Civilization roleplaying

[quozl]

What games out there allow you to roleplay a kingdom, a civilization, a nation, or a planet?  Has anyone tried to design such an animal?  What are the limitations or obstacles in roleplaying this way?

[xiombarg]

What games out there allow you to roleplay a kingdom, a civilization, a nation, or a planet?  Has anyone tried to design such an animal?  What are the limitations or obstacles in roleplaying this way?

The main example of this I can think of off the top of my head is the Worlds supplement to Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth.

I'll also note it wouldn't be hard to do with Universalis, with the right tweaks.

[quozl]

I'll also note it wouldn't be hard to do with Universalis, with the right tweaks.

I've been looking at Universalis for this precise reason (but waiting for a PDF version before I buy).  Has anyone tried this?  What had to be tweaked for it to feel right or was everything perfect "out of the box"?

[Mike Holmes]

I've been looking at Universalis for this precise reason (but waiting for a PDF version before I buy).  Has anyone tried this?  What had to be tweaked for it to feel right or was everything perfect "out of the box"?

Doesn't really require all that much tweaking at all. Perhaps a tenet up front about what level to keep things at. Though, that said, I like the idea of drilling down as well.

To whit, one of the playtests was me and a couple other players playing our the future of Earth. It dealt entirely with high level observations. A corporation does this, a country responds with that, etc. Further, in most games, large organizations are, at the very least, brought into being; and they often are participants to an extent. So, yep, not a problem. In fact, from one POV, this was very much the game's original design intent (mapless play).

To date I've not heard a report on play from anyone else who's tried this (hope I'm not forgetting anyone). So I can't give you an objective case. But definitely try it.

Anyhow, have you looked at Aria yet? That's certainly another potential option.

Also, if you wanted to do it from a weird "bottom up" view, Donjon would work. :-)

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

There's a D20 based game that does exactly this. It's a PDF game called TIMELINE, available through rpgnow.com for US$5

Basically, each player makes up a (modified) D20 character as their civilisation. Different skills represent the civilisations ability to research technologies, create works or art (and wonders, presumably), "hit points" are population size, etc etc.

I have never played it, but it certainly is an interesting thought. If someone feels like buying it from rpgnow.com then do so, and let us know what it's like. I know most forgers seem to be violently anti-D20 for some bizarre reason, but it might be OK (and for the recond, I kind of like D20 in small doses).

Anyway, Here's the sales blurb...

* Over 40 races
* Governments as "Classes"
* Technologies as "Skills"
* Wonders as "Feats"
* Lands and resources
* Mass Combat Rules
* Cataclysmic Spells
* Scalable - Play as village versus village to galaxy versus galaxy!
* Access to online computer opponents

Brian.

[Valamir]

What was that AD&D supplement called...Bloodline or Blood rights or something.  IIRC you played a character who was essentially a nobleman with lands.  In the PC game anyway you actually managed the lands and waged full scale wars in between adventuring.  I never actually played it as an RPG however.

Re: Universalis...that was actually the original design goal.  In play world creation.  I'd envision an entire Aria style cycle of adventures set in the same world, generations passing, and so forth.  To date I don't know of anyone whose tried anything that ambitious.

FYI:  Jon...doesn't look like I'll be going pdf with Universalis.  You're more than welcome to pick up the last sole remaining copy of the first print run while I'm arranging for the next run.

[Andrew Martin]

What was that AD&D supplement called...Bloodline or Blood rights or something.  IIRC you played a character who was essentially a nobleman with lands.  In the PC game anyway you actually managed the lands and waged full scale wars in between adventuring.  I never actually played it as an RPG however.

It was called Birthright. I've run it as GM and played in it as a player. We did independent ruler PCs, each with their own realm (small country), and as PCs together running one realm (country). Each of the main AD&D character classes had their own type of realm. Fighters were kings and queens, ruling the land. Priests/Clerics ran religious realms. Thieves ran merchant empires (this was a bit of a stretch for players to believe in!). And Wizards managed the equivalent of ley lines, and were like druids. Unfortunately a lot of the game mechanics were simply broken, and didn't work at all well in practise -- as a GM I had to "run around" and plug holes in the rules. :(

But otherwise quite fun. We had two players running the Dwarf and Elf realms (Mountains and Forests respectively), and the two players managed a revival of the Dwarf and Elf realms across the continent, allying with Awnsheigh (the bad monsters), and limiting human encroachment into their lands. The Elf ruler instituted long term "ethnic cleansing" by setting out to populate the land with 1/2 elves!

[quozl]

It was called Birthright. I've run it as GM and played in it as a player. We did independent ruler PCs, each with their own realm (small country), and as PCs together running one realm (country).

Unfortunately a lot of the game mechanics were simply broken, and didn't work at all well in practise -- as a GM I had to "run around" and plug holes in the rules. :(

This does sound fun.  Do you know of a "patched version" on the 'net?

[Andrew Martin]

It was called Birthright. I've run it as GM and played in it as a player. We did independent ruler PCs, each with their own realm (small country), and as PCs together running one realm (country).

Unfortunately a lot of the game mechanics were simply broken, and didn't work at all well in practise -- as a GM I had to "run around" and plug holes in the rules. :(

This does sound fun.  Do you know of a "patched version" on the 'net?

No, I don't know of any.

I'd really like to play it again, provided I (or someone else) could come up with rules that worked properly. Perhaps a separate thread?

[quozl]

I'd really like to play it again, provided I (or someone else) could come up with rules that worked properly. Perhaps a separate thread?

Plase start one.  I just downloaded The Book of Regency and Legacy of Kings from WOTC's site and will peruse.

[xiombarg]

I'd really like to play it again, provided I (or someone else) could come up with rules that worked properly. Perhaps a separate thread?

I'd love to see that thread. That's an excellent game, a concept that was really ahead of its time.

I think it would work either as a fresh, custom design or as a d20 "upgrade" -- all those nifty powers that Regents can get just screams "Feats" to me.

[Mike Holmes]

That's an excellent game, a concept that was really ahead of its time.

Come on. It's a step back to wargaming. That's all. We used to play something like that where we'd each take countries of the original World Greyhawk, and fight wars with wargaming rules, do diplomacy, etc. Sure it's fun, but not in any way ahead of it's time.

One might well wonder what took them so long, and why they mangled it so when it came out.

Mike

[quozl]

Come on. It's a step back to wargaming. That's all. We used to play something like that where we'd each take countries of the original World Greyhawk, and fight wars with wargaming rules, do diplomacy, etc. Sure it's fun, but not in any way ahead of it's time.

Mike

This will probably open up a can of worms but I think that the game Diplomacy is primarily a roleplaying game, not a wargame.  In fact, it's quite a rules-light roleplaying game that just requires "miniatures" and a pre-marked playing area.  

What I'd like to see is one that doesn't require the miniatures or pre-marked playing area and maybe has a bit more rules to add detail.  If Birthright fits that description, great!  If not, is it worth looking into to get something that fits that description?

[xiombarg]

This will probably open up a can of worms but I think that the game Diplomacy is primarily a roleplaying game, not a wargame.  In fact, it's quite a rules-light roleplaying game that just requires "miniatures" and a pre-marked playing area.

I think you and I kinda agree on that:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2148
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2307

Those threads are drafts of my attempt to do a Narrativist version of Diplomacy.

Edit: To go somewhat back on-topic and to reply to Mike, I think it depends on your definition of wargaming, as quozl just illustrated. Sure, maybe the idea was overdue, but the emphasis on the roleplaying side of, essentially, international politics and a very literal interpretation of "the King is the realm" was innovative, IMHO. Particularly the latter bit.

[contracycle]

I don't think the idea of Diplomacy as an RPG can be supported.  There is not element of character identification at all, not a single element of the game points in that direction.  I have played diplomacy in a highly interpersonal way, where we the player interaction got so complex that separate spaces had to be employed.  It was great, but none of us were in character, and none of us took in-character actions.  It was not roleplay it was... diplomacy.

But, you could certainly take diplomacy mechanics and RP on top of that.  But I don't think that on that basis you could then claim that it is an RPG; right out of the box it simply isnt.