Goblin's Liberation Front

[Epoch]

Okay, time to get some work done on this thing.

Bringing you all up to date:

An as-yet untitled game, set "someplace else," an arcadian locale with no humans and a plethora of various faerie-themed races.  Not exactly war-torn, but teeming with unrest -- it's a time of change, feudal institutions are threatened.  The game is both a wargame and a roleplaying game -- the roleplaying game leads to large-scale combats, which are resolved somewhat seamlessly.

When last I brought up this concept, someone suggested a modified Hero Wars mechanic to deal with the wars.  I was concerned about handling time.  Here's my decision on the matter:

The game will feature several resolution systems, all d20-based.

Task resolution will be d20 +/- modifiers with a target number of 15 (similar to D20, but slightly simplified).  This is used both in the wargame, for attacks/morale checks/whatever, and in the roleplaying game for individual actions (wooing the lady, picking the lock).

Conflict resolution will be some Hero-Wars-like mechanic (details still pending).  It is used for large-scale activities which the players either can't or don't want to deal with as a wargame.  For example, if two armies, neither of which are the PC faction, are fighting, and a result is needed, you can use the conflict resolution system to determine a victor and the terms of their victory within, say, ten minutes, instead of breaking out the miniatures and spending an hour or more on the matter.  Conflict resolution can also be used for things like espionage wars, or diplomatic feuds, that are "larger" than individual scale, but do not involve conventional warfare.

Wargame Concepts:

There will definitely be the concept of being "in formation."  Being "in formation" will result in a substantial melee bonus.  It will make complex manuevers much more difficult, however.  It will be impossible to stay in heavy terrain and remain in-formation.  Less disciplined troops will have a harder time getting into formation, or may be disallowed from it entirely.  This mechanic is meant to imply the difference between guerilla combat and regular army fighting, in such a way as to highlight the premise conflict of working class provocateurs versus those in power.

Much more so than in wargames like Chainmail and Warhammer, there will be an emphasis on defeat without having incredibly heavy casualties, as defeat in battle is simply part of a larger story.  This probably means that there will be extensive chances for units to rout entirely off the battlefield.

I would like to include some command-style rules, perhaps between Chainmail's and Warhammer's in terms of complexity and granularity.  Still thinking about how that works.

Aside from the above, I intend to have a pretty standard wargame package, complete with movement rates measured in inches, additional movement if you don't attack in a given round, charge bonuses, cover, etc.  Missile weapons will be intentionally weak, to prevent total reliance on missile attacks.

Still need to work out a racial generation system, for both wargame and roleplaying game, that isn't horribly broken.

I want to avoid overpowered inviduals -- part of the concept here is class struggle, and that's undermined if there are individuals who can take on a company of cavalry and win.

I would like it a lot if there was a smooth transition between roleplaying combat and wargaming combat -- if you could translate the systems piecemeal, just adding and removing granularity in different areas, so that you could smoothly scale the relevent complexity from "duel" through "group fight" through "skirmish" through "reasonable engagement" through "Gettysburg."  Dunno if that'll be possible.

Roleplaying Game Concepts:

Emphasis on statting things like leadership and such -- stats which are relevent in the process of leading men and overthrowing empires.

Emplacement within the game world will be tough, as it's fantastical and not based on an existing canon.  Thus, some thought needs to be given to a chargen process which helps the player get a sense of the context from which her character springs.

Must retain a sense of the fantastic within the social crap -- I'd like to give each player the chance to slather on some fantastic/magical features to the character.  Things which make a big difference in the individual scale.

World Concepts:

Seelie/Unseelie takes the place of race/nationality in the real 18th and 19th Centuries.  Class (socioeconomic, not D&D) exists everywhere, of course.

I'm still playing around with concepts like the Unseelie being tied to night, winter, or both.

Defining features of the Seelie/Unseelie dichotomy:

* Seelie are currently dominant -- while there are Unseelie nations, they are much less powerful than Seelie nations (China vs. England in the 19th Century is a good analogy).

* Seelie are more regimented -- they tend to have stratified, tightly classed societies, efficient civilizations.  Unseelie tend to be more warlord/personal prowess based.

* Visually, the Unseelie are things that go bump in the night, Seelie are elves or nature spirits or household gods.

* Both oppress the hell out of the underclasses -- the Seelie do it institutionally, the Unseelie do it individually.  Both preach hatred of the other Court.
[/list:u]

Land takes the characteristics of its owners -- Unseelie land is forboding and dangerous, Seelie land is like the Shire of LotR.  This may mean that Seelie land is more summery or Unseelie land has longer nights.  I now think that I want this to be dynamic, rather than fixed -- ie, there isn't one place that's "the Unseelie land," and it's always winter (or whatever).  Rather, the land slowly morphs to take on the characteristics of the currently dominant Court.

* * *

So, uh, I don't know if I've meaningfully added to the total amount of data on this project, but that's where I am right now.  I'll try to throw together a mechanics sketch in the next few days.