial write-up prepared of explanations of government types and some proposed questions to the initial pool of players.  I'll be refining this evening and should have it up before 7:00 pm central time.

That said, I wanted to touch on Pym's questions real quick.

Point-by-point:

Quote from: Magnus Pym
There is, perhaps, a way to balance each player's backgrounds so as not to elevate a specific player above the others. A system of kingdom generation, where you'd get to choose your own rare and more common resources, demographics and geographic features. Obviously, we would need a base on which to our creation must be founded. That would be climate and base geography. This whole region covered in your map; is it mountainous, desert, steppes, tundra? How's the weather, generally? Where are the big lakes and the rivers? What about the land that surrounds it, and the major powers that call these lands their home?

The geography will be added prior to formal character creation and territory selection.  A wishlist of features (geography, resources, etc.) will be considered when adding geography.  

QuoteConcerning the government types offered and the stats attributed to them, I think that for a game which seems intent on allowing a lot of freedom when it comes to diplomacy and social/public policy, the choices now offered are thin and look set in stone. I think that instead of defining a type of government, you should merely stick to statistics and let the different players the freedom to call themselves and their peers whatever they want. They would of course supply their first background with details as to how the government machine works (i.e ruled by a strongman and his goons, ruled by some sort of council, ruled by a prominent priest of the faith, etc). It just seems to me that defining too much in whatever that implicates politics and power plays is a farce because power itself is in constant flux, shifting from one hand to another, from one place to the next, as circumstances dictates. There are tyrants (tyrannos) in history who've enjoyed immense popularity, either with a segment of the population or its entirely. Tyrant was merely a word, like king, to define a ruler. As history unfolded, the term became corrupted, especially by the Romans, even though they themselves plunged deep into the follies of tyranny during the Empire. (Caligula naming his horse Consul and ordering his troops to slash at the water in his war against Poseidon; Elagabalus having no care whatsoever for his people and instead indulging in orgies and a foreign worship; countless Roman emperors suppressing the senatorial class; the persecution of minorities like the Jews and the Christians; etc.)

Customizable traits are coming.  Stats and mechanics will be fleshed out and options will be available.  These are also all starting points, with the presumption being that - as you say - as history unfolds the polities will change.  Stay tuned.

QuoteAnd the last point, Tyranny. In my mind, this comes as a worthless statistic

I'm going to pause right here to say constructive criticism is certainly welcome, and since there isn't a ton of information available folks are left to drawing conclusions rather than analyze hard stats.  I posted a very young idea and I am very open to hearing alternative points of view.

That said, "worthless" is a bit strong.

Quotebecause it can easily be represented by the mix of Authority, Popularity and Loyalty.

A tyrant will have an incredibly high Authority score, but his Popularity and Loyalty score are likely to be and remain low, if not decrease, even. A democratic type of government is likely to maintain a low or medium Authority score, but the Popularity and Loyalty scores of such a government would skyrocket, because the people have a stake and most people don't like to be wrong, so they'll keep supporting those they put in power unless something terrible happens. This brings me to link this point to that of government types.

I'll preface this by saying that tyrants might not have a high authority, in instances where they see their authority collapse.   The main purpose of the Tyranny mechanic is to calculate a percentage chance that people are plotting against you, with the idea being that when your Tyranny [exceeds your Authority, the risks that people will take to displace your ruler become much greater.  An authoritarian regime might be both unpopular and not particularly well-accepted among the moneyed class, but it might yet be able to hold onto power by not engaging in flagrantly tyrannical acts, for example.  

That said, I've certainly toyed with the idea of just making it an interplay of Authority, Loyalty, and Popularity, but frankly keeping those numbers balanced and meaningful in their other contexts without resorting to a separate statistic for my Tyranny mechanic idea might marry too many ideas to the same numbers.

In short, I see your point, but I'm still chewing it over.  I'm pretty attached to the Tyranny-as-a-discrete-stat mechanic for reasons I hope to justify in the longer-form writeup to be posted tonight.  If I can't, I might pitch it.    

QuoteWhat I'm trying to explain with this is, as in the example, governments often change the workings of their machine to suit the leader's style. It makes a lot of sense, but that means you cannot define a government as you are trying to in this game. We could say, for instance, that X kingdom traditionally was ruled by a monarch, and that they repeatedly emptied the pockets of their subjects using force and other cruel means, but today that kingdom was inherited by the latter's son, and he has a gentle soul and has begun reforms to democratise the government in order to refuel the ruling machine with much needed popular support.
I hope I make sense?

Transitions between different government types will be a covered mechanic, along with the customizable traits!  The game is intended to allow evolution in government institutions.  But absent a straight-up point buy system (which, frankly, doesn't thrill me) or a hard starting point, it can be impossible to accommodate every conceivable difference between governments.  These are broad abstractions, and not every detail is going to substantively change the effectiveness of the government - many of them might just provide welcome color and flavor.

QuoteMaybe I have another comment, this one is about succession. I've played countless hours of Crusader Kings 2. The succession mechanic in that game is pretty cool. Time advances much faster in Crusader Kings, however, so it's more pertinent, but still a lot of inspiration can be drawn from that game and could probably be used as a focal point for anything internal policy-related for individual provinces in this game.

The only problem with adopting CK2 style succession, and I think Sparkle had a valid point, is that when a lineage dies out, you "lose," and it really  works best in a hereditary monarchy.  The way succession was originally intended, which I'll be doing away with at least as a formal mechanic, is that the player could pick anyone as their successor, regardless of how that successor's government would look. A Francisco Franco could pick a Juan Carlos, for instance, transitioning an autocracy to a constitutional monarchy.

QuoteAdditionally, I understand I was first to voice my interest, but I'm not -necessarily- interested in having a first-come-first-serve type of favour as to when it comes to choose which territory I will take possession of.

Order will be determined randomly.  More to follow.

QuoteMy question is: how do you plan for us to make that choice? Will it be first-come-first-serve? We send you pictures and the most beautiful chooses first? We roll dice, aka exploit sparkbot, in IRC and send you a screenshot and then the highest number chooses first?

I'll probably just do it by a randomizer in excel or something and post the order.  Beautiful pictures are, however, always welcome.

Apologies are in order then. My apologies.

Quote from: Magnus Pym
Apologies are in order then. My apologies.

Not to fret, mon ami.  Just a friendly reminder words matter!

(I'm not offended!  The mechanic definitely needs some work before any final decision is made.)

In thinking a bit more about the Tyranny mechanic myself, it occurred to me that, however tyranny is represented, a single one-dimensional across-the-board number does miss out on some of the nuances of how things work inside of a given territory. For example, a highly unequal state is itself a form of tyranny, but it may well be that the class of people that is favored by the state perceive themselves to be living in a much more free and open (and not tyrannical) society than the oppressed class, and this is a different sort of place than a state where everyone is more or less oppressed equally, or, at least, with far less difference between classes of people.

Relatedly, what are we doing regarding ethnicities? It seems like these territories are too small to all be nation-states in their own right, so instead there would be a certain degree of ethnic overlap between them. Territories that shared a common language and cultural background might share an affinity for one another, but there might also be tension between them as they both agree the "Homeland of the X's" should be unified but each one thinks that they should be the rightful leader of the larger territory. I also like the idea of some territories being a multi-ethnic stew-- think the Balkans, or post-colonial Africa-- and having to deal with having to govern this mess of different people.

At some point of trying to account for all this stuff, this game is probably going to become too complicated for its own good, but tensions between the ruling class and the underclass as well as ethnic tensions both internationally and within the same territory are important factors throughout history, so I feel like they should be accounted for somehow, if only the GM saying "yes, this will be a factor" and working it into the narrative sometimes.

[ic=A tangent]After playing a lot of Fate, something I've noticed is that it's sometimes easier to create metagame mechanics rather than try to account for absolutely everything with simulationist game mechanics. It drives some strict players up the wall, but I personally like it because it introduces a lot of flexibility, so I wanted to at least float the idea. Essentially, each player has a pool of "fate points" (or whatever you want to call them) which allow them to declare that cool stuff is happening, get bonuses to rolls, and essentially let narrative trump crunch when they feel like it. They get more periodically, but the best and most fun way to get more is by accepting the GM introducing complications-- which are also outside of the rules and inserted because they'd be cool stuff to have happen. This means that there's a lot less need for strict mechanics for every little thing, because there's essentially a fair way to be arbitrary, if that makes any sense.[/ic]

Quote from: sparkletwist
In thinking a bit more about the Tyranny mechanic myself, it occurred to me that, however tyranny is represented, a single one-dimensional across-the-board number does miss out on some of the nuances of how things work inside of a given territory. For example, a highly unequal state is itself a form of tyranny, but it may well be that the class of people that is favored by the state perceive themselves to be living in a much more free and open (and not tyrannical) society than the oppressed class, and this is a different sort of place than a state where everyone is more or less oppressed equally, or, at least, with far less difference between classes of people.

Tyranny, if it survives, is intended to be viewed in conjunction with other stats.  The degree to which it outpaces, say, Popularity or Loyalty is meant to be demonstrative of the degree to which the government is divided.  From a liberation/proletarian view, the Loyalty mechanic is really representative of the state oppressors, those who control the means of economic production, while the Popularity mechanic represents the oppressed masses.

QuoteRelatedly, what are we doing regarding ethnicities? It seems like these territories are too small to all be nation-states in their own right, so instead there would be a certain degree of ethnic overlap between them. Territories that shared a common language and cultural background might share an affinity for one another, but there might also be tension between them as they both agree the "Homeland of the X's" should be unified but each one thinks that they should be the rightful leader of the larger territory. I also like the idea of some territories being a multi-ethnic stew-- think the Balkans, or post-colonial Africa-- and having to deal with having to govern this mess of different people.

At some point of trying to account for all this stuff, this game is probably going to become too complicated for its own good, but tensions between the ruling class and the underclass as well as ethnic tensions both internationally and within the same territory are important factors throughout history, so I feel like they should be accounted for somehow, if only the GM saying "yes, this will be a factor" and working it into the narrative sometimes. 

I promise I have some ideas coming tonight on ethnicities. Short answer: Melting pot and graveyard of empires.  People can be anything from a Wuxia-style noble to a Melniboné clone to a Hindi caste system to a Frankish crusader state and I'll make it all work out.  To the extent that folks want their populations to differ from their ruling castes, which historically is extremely common, that's fine too and makes for great roleplaying fodder - but I'm not going to force a player to have a potentially hostile population to rule over.

QuoteA tangent
After playing a lot of Fate, something I've noticed is that it's sometimes easier to create metagame mechanics rather than try to account for absolutely everything with simulationist game mechanics. It drives some strict players up the wall, but I personally like it because it introduces a lot of flexibility, so I wanted to at least float the idea. Essentially, each player has a pool of "fate points" (or whatever you want to call them) which allow them to declare that cool stuff is happening, get bonuses to rolls, and essentially let narrative trump crunch when they feel like it. They get more periodically, but the best and most fun way to get more is by accepting the GM introducing complications-- which are also outside of the rules and inserted because they'd be cool stuff to have happen. This means that there's a lot less need for strict mechanics for every little thing, because there's essentially a fair way to be arbitrary, if that makes any sense.

We're probably going to keep things fairly freeform in a similar manner to this.  I'm not making hard and fast rules for much - most of the mechanics are designed to be flexible and reward creative writing and thinking. 

Questions, thoughts, and development

Geography
There have been questions about the map.  The map will be updated to include basic geography.  Resources will be released fairly early, and suggestions for types of resources (iron, timber, crops, livestock, gold, and silver are early thoughts; comprehensive lists are welcome).  The map itself is just a fragment of a larger world, those are just the eligible territories for players to choose from.    People are certainly welcome to voice their wishlists, and I can distribute geography and resources with that knowledge (though not necessarily in the precise manner people wish!).  

Note: The sample map that's up only shows "claimable areas."  There are major and minor nations beyond that map's purview that could become major influences on the game.

Era
As to Mason's question regarding the era, I had in mind a pseudo-Eurasian High Middle Ages theme, but I'm certainly open to other preferences.  The skeleton of the game is somewhat flexible as to technology and era, since this isn't alt-history like RR.  I'll place a hard limit that the era must be pre-industrial, however.  Do polls work?  I might make one.  Otherwise folks can sound off in the thread if they have a preference.

Another note: Players are welcome to draw from whatever inspirations they want.  As I said before, the Kingless Countries are a "Graveyard of Empires" and melting pot of sorts, so it would not be out of place to find, say, a society modeled on Chinese Wuxia films adjacent to one based on Carthage.  Perhaps faux-Carthage is adjacent to a Melniboné-themed "decaying" state.  Perhaps these are next to a Lankhmar, a Harrenhal, a Timbuktu.  Just keep in mind that the Kingless Countries are all fairly small in scope.

Once we settle on the era we're playing in, I've got about three major world powers that I'll detail, and we can shake out the local NPC powers together as the players come into closer alignment.

As for an unmentioned element of the game so far, the supernatural – I would like to include references to a Spirit World (think similar to Avatar: the Last Airbender), with potential interactions possible.  How do people feel about such an inclusion?  Especially initially, the contacts with the "Spirit World" would be somewhat limited, but players could explore connections with other side if it interests them.

About to drop in a descriptor for Constitutional Monarchy and Autocracy.  More to follow.

I'm not for or against the idea of a Spirit World.

As for resources, again, it depends on climate and geography.

Iron is to be prominent if we're into the High Middle Ages. Silver, Gold, Diamond and other luxurious minerals. Clay. Whatever the mix is for concrete. Fur. Wool. Leather. Ivory. Silk. Flax. Timber. Parchment (and the printing machine?). Meat. Grains. Fish. And nothing else comes to mind.

Quote from: Elven DoritosTyranny, if it survives, is intended to be viewed in conjunction with other stats.  The degree to which it outpaces, say, Popularity or Loyalty is meant to be demonstrative of the degree to which the government is divided.

That makes sense. I'll probably have more to say once you've outlined how the stats actually function mechanically in more detail, but for now, I like that.

Quote from: Elven DoritosI promise I have some ideas coming tonight on ethnicities. Short answer: Melting pot and graveyard of empires.

Quote from: Elven DoritosPerhaps faux-Carthage is adjacent to a Melniboné-themed "decaying" state.  Perhaps these are next to a Lankhmar, a Harrenhal, a Timbuktu.

I'm all for melting pots and diversity, but I'd actually prefer if things weren't completely openended, because I feel like going totally nuts would just lead to crazy-kitchen-sink-land and that might not be so good either. I'm all for different forms of government and cultures and such, and I definitely agree with having diversity and creativity... but maybe we could decide on a few base ethnicities and a rough "feel" and stick to a few ground rules just so it feels plausible.

Quote from: Elven DoritosTo the extent that folks want their populations to differ from their ruling castes, which historically is extremely common, that's fine too and makes for great roleplaying fodder - but I'm not going to force a player to have a potentially hostile population to rule over.

What this could do is serve as a balancing factor. Like, if someone wants to start off with a bigger and/or more materially rich state, that can work, but to keep things "balanced" so to speak it wouldn't be unreasonable to stipulate they got that nice territory through conquest of a couple of unruly neighbors who don't speak the same language.

Quote from: Elven DoritosWe're probably going to keep things fairly freeform in a similar manner to this.  I'm not making hard and fast rules for much - most of the mechanics are designed to be flexible and reward creative writing and thinking.

I agree with the sentiment, but I was actually advocating some meta-points and meta-rules rather than just keeping things freeform. The problem with freeform is that it sometimes becomes unclear who gets to declare what and who is responsible for what decisions. How much of what goes on in a player's territory do they just get to make up, and how much is the purview of the GM? Will players who are more bold in their declarations be rewarded with more narrative truth, or punished for constantly overreaching their limits, and who's to say what's an overreach? Who ultimately decides if a player's creative thinking is successful thinking? How much latitude does the GM have to arbitrary make bad things happen to players? How much recourse do players have if there's a disagreement between their version of events and the GM's? Having meta-points allows these sorts of issues of "who has narrative control" in a lightweight game to be adjudicated fairly, even without specific rules for the things that players are actually doing, and that's why I like them so much.

Quote from: Elven DoritosI had in mind a pseudo-Eurasian High Middle Ages theme, but I'm certainly open to other preferences.

Works for me! I think the biggest question, technologically speaking, is whether or not we have gunpowder. I'd personally advocate for, I was kind of envisioning early firearms in my mental image of this place, but I'm not overly attached to the idea.

Quote from: Elven DoritosAs for an unmentioned element of the game so far, the supernatural – I would like to include references to a Spirit World (think similar to Avatar: the Last Airbender), with potential interactions possible. 

I like this. I personally prefer low-magic rather than no-magic for "historical" feeling games because that actually more matches the views of people at the time. They didn't have the wealth of scientific knowledge generated during the 19th and 20th centuries to fall back on.

Thinking about this game has inspired me to make some enhancements and updates to my old Statecraft (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Statecraft_%28Asura%29) system for Asura. The main currency is "influence," which is a sort-of-meta-point pool that abstractly represents power and as such drives the degree to which players get to say what happens in the story. It's still a bit up in the air, as it hasn't been playtested at all in its current form, so I can't be certain how well it actually works (though its basic structure is similar to the Asura RPG which has been played pretty extensively and works well) but I'll leave it here as a potential source of ideas.

The yearlong lapse aside, I have the time to actually execute this now.  Currently gauging interest (for real this time) and polishing the mechanics - expect edits to the first few pages.

This site looks dead, but if there's enough people willing to join I'd definitely want to play this.

It looks as though it could be a fun game.

Quote from: Magnus Pym
This site looks dead, but if there's enough people willing to join I'd definitely want to play this.

Eh I think it's more of a cycle. The site sometimes has weeks were no one has anything, or sometime's it's just school finals.

PS: I need to re-read the rules again, but I can probably join in.