[idea] A more strategic take on Roleplaying

[The Lionheart]

Yesterday I finished reading Inheritance, the last book of a series with the same name. I had always thought to implement a roleplay based off of the series, but I could never figure out storyline, plot, or exactly how to implement this world into both the freedom and constrictions granted by roleplaying. Today, however, I thought for quite awhile about the best way to implement the world of the story. I've come to the conclusion that a war-type scenario (as is painted during the latter half of the series) would be the best way to utilize what the world has to offer.

I've always liked the idea of a global-roleplay, where a character's actions actually affect the roleplay as a whole, instead of simply a confined part of it. RTS games came to mind as I thought of this, because literally every unit and every action has a profound impact on the victor of a particular match. You can't afford to waste units, resources, or time, as doing so could cost you a win.

I thought about exactly how something like this could be implemented. I took notes on paper, so I'm going to give you some bullet points to follow:

• strongholds/points of conflict
  • defenses (ballistae, catapults, walls, #
  • of troops garrisoned, moat, etc.)
  • descriptions to allow for weaknesses
  • geographical location
  • population of said town (and overall sustainability of the town if under siege)
  • offensive attacks vs. defending points
    • risk-like dice structure?
    • set number of losses per post?
  • distance from point to point, time to march there or to get there by dragon
  • perhaps a loyalty index of how likely the town/soldiers are to surrender
• battles would not only be decided by how good the individual battler was, but also how good his/her strategy had been leading up to that point (if you're attacking a capital city with a small amount of troops and yourself, you will not do well)
• messengers?
• "all seeing eye" mentality?

Now, trying to transfer this over to roleplaying creates a slew of problems. I'll list them out before typing out what I think, so this post will be a little easier to follow.

Problems

• roleplayer involvement
• character limitations (or lack thereof)
• flow of time
• resources affecting combat
• knowledge of the opposition's intentions

So, my thoughts on strongholds. I have a real issue here, because I've never liked "stat-based" roleplays. The stats of these would be critical, as obviously a capital city is going to be way harder to capture than a small town. So, I feel like some sort of system to demonstrate the durability of each location is necessary, but there are a lot of factors that can affect these things (I listed some above).

Time would also be very important in a roleplay based on war. This would be very difficult to measure, because you cannot base the time on real world standards (especially with the activity level of most roleplays, more on that later), nor can you try to count the passage of days by the number of posts. A system would have to be implemented to where days could become a fluid part of the roleplay, but exactly what that would be, I have no idea. It seems to me that the passage of time would have to be decided by the proctor of the roleplay, having him/her decide when it was time for days to switch (which, to me, seems rather clunky).

I've also thought about how exactly someone would go about hiding their intentions. Strategy sessions could simply not be a part of the roleplay (at least, not publicly), as the enemy would be able to see exactly what the other characters were planning. This really is one of the hardest things about having a strategic roleplay, because every single person who looks at the thread has 20/20 vision. I'm not sure how to work around this, honestly. How are you supposed to capture a point when the enemy knows exactly where you're going to go? Unless extensive strategy sessions are held outside of the roleplaying thread, or the proctor is sent information that he then somehow applies to the roleplay.

This leads me to my next point, roleplayer involvement. Honestly, this is another huge problem, especially with the community's reputation for falling in and out of roleplays. Players would have to respond in a timely manner, and would have to post, lest they get left behind. This is a major deal, because many roleplayers have stuff come up in their lives (school), and simply can't type up a post on a given day, or for a given week. Time flowing continuously would have to be a part of the roleplay, or else the whole thing would fall apart. But this means that some players would have nothing to post about for days, while others may be writing through vicious battles.

Battles, also, raise a big problem. I have seen many a character take on the world in roleplays, in ways that simply don't make since. Here, if one decided to attack a stronghold with a few troops, it could have a drastic impact. Yet, this all also depends on how the character is written, because if you're just blowing stuff up all over the place then there's not much any fortress can do to stop you. A character overstepping their bounds would have to be punished.

The idea that resources affect combat is also huge, because it's very hard to measure how much food a soldier in a roleplay would consume, or how vulnerable supply trains were, etc. etc. There are a lot of variables that come into war, and other than allowing certain cities to give you better weapons/armor/more food, I can't think of a way to counter the supply problem that fuels engines of war.





I'm sure that there's more that I'm leaving out, but typing this out has caused me to realize there is literally no way that this could work. Too many problems I think. But, I've been thinking about this for awhile now, and I figured I may as well put this idea out there for you guys to look at, critique, etc.

so, tl;dr: strategy RPs are not practical

 

[Sepulchre]

So, my thoughts on strongholds.

I have considered a potential system for this; reducing prospective defensive structures/units/etc to base numbers, which are designed to serve as a deterrent against specific offensive units. For instance; soldiers/arbalests/catapults and the like could contribute to 'ground defense' by 1, 5 and 10 respectively, archers/airborne defenders could contribute to 'air defense' by similar numbers, ships/underwater defenders by the same, and other kinds of defender for other potential methods of attack (underground, phasing through different planes, specific elemental attackers). There could also be specific units that can serve in multiple capacities, such as archers themselves, whom could contribute a greater defensive bonus against 'ground defense' and a smaller one against 'air defense', or dragons, which could protect a stronghold from ground, sea or air to varying degrees.

There can also easily be 'terrain bonuses' based on the location of the stronghold (cliffs, mountains, forests, local brood of rare, powerful creature, bottleneck leading into the harbour if based near the ocean, etc), and upgrades which can be provided for said stronghold such as walls, fortifications, drawbridges, stronghold-wide magical enchantments (whether from an artifact within the keep itself or from a resident practitioner of arcane arts) and myriad other possibilities. While I would strongly recommend creating a variety of base defensive structures before the RP began that rulers could make use of, it should also be possible for said ruler to create his or her own defensive or attacking units (after running the idea for said unit by the game creator, whom I presume would be taking up a referee position). There is also one other possibility, but I'll get onto that one later.

Time would also be very important in a roleplay based on war.

I have always thought a simple combination of the two systems you spoke of suffices. For instance, each 'turn' could last a week, and all of the RP'ers should be expected to submit one kingdom-related post every week. If they do not, then they can either have provided the option to delegate the task of ruling to a subordinate RPer within the same kingdom (whom could select someone else as a subordinate, and so on) or they will take no action. The benefits of this system are manifold; it encourages the players to pay attention to the game if the absolute minimum is required of them to be allowed to continue to participate, encourages them to seek out other RPers to join the game on their side to, at the very least, keep it functioning if they are no longer available (there is another reason why they may want additional RPers in the game, which I will go into later), and provides plenty of time for people more invested in the game to RP during said time to their hearts content.

I've also thought about how exactly someone would go about hiding their intentions.

One word. Quicktopic. Just provide one for each faction leader, and permit him/her to parcel them out to anyone who might join. Naturally, there is always the risk of defectors... but that only makes the game more fun, right? 'sides, the ruler could simply choose to create a new QuickTopic if there is a proven spy.

This leads me to my next point, roleplayer involvement.

I also have a solution for this. Actually, it's a multi-part solution, but it also plays a part as a game mechanic.

Those whom join initially will, naturally, need to fill up the slots as rulers. After those finite spaces have been filled (I recommend keeping it limited to three or four initially, in order to prevent there being more rulers than subordinates), any others that join that believe they have in abundance the time and effort that will be required of them could join as subordinates to the rulers; holding positions as generals, spymasters, court wizards or the like, as befitting the character created. If a ruler vanishes for too long (or if the RPer himself is ambitious and daring enough), the subordinates themselves could end up becoming rulers themselves by any number of means.

And lastly. Those that wish to join but don't think they'll have the time or could put in the effort to keep going as either a ruler or a subordinate? They can become adventurers.

Let's say, as the game master, you inform all of the rulers that a rare and powerful artifact that would be an incredible boon to he or she that held it has been discovered by a scholar in some wild region, far from civilization. The rulers themselves obviously cannot go; nor could they dare sparing too many of their subordinates from their posts to warrant such a hunt. On the other hand, they could hire RPers that could join the game for a while - as adventurers - and send them off with a subordinate or two to ensure they reach the artifact first in a separate quest from the main game itself, in competition with the other rulers. Or, if it is discovered by a scholar in the service to one of the rulers, he could quietly hire a group of adventurers to grab the artifact before any other rulers even hear of it.

This, in itself, introduces an entirely new element. Suppose the adventurers get greedy, and try to keep the artifact for themselves? Suppose they recieve a better offer from another lord, and bring it to them instead? Or perhaps the ruler whom recieves the artifact could promote said adventurer to a position as a subordinate for accomplishing such a daring feat? Or - better yet - the adventurer decides to become a ruler in his or her own right, wielding the power of the artifact? Great fun all round.

Battles, also, raise a big problem.

This is true. While it should stand to reason that an army should have an impact on how a battle plays out as opposed to a pissing contest between RPers, the RPers themselves should also have some impact on how the battle plays out. Sadly, the only way to work this out would be with a fairly complex battle system. As such, if you ever become interested in making this RP, contact me. I have a bit of experience in RPing in the kind of game you've postulated, and I've always wanted to at least help design one.

The idea that resources affect combat is also huge.

Not as difficult a problem as you might think. As opposed to a supply caravan extending along a chain of paths that could be attacked, an army could simply march with its supplies. In this instance, the supplies are both protected and yet vulnerable whether during a battle (an important resource to defend, and yet an easy prospective avenue of winning for the enemy) and outside of one (from a plot by an enemy force to burn the food supplies while the army camps to having the army itself pillage enemy lands for extra food).

As for how much food a regular soldier might eat... like the defensive and offensive stats, reduce it to base numbers. A single human would eat 1 ration of food per turn, a griffon 5, a dragon 20. Advanced creatures such as dragons might demand a specific diet, such as fresh meat or the like. Some rice might be well and good for your lowly spearman, but you can hardly expect a bloody dragon to find it palatable.

If you have any more questions or the like about how this might work, ask away. I'll see if I can help.

tl;dr Not really that impractical. Check this link for proof.