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?

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

quozl wrote: 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"?

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.

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Andrew Martin wrote: 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. :(

quozl wrote:

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

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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

quozl wrote: 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 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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

Hello,

Arguably, a "character" is any entity with definable priorities, especially if acting toward toward those priorities yields a source of conflict. It strikes me that one group might play Diplomacy very much in this vein, whereas another might not. The distinguishing feature would be whether different countries have differing priorities; if everyone simply has the same one ("win"), then the importance of "character" seems diminished. Just which mode is supported by the text of the rules is a bit dicey, although I'd tend agree with Gareth, I think.

However - Jon, is this Diplomacy issue helping, or is it a sideline? And are there any other questions or concerns you have about this topic? Oh yes, and I recommend checking out any and all posts here at the Forge about The Million Worlds, as well as the Wild Muse website.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: However - Jon, is this Diplomacy issue helping, or is it a sideline? And are there any other questions or concerns you have about this topic? Oh yes, and I recommend checking out any and all posts here at the Forge about The Million Worlds, as well as the Wild Muse website.

Best,
Ron

Well, checked out the links. Narrativist Diplomacy looks interesting but doesn't have the detail I'm looking for. Birthright's Book of Regency (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_BR.asp) looks great but doesn't have much in rules (which must be in the box set). From what I saw, The Million Worlds isn't really what I'm looking for but perhaps I'm not seeing the right thread. There were quite a lot of them.

So right now, I guess Birthright is closest to what I want out of a Civilization RPG (but I am ordering Universalis so we'll see) but Andrew and others say the rules don't deliver the promise it gives so I await his thread to see what the problems are and if they can be corrected or need to be thrown out entirely.

Timeline d20 is a pdf based d20 rpg centred around roleplaying civilisations.

Pop it in a search engine and you should find it. No idea how good it is though.

How do you roleplay a civilisation? What is it you actually roleplay?

Balbinus wrote: How do you roleplay a civilisation? What is it you actually roleplay?

Jon,

You're dodging the question, not answering it. You've begun this thread and therefore must take the helm.

Please give me an example of exactly what you mean by playing a kingdom, a civilization, a nation, or a planet (as stated in your first post).

In fact, let me prime it a bit. Say there are four players and a GM. Never mind "what is role-playing" and all that hoo-wa. I'm playing the kingdom of Myrrik, Joe's playing the kingdom of Hoom, Meghan's playing the fragmented but culturally-united states of Veemira, and Angela's playing the whole coastline of the continent. Insert whatever "attributes," "skills," and equivalent role-playing terms you want.

So - what do you mean? What does play look like? There's no way to help you if we have to keep guessing.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Jon,

You're dodging the question, not answering it. You've begun this thread and therefore must take the helm.

Ron Edwards wrote: Say there are four players and a GM. Never mind "what is role-playing" and all that hoo-wa. I'm playing the kingdom of Myrrik, Joe's playing the kingdom of Hoom, Meghan's playing the fragmented but culturally-united states of Veemira, and Angela's playing the whole coastline of the continent.

quozl wrote: O.K., let's say all 4 civilizations have friendly relations, trade routes, etc. There's been peace in the area for hundreds of years. They are also friendly with a fifth kingdom, Argen. Recently, all trade routes to Argen have been closed and there's evidence of military build-up. Diplomats have been thrown out and none of the players knows what's going on in Argen.

What do the players do? Well, they can send out scouting parties or more diplomats or stage some huge event for the king of Argen to come to or maybe send spies or build up their own militaries and figure out how to do without iron, since Argen is the only supplier in the area.

How do these things get resolved? I'm not sure. That's why I'm here asking to see what's been done with this already. I think this is where the problem is because I think it's obvious what you can do as a civilization. It's just how do you make the roleplaying mechanics for it?

Andrew Martin wrote: The ruler (or perhaps their advisors) is the brain commanding or ordering the resources of the realm.

I still haven't thought of a suitable name for a civilization/realm RPG yet. Names I've got so far include: Divine Right, Kings & Queens, Realms & Rulers, and Kingdoms. None grab me yet. Any suggestions?

I've also been discussing Birthright with two fellow GMs and we've decided to run a game in early 2003 on weekends. We've all decided to not use the BirthRight rules and to use something else. Unfortunately we haven't designed a system! But at least two players (me and another GM) have written up free form character/ruler and realm description for a classical fantasy setting (elves, dwarves and medieval humans), along with some situations that demands answering by the rulers of each realm. I'd like to have a system to support the play we want.

At the moment, we've got freeform, written character, realm and surroundings description. I don't want to account for every gold piece, yet I would like to be able to manouver armies from one realm into another, and fight battles. I'd also like to be diplomatic and form relationships with other realms that border my ruler's own, either through trade or marriages, etc. I'd like to have bands of adventurers or spies roaming the lands and causing interference and what not. And I'd like to have control over the dynasty over the years. In single game session, I'd like to have several years pass, perhaps a decade at a time? And where there's important things going on, drop down into roleplaying the PC rulers and associates.

What do you think, Jon? Is this something like what you've envisioned? How does it differ?

Andrew Martin wrote: I still haven't thought of a suitable name for a civilization/realm RPG yet. Names I've got so far include: Divine Right, Kings & Queens, Realms & Rulers, and Kingdoms. None grab me yet. Any suggestions?

Andrew Martin wrote: What do you think, Jon? Is this something like what you've envisioned? How does it differ?

Found this several years ago:

http://www.hut.fi/~vesanto/link.elyria/ihrules/interactive.html

It's basically Last Unicorn's ARIA (which you should really track down if your interested in playing nations) and converts it to FUDGE. IIRC, it's linked with a PBeM at pheonyx.net that was a touch too abstract for my tastes (and the fact that I'm not fond of PBeMs). Seems to have a decent-length play history, but I don't know if it's still active.

I have a notebook somewhere of how I was going to rewrite ARIA to be what I thought it was going to be after I read a review of it in Dragon many a year ago. When I got it, it was disappointing. Too much detail in the wrong areas, I thought. Anyway, if I get some time, I'll see if I can find the notebooks and post my 5-year-old thoughts on the subject. I've been thinking of pulling it out anyway when I'm done with Incarnadine.

Jon,

You're example sounds like a mix of role-playing and wargaming. This is actually older than RPGs. The National Security Decision Making demo is a good example. Military and diplomaic wargames have existed for quite a long while. I've created several games like this, personally. Proper design all comes down to one thing.

In design, people often forget to determine what the player represents. It can be one thing, or many things, but until you determine that, you will flounder. For example, you could say that in addition to the "will of the nation" that you were able to "drill down" and play out the actions of single individuals. Hence for most of play, perhaps you are the king. Or you could just play the king. Lot's of different perspectives. All capable of acomplishing what you want.

Again, to use the NSDM as an example, a player's "position" in the game is described by the people who run it as a "Cone of influence that supports the title of the position". Thus if you are the Secretary of State, you are not just the character in question, but you also represent all the people who support that position (clerks, aides, whatever). If you are the President of Guatemala, you represent all the governmental resources that this particular state has to offer. If you are the media, you represent all major forms of media, and everybody from reporters to people who actually print the newspaper.

So, decide what you want the players to represent, and then you're off and running. Are they Kings and Queens, who have the support of their country only so long as they mainatin their power structure? Or does the player represent the entire will of the people of the country? In the first case, the player is out of the game if the leader they represent is killed, while in the second example, if the leader is killed, another one comes to power, and the player continues as the country. See the distinction? In Aria, you represent the nation on one scale, and then "drill down" to another scale to examine the actions of certain members of the nation.

Does that help?

Or have you made this choice, and you're just looking for a particular set of mechanics. Once you've let us know what the player represents, I feel certain that I can point you at a game that does what you want. There are lots of them.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Jon,

So, decide what you want the players to represent, and then you're off and running. Are they Kings and Queens, who have the support of their country only so long as they mainatin their power structure? Or does the player represent the entire will of the people of the country? In the first case, the player is out of the game if the leader they represent is killed, while in the second example, if the leader is killed, another one comes to power, and the player continues as the country. See the distinction? In Aria, you represent the nation on one scale, and then "drill down" to another scale to examine the actions of certain members of the nation.

Does that help?

Or have you made this choice, and you're just looking for a particular set of mechanics. Once you've let us know what the player represents, I feel certain that I can point you at a game that does what you want. There are lots of them.

Mike

Let's narrow down a bit first. What level of detail do you want to be possible? Certainly you don't want to have to worry about what each and every individual is doing. As such you have to resort to a certain level of abstraction for some game elements. The question is which of them do you want to focus on, and how detailed do you want to be able to get with these.

For example, Diving Right, is TSRs silly little fantasy game from the waybackwhen. Each player gets a kingdom, which includes certain numbers of resources such as troops, leaders, etc. Then one performs diplomacy with other nations in an attempt to get them on your side, and conducts military campaigns in an attempt to destroy the other kingdoms. Very simple, and has a very limited number of areas that are involved. Military, and diplomatic, mostly. Economic matters are notoriously ignored.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum would be something more freeform, and less restricted to certain preset areas of conflict. One can theorize about such a game, but the problem becomes limiting the amout of time it takes to play the game. If one can, for example, mess with the lives of each and every peasant, then it's going to take a long time for events to occur. As such, the level of event description is usually proscribed by the relative speed of passage of time. That is, if you want to have one month of game time pass per four hour session of play, you are limited in how much stuff you can cram in. So, you may decide to limit the depth of detail (how small the detail gets), the areas of detail (what the game is about), or how many of each thing a player can adjudicate (number of actions per time element).

There are games where each one hour turn represents centuries of game time (Civilization, frex). Then there are games where in game time actually passes more slowly than real time. In such turns some games consider only one element (most wargames), and some allow you to consider almost any sort of action (Kuma from RPGnet made such a game recently). In the latter case there is usually some resource that limits the player in number of actions that can be taken (as in Kuma's game).

So, what sort of scales are you thinking? Timeframes? Limitations on areas of interest?

Most importantly, what's the point of play? As you are looking at this as an RPG, you should consider what sort of impulse that this is supposed to encourage in players. Is it competitive? Just a neat sim (Sim Kingdom)? r is it an attempt to create story from a very high level POV?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Most importantly, what's the point of play? As you are looking at this as an RPG, you should consider what sort of impulse that this is supposed to encourage in players. Is it competitive? Just a neat sim (Sim Kingdom)? Or is it an attempt to create story from a very high level POV?

Mike

Here's the thread where Kuma released his idea:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3831

I think in attempting to do everything it makes everything a bit bland. Further, the Narrativist balance is skewed. He was going to revise it, I guess, but I can't say how far he's gotten.

Try combining this with a keyword system like Hero Wars, maybe. That might fix some things.

Mike

Very interesting. I'm not sure what I think of it yet. I'm going to have to playtest it.

Mike Holmes wrote: Or have you made this choice, and you're just looking for a particular set of mechanics. Once you've let us know what the player represents, I feel certain that I can point you at a game that does what you want. There are lots of them.

Mike Holmes wrote: Here's the thread where Kuma released his idea:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3831

I think in attempting to do everything it makes everything a bit bland. Further, the Narrativist balance is skewed. He was going to revise it, I guess, but I can't say how far he's gotten.

Please let me know how your revision goes. I'm definitely willing to playtest. Also, do you have a more complete listing of sample cards any where? I could expand the given list on my own but I may skew the game into something it wasn't designed to handle.

I'd like to see the revision too, the original looks very interesting.

So, would you see the cards detailing certain things, like ideologies or locales, being tailored or geenric? Do you have a card with "mountains" or a card with "Mountains of the Sun" on it?

quozl wrote: 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?