Okay, after taking some of your thoughts into consideration:

Everyone makes decisions regarding base setting together, or the GM just makes it up.
Faction/State generation:
Write a 50-100 word description of your faction/state. Then designate your leader and by what right he calls himself that(divine right, will of the people).
You then have three descriptors for your faction/state(now called side because I'm a lazy typist ;):

Physical
Innovation
Diplomatic Standing


These are working titles
Assign 20 points to these.
These represent D10s for a resolution mechanic (please note, there will be some sim/gamist drift, it seemed unavoidable). Resolution mechanic is as follows:
1 Roll as many D10s as you have in that descriptor vs player you are contending with. Highest high die wins.
2 Compare next lowest die down the line. Each higher one on part of loser represents setback for winner, etc...
3 Save for opening challenges, loser loses one point in said descriptor.
4 Narrarate scene appropriately.

Opening Challenges:
1 Physical Resources-Everyone rolls physical resources winner takes 15, next highest gets 7, etc...
2 Technology Level-Everyone roll Innovation winner gets 2, second highest gets 1, everyone else gets nothing.
3 Goodwill with neighbors-Everyone roll Diplomatic Standing, for every matching die you have with anyone else
they have one in your column.

Opening Game (thematic question: Why do we fight?)
Players take turns trying to solve their differences with each other using Diplomatic Standing. On his turn, each player picks another player to challenge. If the player who's turn it is wins he can either add or subtract a point of goodwill from his chosen target's sheet. If said player loses, he loses a die in Diplomatic Standing. Roleplay this effect according to above standards(just doing the rools turns this into Risk with no maps;). If at the begginning of his turn a side has zero goodwill toward another side, he begins armed conflict.

------This is what I have thus far, it is very ugly.------------------------------

Comments, suggestions?

Hi there,

Solid Gamism, as far as I can tell. I see it as Gamist design, because the point seems to be to resolve conflicts of interest at the player level, with some neat trade-offs between open dominance/beating and alliance/cooperation. A story may or may not "emerge" through play, but I don't see creating it as the point of play.

I hasten to add that coherent Gamist design in role-playing is something I'd like to see a lot more of.

Best,
Ron

That's not what I want at this point though. I want something with a large amount of gamism that does facilitate story. Like Soap, or Human Wreckage. So, I go back to Mr. Notebook and try again, and cry a little;)
I want to tell the story of a war. Some of the gamism needs to stay though, war is conflict.
Thank you for a very honest reply however.

Well, let's see then!

I suggest that you use the mechanisms you've described to set the ongoing changes of the overall situation, and then have other mechanisms of role-playing kick in to address the "human stories" within that situation. Thus the person or entities that have been competing/challenging in the way you describe are not the same as the protagonists of the story.

Hmmm ... so you get General Thighsmiter at the policy level, duking it out with President Appeaser and King Suspicious; but at the personal level you might get a family torn apart by the romance between youngsters of either side, or the terrors and triumphs of combat experienced by soldiers in the trenches.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards said

Hmmm ... so you get General Thighsmiter at the policy level, duking it out with President Appeaser and King Suspicious; but at the personal level you might get a family torn apart by the romance between youngsters of either side, or the terrors and triumphs of combat experienced by soldiers in the trenches.

So the question is, how can I facilitate this roleplay better with system? Can it be done with a modification of the system shown, or do I need to start over?
-amiel

I would like to see the attributes as very mutable numerical scores measuring things like combat effectiveness, logistic capability and overall morale. But the playing pieces are not d10s based off those numbers, but high ranking characters. Churchill, General Montgomery, General Eisenhower (conflict!!), General Patton (rogue cannon!), ambassadors, attaches, government ministers of production or propaganda. Create them as people ans player characters, with personalities and conflicts.

They drive the war. Bomber Harris, the unflinching archetype of allied vengeance on the cities of Germany - Douglas Bader, high ranking RAF officer with charisma, leadership and unonventional ideas on fighter tactics.

What they do, influences the three numbers at the top. They generally determine the overall flow of the war.

I say thats the way to go.

Mithras

I would like to see the attributes as very mutable numerical scores measuring things like combat effectiveness, logistic capability and overall morale. But the playing pieces are not d10s based off those numbers, but high ranking characters. Churchill, General Montgomery, General Eisenhower (conflict!!), General Patton (rogue cannon!), ambassadors, attaches, government ministers of production or propaganda. Create them as people as player characters, with personalities and conflicts.