With DG3 about to begin, this world will soon come to an end. How much of the current RPG do we want to import to DG3?

Our current selves are an obvious no-nos. Vanir, Doughnutia, etc will all have to go.

What about rulesets? Will we bringing all of them in their current form over?

I see no problem with carrying over the current rulesets. They seem to work well enough, although they could use some tweaking. I agree that keeping Vanir, Doughnutia, Cupertania, etc. is a no-no. I would suggest that we also do away with the currents religions (like Spiritualism and Jediism) and create new ones next time. I am assuming it is a given that everyone will lose their money?

can we keep sports like football and american football

You mean soccer and football? :p

yes soc-cer (new word) and football

Can we rebuild our houses in RPG3? Like could i make Nuovam Cupertaniam?

Let's just start from scratch just carrying over existing rulesets. There should also be new teams for the leagues.

Originally posted by Grandmaster
I see no problem with carrying over the current rulesets. They seem to work well enough, although they could use some tweaking. I agree that keeping Vanir, Doughnutia, Cupertania, etc. is a no-no. I would suggest that we also do away with the currents religions (like Spiritualism and Jediism) and create new ones next time. I am assuming it is a given that everyone will lose their money?

Not the religions. I was a Jedi in the first demogame as well. Spiritualism is not even Fanatikan. I will stick to being a Jedi (Well, Sky is going to stick to being a Jedi).

Most stuff should not carry over with the exception of the rulesets.

@SAaM- I'm against seeing any of the current houses reborn in the new CFC world.

Originally posted by Zarn


Not the religions. I was a Jedi in the first demogame as well. Spiritualism is not even Fanatikan. I will stick to being a Jedi (Well, Sky is going to stick to being a Jedi).

Same here Zarn :)

The rulesets were designed with an eye toward the next RPG/Demogame. Carry them over, by all means!

Obviously, we all start over anew in the new game. If we have another Jedi religion, fine. But it is *not* an extension of this one. There will be no Princes, Generals, or anything like that to start. We will all begin as wanderers in the wilderness, settling in some place to found a new nation.

Agreed. There will be no extension.

Can't we take our stats with us? That's not really unusual with a rpg.

one point:
participating in the war-ruleset should be mandatory for all land-owners :-)
i believe we setup the "optout" rule because we started the ruleset after starting the rpg, so all landowners should not be opted out.

and another thing: NO takeover of existing ownership/stats please. it is a new nation, remember!

I agree with dis. New characters/stats in the new game. I know that in "normal" RPGs you take the same character from game to game, but those generally always take place in the same "universe" at least, where it is reasonably logical to continue with the same character. But each Demogame is a universe unto itself, and has no real relationship with previous ones.

There will be no "Padma, Prince of Lancre" in DG3. Who knows, I may end up as "Padma, the bum". :lol:

You mean you aren't "Padma the Bum?" :p

Sorry, couldn't resist... ;)

as long as you dont end as "Padma the Bun" in a New-Lancre Bakery ;-)

I agree that everything should start from scratch. I would also like to see what we can do to keep the RPG as close to the actual game process as possible. In other words, no knights in 2000 BC, no Stock Markets until Economics, no football games before the discovery of Electronics, etc. This may prove to be tough, and a bit boring at first, but would eventually yield a greater, more believable tale.

Does anyone think this is possible?

Why do we need electronics for football? You can play football without electronics, you just can't watch it on TV is all....

I say we carry over the current ruleset, but scrap EVERYTHING else.

Here are also a few of my proposals:

* Create an addition to the ruleset that include's what is aloud and not aloud in the demogame and lists the possible punishments for breaking the rules. (No fictional characters (like elves) or people turning into a vampire or so called "super-powers.")

* Create a ban on ALL old house's/names. You may not use the name Lancre, but New Lancre will be ok (but not encouraged)

* Advertise.... The RPG is just starting up.... This would be the perfect time to get involved in it, but people can't get involved in it if they don't know about it.

Sure, we could have pick-up games and the like, but let's face it: football didn't become popular until it was broadcast live on TV from lighted stadiums. So, in this RPG, football shouldn't become a lucrative venture for anyone until well into the game. Keep in mind, I only propose this if we are interested in making a realistic RPG. If that is not the goal, then let's get the blacksmith to start silk-screening the jerseys right away! :)

Expanding on this, I would like to see things introduced to the RPG based on our tech discoveries. For instance, when we discover Iron Working, we can build(and sell) swords. Once again, this may take some fun out of the game initially, but would add to the realism. We can still have things like the Land Sales and an emphasis on personal tales to keep our interest until we get to the "good" techs.

If the other two RPG managers agree to adding a "Banned list" and a "possible punishment's" section to the rule set then I will get to work on the possible punishments (shouldn't take more than an hour) then we can get together and decide what should be banned or not.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Sure, we could have pick-up games and the like, but let's face it: football didn't become popular until it was broadcast live on TV from lighted stadiums. So, in this RPG, football shouldn't become a lucrative venture for anyone until well into the game. Keep in mind, I only propose this if we are interested in making a realistic RPG. If that is not the goal, then let's get the blacksmith to start silk-screening the jerseys right away! :)

Expanding on this, I would like to see things introduced to the RPG based on our tech discoveries. For instance, when we discover Iron Working, we can build(and sell) swords. Once again, this may take some fun out of the game initially, but would add to the realism. We can still have things like the Land Sales and and emphasis on personal tales to keep our interest until we get to the "good" techs.

We should allow the Land & Sales Management and the Bank to operate without the right tech. The bank (shaitan) makes the game possible and the Land & Sales Management adds ALOT of fun to the game.

Strider: By "super powers" I assume you mean the powers of a superhero or the like, as opposed to military super powers (IE Cold War America and Russia.) If the former is what you meant, then I agree wholeheartedly. If you meant the latter, then I must disagree. There is no reason why, after a period of factional rivalry, one cannot emerge as a superpower in the manner that Lancre originally was, and as Vanir eventually did.

DZ: I believe it was CT (or somebody else, perhaps ;) ) who suggested that a number of institutions be started not as a business run by somebody, but rather as one that is administerred by somebody without dealing with money. For instance, before we invent Electronic, we could have a simple football league. Somebody would run it. However, no money would be involved (except maybe for personal wagers), and the "owner" would not profit. Sounds like a good idea to me. ;)

I can agree with that, Strider. :)

Also, regarding the discussion of banned activities, shouldn't that be a decision for the RPG Managers of DG3? You said everything gets scrapped except the ruleset. ;) Either way, it sure won't hurt for us to start discussion on this matter now.

BTW, I am all for any left turn one of our beloved citizens chooses to make. Let the people decide what the RPG may hold. Disorganizer's vampire stage, while unsettling to most, did hold true to some of the fears and superstitions of that age. It also made way for some humorous insights from our more skeptical citizens. All of these things should stay --- elves, Jedi.....the whole lot.

"That age"? I thought it was during the Industrial Age... sufficiently after most sane people stopped believing in vampires. But I could be wrong. ;)

As much as I really hate to see people start claiming to be Vampires and to being elves that fly around on eagle, I don't see how we could actually decide what exactly to ban. A carpet ban would be a little too broad, but we can't ban every individual thing. Perhaps just say that you can't give yourself superpowers, you can't build tanks in the Stone Age, and maybe a few other farely obvious (but not too strict) things like that. We should probably start a seperate discussion thread.

Originally posted by Grandmaster
Strider: By "super powers" I assume you mean the powers of a superhero or the like, as opposed to military super powers (IE Cold War America and Russia.) If the former is what you meant, then I agree wholeheartedly. If you meant the latter, then I must disagree. There is no reason why, after a period of factional rivalry, one cannot emerge as a superpower in the manner that Lancre originally was, and as Vanir eventually did.

DZ: I believe it was CT (or somebody else, perhaps ;) ) who suggested that a number of institutions be started not as a business run by somebody, but rather as one that is administerred by somebody without dealing with money. For instance, before we invent Electronic, we could have a simple football league. Somebody would run it. However, no money would be involved (except maybe for personal wagers), and the "owner" would not profit. Sounds like a good idea to me. ;)

By super-powers I did mean the powers of a superhero.

Also.... Fictional characters etc. take the realism out of the game. The RPG was suppose to be based of the current Demogame. Civ3 does not have elves in it... It does not have infantry that can jump 50 feet and carry a lightsabor.

Originally posted by Grandmaster

DZ: I believe it was CT (or somebody else, perhaps ;) ) who suggested that a number of institutions be started not as a business run by somebody, but rather as one that is administerred by somebody without dealing with money. For instance, before we invent Electronic, we could have a simple football league. Somebody would run it. However, no money would be involved (except maybe for personal wagers), and the "owner" would not profit. Sounds like a good idea to me. ;)

I dunno, GM. I would like to see how everyone else feels as well. I can see this breaking into two factions: the fun-seekers and the realists. Leaving the hut to throw on the pads and play football would be playing the RPG for fun's sake(not that that is a bad thing ;)). Inventing some other sort of medieval game, or finding some other "genuine to the age" activity is where the challenge for realism would be.

I would definitely like to see us pull off the realism thing, but the key would be to do so without everyone losing interest. :)

Originally posted by Grandmaster
"That age"? I thought it was during the Industrial Age... sufficiently after most sane people stopped believing in vampires. But I could be wrong. ;)

As much as I really hate to see people start claiming to be Vampires and to being elves that fly around on eagle, I don't see how we could actually decide what exactly to ban. A carpet ban would be a little too broad, but we can't ban every individual thing. Perhaps just say that you can't give yourself superpowers, you can't build tanks in the Stone Age, and maybe a few other farely obvious (but not too strict) things like that. We should probably start a seperate discussion thread.

Good point, Grandmaster...I could be wrong as well.

"Elves flying on eagles?" I may have to rethink my stance on this after all.... :D

I agree, have sports in their proper eras. But football can start at the dawn of the industrial age, it doesn't have to wait all the way to Electronics.

Originally posted by Grandmaster
I agree, have sports in their proper eras. But football can start at the dawn of the industrial age, it doesn't have to wait all the way to Electronics.

Yup, we need to have the horse race's etc. at the start of the game... then move on to footbal and stuff later.

Could I still use the same names for the pub?

And, one of the medievil games could be jousting!!! :D

Originally posted by gunning1
Could I still use the same names for the pub?

Well... If it works out the way I want it to..... then you could use the same item names, but the business name could not be the Rebel Pub.

Ok, so I could still use stuff like Riot Beer, but would have to change the name of the pub...Ok...

Actually, I'd like to kill the rule ending the conflict ruleset after nationalism. Though unrealistic, RPGers this time around still flaunted around their troops and whatnot.

Let the conflict ruleset continue past nationalism!

Originally posted by Octavian X
Actually, I'd like to kill the rule ending the conflict ruleset after nationalism. Though unrealistic, RPGers this time around still flaunted around their troops and whatnot.

Let the conflict ruleset continue past nationalism!

I'll agree to this also.

I also agree with this also.

I think that having troops was one of the fun parts of the RPG. We should definately keep troops throughout the game.

Originally posted by gunning1
I think that having troops was one of the fun parts of the RPG. We should definately keep troops throughout the game.

But after Nationalism they should be called something elts. Pehaps a "Military Coup" or something like that.

Or maybe "paramilitary"

Let the troop part stay. I mean, just look at the volcano. The Cupertanian Guard (look out, here comes The Royal House of Antarticam, With all new Sir SaaMs (keeping that. its my name. you cant have me not use my forum name in my royals)) flaunted themselves. Also, im willing to run the availibilites if someone else does listing, like i would have done here.
Also Also- we need a story to kill everyone here.

i got the following ideas to discuss:

1) death
it should be allowed and regulated to die. and as such to get children and let them continue the game...

2) mystic characters
should be allowed before the industrial age. but they should follow rpg rules like being killable and such. also they should comply to the conflict rules and event rules for fighting.

3) conflict rules general
it should not be allowed to opt out. all land owners should be aware that they can loose their land. this will force them to think about whether land-owning is really such a good idea before nationalism

4) conflict rules ending with nationalism?
nationalism should not end the conflict rules, but allow an addition: the nation can draft any unused military unit to stop fighting among its citizens by force. so if a "house" decides to fight another one and the nation wants peace, the nation can draft all unused military units (all not belonging to the 2 houses in conflict) to stop the fights (for example occupying the cities they own etc.). it should also be allowed for the nation to draft one unit of any kind in each city of the nation on each TC. this way the nation can stop any fight.
in addition, it should not be allowed for persons to hold city tiles after nationalism. they can occupy a city, but not own it or draft units from it.
in addition, the units can of course be used for military games far after nationalism.

5) the bank
the bank should be allowed from the beginning. but stocks not. the only way to share the income or to raise some money unitl economics is discovered should definitely be the selling of parts of the ownership, not real shares.

6) land sales
land sales should be allowed from the beginning, but income should be drastically decreased after nationalism.
reason: before nationalism people "own" the land and can get taxes of their people, and as such have to support their own army. after it, they can trust in the nation to protect them and also cant get taxes of their people.

also: we should add bonuses for owning "blocks of tiles" instead of just using the tile-number. a single sole tile does not bring good profit. blocks of tiles should bring MUCH more profit instead.
this will also raise the land sales, as every1 will try to get bigger blocks (we could add factors for 5-tile blocks [x2], 10-tile blocks [x3] and 20-tile blocks [x5])

Hey, couldn't we refine the character stat rules a bit. I notice that there are quite a lot of people 'enjoying' the academy without further participation in the demogame.
Now, the academy is pretty much 'absent' nowadays, but in the past this led to full classes. So, those people are taking up places for active players. This should be prohibited.

There's a rule which kicks players out when they become inactive, and this is regulated by account activity. The academy screws this up.

so whats wrong with people not playing but being counted as active?
if they own land but dont pay attention to the game, and if we kick the "optout" out of the game, they will soon loose their land.
so they dont do harm to the game except they dont spend their money, but if they dont spend it, they will loose their active status. so maybe we should just "tune" the absent-rule to only take into account non-regular payments (at the moment, i think setting up a regular payment prevents an account from being deactivated. but regular payments should not be sufficient for that)

Originally posted by disorganizer
(at the moment, i think setting up a regular payment prevents an account from being deactivated. but regular payments should not be sufficient for that)

That's my point. And I think they do harm the game: as I said, they're taking up 'vital' tuition places, and it costs both the academy and the character manager ;) a lot of work (about two minutes a month).
Well, whatever you want of course, I wasn't really planning to attend dmg3 anyway.

shab: why dont you wanna attend it? any specific reason?

so maybe the idea would be to deactivate a participant completely (not only his/her bank account) if no irregular payments are done from that account (not income, real payments done manually!). deactivation would mean canceling all subscriptions and participations in classes etc.

the caracter would still be "in the game", but is absent and as such cant for example participate in classes or get something regularly delivered...

I'm okay with bringing the rules over. One mandatory change is the early tech rule. Right now our rules restrict us to one level above the demogame techs that are posessed. Bring this down to where the RPG techs are the same as the actual game techs.

Jedi's are fine but lightsabers and X-wings aren't.

I agree with Shaitan. Only the techs currently available to us should be allowed. I guess I'm in the "realism" camp. ;)


Padma the Bum

maybe we can have the tech we are currently researching? instead of the one tech ahead, cause that makes us have atleast 3 extra techs. So, we could only get the tech we are researching in advance. Does that sound good? That would simulate testing say like Iron working, to see if we can get it right.

I agree with that. All techs we have, plus the one we are currently researching.

Keep it simple. There's no need to rush technology. We'll get the one we're researching when we research it. I mean, what benefit is there to jumping a technology ahead of the demogame?

none. but how about letting people know all techs all civs we know have?

Originally posted by Shaitan
Jedi's are fine but lightsabers and X-wings aren't.

What Tech would Lightsabers come out of. I would recomend that it would come out during Lazers or something related to Optics, Photons, and other Quantum Mechanics (Ill look it up for more info). Since I am so into Physics of both Science Fact and Fiction, I will research on any of the Sci Fi stuff that would be acceptibale (Lightsabers require Optics and Lasers, X-wings require Rocketry or Stealth)

Maybe they should come at future techs. I mean lightsabers and x-wings are future technology

If anything (personally I am against having sci-fi stuff at all) the Light Saber would come at the Laser, and X-Wings at Space Flight (they are spacecraft, after all ;) )

could we concentrate on the rules instead going into detail about what to allow when? this will be the job of one of the managers to decide... if we continue to have detailed discussion about each and every detail in this dg an whether it will and when it will be available in dg3 we wont be able to start dg3 sometime soon or (again) have a dg-start without rpg... so please lets discuss the ruleset and nothing else.

btw: i would really hate to see any of the groups, houses, places or businesses in this dg with the same or similar names in the other game (like having a jedi council in dg3 for example)
we should be more inventive and train our imagination and not try to copy old used up things out of this game. new approaches, new flavors!

Dis: Can we keep the Jedi? Also, I wouldnt recomend forcing the Spiritualists to redo everything. Allow us to keep some things, but not all. Sure, there will be new houses, but allow us to keep things we brought in from the outside.

The Spiritualists have a new "Son of God" now.... we could have a Spiritualist beaurocrat execute him, and use that to start a whole new sect next game..... ;)

:jesus: :jesus: :jesus:

The Spiritualists are also extra-dimensional. They exist simultaneously in several demogames. Sort of like the cream that keeps the oreos in contact.

Mmmm.... oreos......

Ill have to agree with Grandmaster here...
Mmm...
Now about the Jedi?
Any word on that?
Thats even if Zarn wants another Jedi for DG3

I said before that lightsabers will come late in the game, if it all. Jedi abilities will be toned down. No starships next demogame. Jediism will remain a religion.

we should stop the detail discussion now an concentrate on the rule additions for dg3... this is much more important than whether a group will be there or not.

I don't see that any rule additions are needed, just some rule trimming and correction here and there.

well, corrections are also additions or subtractions of our rules ;-)

that was what i mean: for example delte the optout, change land income etc. those are all tunings, though they may need some small rework of those rules.

and thats what we should do... also we should prevent this conversation to split as there is also a thread about this topic in the citizen forum... and i think that may be the better place for it, as maybe some non-rpg'ers will come in and join discussion to go to rpg next game if the rules fit.

Go ahead and post in the the other forum asking people to participate but all rule discussions for the RPG need to be kept separate from demogame discussions.

What changes in land income are desired?

shai: i didnt post the other thread... ask ct about it ;-)

to land income desires:
i would reduce the single-tile income. drastically.
as compensation, i would add "block factors"...
example:
lets say we give out 1 gold per tile for simplification.
now if you got 16 tiles, you would get only 16 gold.
lets also say we give multipliers in the following form:
n* for each n*n-block of tiles
so if your 16 tiles are sitting in a 4*4-block, you would get 16*4 gold.
this would give people trying to create "areas" out of their tiles a real benefit in the tile income. it would also encourage people to merge landownings into cooperatively owned areas (as done with lancre for example) if they dont want to sell them.

i think the single-tile income should be set to the money the best defensive unit costs in maintenance.

imho, land-ownership should be hard work and not easy money before nationalism (like in real life, where you had to defend your ownings and use money on it instead of getting money out of it)

Bah, you all want an RPG with a touch of realism but only in certain areas. No lightsabers or x-wings. No swords before iron working. No stocks before economics. BUT we can have a bank WAY before banking and we can have land income and supposedly personal incomes before currency. Bah! Why have land incomes in gold or pay characters gold per chat if there is no currency? Can't you all figure out how to own land without some fake income that let's you buy it? Didn't people own land before gold was coined and banks were formed? Why can't it be so in the RPG? Instead of rushing to get DG3 and the next RPG going why not slow down and talk about how the game should be played?

We start in despotism. Who is the despot? The RPG should have a despot. The despot could own the capital city. His income could be based on the income of the capital. The income need not be soley in gold, it could be in food and shields, too. If our characters are going to raise armies do they not have to feed the soldiers? Do they not have to arm the soldiers? The ability to raise armies should depend on land ownership and food and shield and gold production from that land. Retention of land ownership should depend on having the strength to hold it. The RPG could be fun beyond your wildest dreams if we take a little time to structure the game along these lines.

I'm fine with that. No gold per turn until there is currency. Everybody can get a pig or something instead. Our bank would need to be started when we get currency though, in order to effectively keep track of it. There could be no "banking services" until banking was discovered.

Tracking shields and food as well is a neat idea but will treble the work involved. Is it worth it?

Originally posted by Shaitan
I'm fine with that. No gold per turn until there is currency. Everybody can get a pig or something instead. Our bank would need to be started when we get currency though, in order to effectively keep track of it. There could be no "banking services" until banking was discovered.

Tracking shields and food as well is a neat idea but will treble the work involved. Is it worth it?

We have enough problems finding someone to do the CURRENT land manager job... I doubt anyone would want to do even more with it.

Originally posted by Shaitan
I'm fine with that. No gold per turn until there is currency. Everybody can get a pig or something instead. Our bank would need to be started when we get currency though, in order to effectively keep track of it. There could be no "banking services" until banking was discovered.

Tracking shields and food as well is a neat idea but will treble the work involved. Is it worth it?

Why should anyone even get a pig? They get a character with some stats, that's it. They want to eat, they go get some land of their own (with a food income) or they live off someone else. Landowners would be the ones controlling the food and they would say who they want to feed. Characters that aren't feed by food from their own land or by other landowners are assumed to be spending most of their time earning their keep somewhere doing some sort of menial/manual labor. Landowners and those they choose to support have more leisure time to go about raising armies and fighting amongst themselves. Food and shield production do not have to be tracked like gold does because they would not accumulate. Rather they would be measures of what the landowner could support. For example, each food a tile produces could support one character and x amount of soldiers. Each shield a tile produces could arm (or armor) x amount of soldiers. Say I own a grassland tile. One food supports me and the other I use to support another character who doesn't own any land yet. For game play purposes we can say the other character is helping me to run my large estate. So I also have x soldiers and the other character has x soldiers. The other character could conceivably use his soldiers to take my land! Or the two of us could plan to attack a third character's tile when WHAM! the character I'm supporting switches sides during the battle! ARGH!!!!

I like it! It would also encourage more storytelling.

Can you bore into the rules and see what would need changing to implement things like this to allow us to play and use just what we have in the game. Stuff like no stores until we can have Marketplaces, etc.

Originally posted by Shaitan
I like it! It would also encourage more storytelling.

Can you bore into the rules and see what would need changing to implement things like this to allow us to play and use just what we have in the game. Stuff like no stores until we can have Marketplaces, etc.

I like it to, but VERY complex.... and it'll be very time consuming to keep track of everything... Maybe to keep it simple we shouldn't count the bonus's roads, mines, etc. count.

The Land Manager would only be responsible for determining the base value. Any extras from river access, luxuries, etc would have to be reported by the owner. That keeps the Land Manager's job down.

Speaking of Land...we need some for our leader. Who ever heard of a monarch without land? I propose that 10% (round down, minimum 1 tile) of each availability become crown land. The capital city and immediate tiles would also be crown land. Each ruling monarch can dispense up to 10% (round down, minimum 0 tiles) of crown land (except the capital and surrounding district) along with titles, etc during their termly reign. More storytelling opportunities plus along with the food/shield expansion it creates an actual despot in the beginning of the RPG. Why are we following this guy? Oh, yeah - he has the food and the soldiers.

EDIT: More on the gold/food/shield thing. As the gold wouldn't actually be gold until currency, make any gold produced be usable as food or shield. In fact it would be mandatory until currency and then optional after currency.

Whoever heard of a monarch without monarchy? ;) By monarch do you mean president of the demogame or whichever despot comes to the fore in the RPG? I suggest that the RPG Despot not be tied to the demogame government. In the beginning of the game There will be more characters than landowners and hence much competition to be Despot. I'm thinking that just because you're Despot you are not all powerful. Even with the largest army the Despot might die in battle, be assassinated, die in a hunting accident or from natural causes. When a Despot dies a new one must rise and will not need to be the one who did in the prior Despot (if there was one). Only when monarchy is discovered would the King be able to pass his kingdom on to his heir. Later in the game we could worry about title to land tiles and buying and selling land. In the beginning we don't even have laws so might makes right. Things would be more simplified if we did not open up all the land within the borders to ownership. Limit land availability to the number of tiles being worked. Also, in the beginning, all the new land is owned by the Despot (who else?). Put in a caveat that a character can only supervise a given amount of tiles. If the Despot owns 4 tiles (because the capital city is size 3) and a character can normally only supervise one tile then he or she must appoint 3 other characters to supervise the other tiles. The appointed characters would be nominally under the authority of the Despot but should have the option of using the tiles they supervise to raise troops and rebel. As new cities are founded the Despot could be forced to appoint a character to *govern* a new city. The appointed character would be like a duke or earl and could be the one responsible for appointing other charachters to supervise the new city's lands. Would the new Duke of New City appoint characters loyal to the Despot or to himself? Once again, all land is nominally *owned* by the Despot but he is free to give (and take back) whatever his power (as measured by his military might) will allow. Also, as his domain grows he needs more and more help to run things - and there is more and more risk of being rebelled against! And all rebellions need not be against the Despot since there are always those who would aspire to certain Dukedoms and Earldoms.
The mechanics? Well, a list of the tiles being worked, how many soldiers each tile supports as well as the level of arms and armor each tile supports and who controls that tile's soldiers would be needed. This would have to be adjusted every time a new save was released. Then the Despot and any Dukes would make appointments for any new lands that were available or make any changes to already established appointments. (This should not be automatic - the old appointee can choose to resist!) A check would also have to be made to see if any characters died. Then any battles could take place (with checks to see if any combatants fall on the field). The process could then start anew for the next save.
I can look at the rules but I never played the game of houses so I am totally at a loss as to how it works. I'd say we'd need a manager or a committee to be responsible for guidance on what is allowed and what isn't allowed technology-wise. I don't think it's all that important to have everything spelled out at the start. Some things are obvious like no horse racing till we get horseback riding. Chariot races are ok if we have the wheel. But can we have either if there are no horses available? Debateable. What about the Jedi? I'd say we'd have to have mysticism for that. Most of these things will have to be played by ear. The RPG can evolve as the Civ 3 game evolves. The days of Despots owning all will one day give way to land being bought and sold for gold. Assassinated Despots will give way to Monarchs who die on the battlefield at the hands of rebels and pretenders which will in turn give way to merchants who amass large amounts of gold. As we play the RPG we can always be looking forward to new techs around the corner that will allow new facets of the game to emerge while allowing others to run their course and fade away. By not writing all the rules now we can let the RPG be bounded by our imagination...

That'll make the game far to complex.... We scare away enough people with the already complex and confusing ruleset... No need to scare away even more.

Donsig, your ideas are superb, but as Strider said, that would make the RPG far too complex. Those would go really good if someone can make like a huge program that has everyone in it, and we play from there. The rules are complex as is. No offense, but those ideas would need people to be soley dedicated to the RPG. They are great ideas though.

The mechanics are complicated but the theory is simple. Let's see what we can do to streamline it.

I like this. Also- Donsig: Glad to have you back.
Now only if (and ONLY) need be, I can run the land office. Im already the land sale runner.
Also- the lack of currency idea is great. Perhaps a certain D and D player could simplify donsigs post into a smaller, easier to follow thing for those of us with the attention span of an earwig.
Also- Perhaps he who runs the land can get some for free... seeing as he'd sort of be a noble type thingiee.
If this is so, I hereby declare myself land manager.

I really think this is simpler than the old land availability. I've posted a shot of a size 3 civ city below and used that data to make this land availability chart (I included a second city, size 2):


Tile Food Shields Gold Controller

Capital 2 1 3 Despot
Capital-7 2 1 2 Despot appointee
Capital-13 2 2 1 Despot
Capital-8 2 2 2 Despot
Next City 2 1 2 Earl - appointed by Despot
Next City-11 2 0 2 Earl appointee
Next City-7 2 1 2 Earl


This is a little different from my original suggestions. I figured the Despot and Earls should have more power so the chart above is based on the Despot controlling the capital and 2 tiles and the Earl controlling one tile. Everyone else would only be able to control one tile at most. (As the country grows the amount of tiles characters control can be increased proportionately.) Using Shatain's idea that gold would have to be converted into food or shields (tile controller's choice), we could have something like this:

1 food = 100 soldiers
1 shield = weapons or armor for 100 soldiers
1 gold = 1 food or 1 shield

An army equipped with both weapons and armor would have an advantage over an equal sized army with neither. (The latter could be visualized as local peasants armed with farm implements.) This is a basic idea and we could come with ways to differentiate between different types of weapons as the techs are available.

Another twist could be to use one of the character stats as a basis to modify the troop levy. I'm assuming there is a max for the strategy stat. A character with the max in that stat could levy 100% of the troops due whereas a character with a strategy stat of only 80% of the max could only levy 80% of the troops due from his tiles.

Does this really sound more complicated than the
conflict levy system in this post? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=588459#post588459)

Personally, I'm loving this talk of a despot. Also, I think that I can see how this could work...

A. We elect a single game manager. This person would oversee every aspect of the game, create new rules as they necesary, judge if certain actions within a action are legal, etc. He could also appoint others to help run things.
For fairness sake, however, this manager would not be allowed to participate in any aspect of the game, only to run it. I'd suggest a moderator, but I doubt Shaitan or eyrei would be willing.

B. Normally, the lot people have in life is determined by their birth. Since we can assume the randomness of birth, we can decide where people start out in life. Have all people who wish to participate sign up for the game. Then, the game manager uses a random number generator to decide a person's lot in life. This would be a great way to decide who's a despot, who's a peasent, and everyone else in between. If we want to add another dimension, we can set income to certain classes...

Would there be a way to elevate one's self in rank? For instance, through fighting in a Noble's army and being victorious, or raising a peasant army, or assassinating a noble and taking his land? It would be a little boring being born as a peasant and knowing that you can never get up any higher....

Interesting...

There would have to be a way to raise your caste. As GM noted it would be incredibly boring to be a share cropper forever. That would also stifle storytelling and we definitely don't want that.

Two recommendations:

Multiple characters. You've all seen how McNulty expertly handles several personalities in several interweaving storylines. While not everybody can keep a line on it all like he does I'd definitely encourage more people to try.

Death. As disorganizer suggested, there needs to be more death. I believe my own character and Alexander were the only storied characters to die in this entire game. Put a 2 month maximum on character life.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Multiple characters. You've all seen how McNulty expertly handles several personalities in several interweaving storylines. While not everybody can keep a line on it all like he does I'd definitely encourage more people to try.


Its quite fun and interesting using a NPC :). The last part of the RPG, I have started to get into this Multiple character (Though I call them NPC ) :).

Originally posted by Shaitan
...there needs to be more death.

Psycho! :p

But seriously, we should get that worked out. I have been trying to operate multiple characters, but I am yet to get the hang of being a schizo. It is worth trying, though. I agree that people need to die. ( :mischief: ) 2 months (terms) sounds good. Also, perhaps make it possible for us to kill one another? (I know, I know... "it's a GAME; play nice") You know, if two houses engage in battle, the opposing lords and their various other personalities can be KIA? Likewise, it could be possible for somebody from a low or middle caste (peasants, serfs, fighting sons of lesser nobles who do not become Knights) to assassinate a Prince or Baron. Maybe by doing that they could elevate themselves.... there's a quote from a movie (I think it's "A Knight's Tale") that goes something like: "How do you think the nobles got that way? It's because, many generations ago, there ancestors TOOK that nobility at the tip of a sword!" So a peasant or lesser noble could potentially kill or otherwise dethrone a lord and take his land? Just an idea.

In fact, we could even have people choose caste-based careers... therefore there could be professional assassins (if we get Babylon, they would be hashishans :smoke: ) who would rub out nobles for you, there could be career warriors (likely from lesser noble families as they aren't "knights" per say) who would go out and fight the greater nobles for there land, and career Knights who would.... well.... fight each other for the sake of fighting. Perhaps whoever wins gets the other's land, armor, weapons, etc.?

Maybe we can have multiple characters die, but our MAIN character can live the whole demogame. So it would just be like losing your friends, but you live. Donsig, your ideas are making sense to me.

Also, having random events every like week. Say I start a thread, which is a story, and then people can catch on, adding to the story, (but nothing radical, like flying over columns of soldiers, riding to the other side of the world in a minute, etc.) and keeping it real. Like when Sir John just plopped in with the volcano.

Another thing: if we control multiple characters, maybe they can start with the regular starting things too? but we would not be able to share gold.

I think character deaths are needed very much. just as no one wants to remain a peasant all game long we do not want a good RPG player ending up with an immortal and all powerful character. I'd say we make one game turn equal one year in a characters age. We can use the life expectancy in the demographics screen as a basis for how long characters can live. Some will die naturally before that mark and some will naturally live beyond it. I'd say every round there is some random number thingy that decides if any characters just die. Something along the lines of the chance of dying increases as one ages. Others will die in battle. There would have to be some random number check every time a battle is made to see if anyone bites the big one. Of course anyone captured in battle could be executed! Then others can be murdered. How many Roman Emperors died at the hands of assassins? Despots will be killed and then there would be a mad scramble for power. When a character dies the player gets a new set of stats to start anew.
We certainly need a DM and Shaitan springs to mind but I really think we can set it up so the DM can play.
I agree that characters have to be able to advance their status. I'm not sure randomly assigning careers is good. Random stats would be good so the players can role play different types of characters. I think *picking* the first Despot would be a fun game in itself. Instead of drawing lots we could hold a tournament or have a last man standing melee or some kind of king of the hill game. There should be an element of chance involved (and perhaps a chance for characters to die right away) but the character stats and role play should enter into it as well...

Let He who finds the Sacred Symbol and returns it to the Mount be our Leader! Ok, some Lucky Stiff actually finds the Sacred Symbol but to be Despot he has to get to the Mount with it. Anyone wanting to be Despot can try to take the Sacred Symbol away. Will the Lucky Stiff be able to fight off all comers? Will he buy bodyguards with promises of future patronage? Will his hired thugs betray him in the end? If he becomes first Despot will he make too many enemies getting there?

I'm sure there are many out there who could come up with a much better story line to get us started...

So long as random events are well designed I would be comfortable with playing as well as being a pseudo game master. I've run NPC's for many years so it's pretty much second nature for me to play a character with part of the brain and scheme and manipulate with another.

Shai: I had chacters constantly dyinging. I went dynastic. And as for multiple characters, remember, Im the only person to stage a civil war against themself.

Originally posted by Shaitan
So long as random events are well designed I would be comfortable with playing as well as being a pseudo game master. I've run NPC's for many years so it's pretty much second nature for me to play a character with part of the brain and scheme and manipulate with another.

I don't have much experience designing random events but to take the dying characters as an example I envision some formula that uses as input a character's age and the national life expectancy and generates as output a percentage chance that the character dies. Then a random number check is made to see if the character dies that round. The trick would be making the formula so that most characters died around the age of the life expectancy. When characters are first created they should be given a random age. In D&D terms it would be similar to saving throws: each character would have a saving throw versus death that would change as the character ages and the national life expectancy varies. Every round (basically every turn chat) the saving throws for the characters are calculated and the saving rolls made to see if anyone dies. I was thinking this could all be done on a spreadsheet to keep the work easy.

Battle deaths would be similar. In every battle there would be a certain chance that the participants die in battle. There could also be a certain chance that some are captured. Captured charactered to be ransomed back to friends or executed or imprisoned or... whatever but that's up to the capturing player not chance. :) I'm assuming here that there is a random element even in battles. I didn't play the conflict game so I really don't know if any of my suggestions fit in with that concept...

Can I make a suggestion? I know, I chose to opt out of the games also, but I've been reading your thread and others and there seems to be a lean towards having the Demogame influence the RPG, but not vice-versa.

With that in mind, do you think it would be a good idea for elected officials in the DG to have a "personal guard" of say 25 armed men to be figured into the battles? Maybe as the Leaders have the personal guard, they also receive a +1 (plus one) advantage on any roll of the die concerning their life. The Leaders in the DG wouldn't necessarily have to have any official role in the RPG (despot, king, prince, whatever), but would have the extra "personal guard" at their disposal during RPG battles.

Not only could this be seen as an enticement for participation in the DG, but also as help for a struggling serf or knight who feels out-numbered in the RPG.

Just a thought.

Well, many people did participate a bit more of DG elected position bonuses. However, if people run ONLY for those RPG leaders, we just end up with lame duck leaders.

Death would be good (that sounds bad out of context). Rotate some despots to peasentry, let those who were once mere farmers become earls through death. Murder would also be a great way to die (gasp!), though we'ed need to figure out how to work that.

A caste system wouldn't be boring as a peasent, either. Theoretically, peasents could organize a revolt.

Though I like the Idea of "Bumping" off other RPG player. But that would lead to a whole bunch of "You cant kill me" and other whinings.

@CivGeneral - That's what the DM would be for. Master of death and randomized occurences.

@donsig - I'm fine with writing the randomizer for old age death, combat death, accidental death, etc. Actually, accidental death would just be part of the big random happenings table.

What we need are those random happenings! Anything from "All the milk in town X curdles" to "Volcano erupts". Everybody who would like to contribute (and I ask that everybody contribute) please make a list and PM them to me. We don't want to post all of the ideas so they'll be surprises when they happen. Remember we need good stuf, bad stuff, neutral stuff.

Originally posted by Shaitan
@CivGeneral - That's what the DM would be for. Master of death and randomized occurences.
Ladies and gentlemen, I fear we have a D&D afficionado in our midst http://www.counterglow.com/forum/images/smilies/nervous.gif

;)

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Ladies and gentlemen, I fear we have a D&D afficionado in our midst http://www.counterglow.com/forum/images/smilies/nervous.gif;)
Ah yes, the tales I could tell... ;)

Managers would be allowed to enlist help, of course. These would be positions like the Herald, Professor of the Academy (stats), Exchequer (banker), etc. In order for any position to gain a wealth benefit or perk in the RPG, the position must be tied to an in game character.

Game Manager (DM)
Begins with: Start game
Ends with: End game
Duties: Pseudo DM. Make NPC's, support and direct storylines, inflict random events upon unsuspecting players.

Item Manager
Begins with: Start game
Ends with: End game
Duties: Track item lists, posessions, housing, etc for all players. Monitors that invalid items are not in use.

Conflict Manager
Begins with: Start game
Ends with: Nationalism / End game
Duties: Track troop positions, raisings, dispersements and conflicts for all players. This position continues after nationalism but at that point it would be tracking official armed forces as detailed by storylines and/or the Game Manager instead of independent player armies.

Economic Manager
Begins with: Currency
Ends with: End game
Duties: What the Price Manager and Bank Manager used to do. Assist/approve business setups and business running. Monitor that invalid items are not bought/sold. Track the amount of money that each player has.

Let the first despot be an NPC created by the GM. That way there's no pressure while familiarizing play and fitting storytelling to the new rules and nobody needs to feel bad if/when the evil dictator...er...enlightened ruler gets a neckotomy. It will also allow characters to develop a bit as well as form into factions (if desired).

Counting tiles used in the game might be more realistic but would be an absolute nightmare. Imagine the nation at 20 cities and 100 population and having to find out which 100 tiles were being used after every chat. Also, the land owners in the RPG have no control over what tiles are used in the demogame. An earl with a small army could be wiped out because the DP made a mistake in the chat or put a bunch of pop on other tiles.

Opt out definitely needs to go away. That was only put in because we started the conflict ruleset when we were already under way. Anybody who wants to avoid conflict can simply stay away from land grabbing.

I'd like to remove the free perks from demogame positions. Save those for discretionary perks from the GM, perks for people working to support the RPG, etc.

NPC? what does it stand for?

Also, maybe we should have a Random Events and Death Manager. So the REM would start and event, and if it is bad, the DM takes the lives of the citizens killed. Also during battle the DM taks the lives with him. Like the Grim Reaper. So when the Random Events Manager makes an event, and people are killed during it, the Death Manager calculates who gets killed. the DM then sends the Grim Reaper to take their souls to the underworld.

Also, since we might not know who is who in a disaster/battle, maybe we can give people a number as they register in the citizen registry for the RPG. I also volunteer for the REM or DM if we decide to use random events, or have a Death Manager.

The GM (Game Manager) would be the random events and death dealer...er...manager.

NPC stands for Non Player Character. That's someone the GM creates to add to the story, fill up a needed spot, spark interest and storylines, etc.

ok, thanks. so and NPC would be like th GM creating the Grim Reaper to harvest the souls?

I doubt that we would use a grim reaper. The starting despot could be an NPC. When a noble doesn't have enough people to run his estates an NPC might be introduced that he could hire. If a storyline needs a foil or a villain an NPC might be created. Things like that.

Shai: if possible, could you simplify the land rules to an extent that I can do them while half asleep?

Originally posted by Shaitan
Counting tiles used in the game might be more realistic but would be an absolute nightmare. Imagine the nation at 20 cities and 100 population and having to find out which 100 tiles were being used after every chat. Also, the land owners in the RPG have no control over what tiles are used in the demogame. An earl with a small army could be wiped out because the DP made a mistake in the chat or put a bunch of pop on other tiles.


It may be a nightmare, I don't know. I do know that keeping track of land ownership in the last RPG was worse than a nightmare. I would like to raise a couple points about my idea though. First of all it is just an idea and not a thought out and proven system so it certainly needs to be adjusted to be made workable. Second, the focus of the idea is to form some basis for characters to form armies (well, bands of tribesmen really) for fighting. I see the age of despotism as a violent period where might makes right and players are constantly vying and fighting to grab and maintain power. It's not meant to last throughout the whole game. I envision monarchy to still have power grabs but I also see players fighting for the *rightful* King just because they see him as the rightful King. A republic on the other hand should see less strife though civil wars are possible. Third, in the beginning will there be true *ownership* of land? At what point can we say a player actually hold title to a tile? When we get code of laws? After fuedalism has been established? Then there is the currency issue: we can't really buy or sell land for gold until currency. I kind of by-passed all these questions in my idea by saying the Despot *owns* all the land. But he or she can only administer so much by him or her-self and must enlist others to help. Therein lies the possibilities for the game since (as in life) there will be those who seek more power at their leader's expense. As long as we are in the despotism stage of the game we may not even need to focus on which tiles are being worked. There may be an easier way to allocate the soldier raising ability among the RPG players. The Despot should have an edge but should still have to rely on helpers who would have varying degrees of power. I am certainly all for a system that is easy to track. Once again I am at a loss to go further since I have not seen the game of conflict/houses in action and don't have a good grasp of the mechanics. Finally I would remind everyone that land ownership in the RPG was added mid-game just as the conflict was. I'm suggesting we implement one system now that focuses on conflict, we modify the first system for monarchy (or whatever turning point we choose) and then change again to something more along the lines of our original land ownership when gold/currency is in use.

I think you're on the right track with how much land a single character can manage with increases to that number depending on ranking. Say each character can handle a minimum of one tile. A baron would double that to 2 tiles. Earls could handle 3. Dukes could handle 4. Archdukes 5 and the Emperor 9. Those numbers would be modified by the character's appropriate ability score. Maybe +/- 1 or 2 tiles. Those numbers are multiplied by the number of defined provinces. Cities are worth 1 tile per 2 population. At first the despot can run everything all by himself. Very soon he has to start appointing nobles to manage land for him. Trusted nobles would be given more land and would need to appoint their own helpers when the amount of land exceeded their control limit. That's basically just a repeat of part of what donsig said a couple posts back with a bit of procedure thrown in.

An effective way to implement feudalism.... I like it. :)

I like.. And it means a minimal headache for the land manager... If a land manager is even needed during despot.

The Land Manager would keep track of the established territories and who controlled what. And the critical info of how much each territory produced (to determine what units could be supported).

maybe it should be implemented at feudalism? or that would be too long to wait?

I follow your ideas but need a couple answers to more fully grasp your plan Shaitan. Would all tiles within the country's cultural borders then be used? Would the type of tile still be taken into account (i.e., would an irrigated grassland tile still be capable of raising more soldiers than an unimproved hill tile?) Would characters have to follow some sort of fixed upgrade path or would it be possible to jump from Baron to Emperor in one fell swoop? What distinguishes a Baron from a Duke or an Earl (other than the number of tiles he can control?) I guess a better way of asking the last question is: from what pool of tiles do the lower nobles appoint helpers to? Finally, if the first Despot is an NPC will his appointments be made randomly?

It seems to me that when the capital is founded the Despot will control all the tiles since there will only be 9. Once the borders expand there will be 12 more tiles available. Would the Despot have the option of appointing any combination? Could he appoint 2 Archdukes and a Baron or 6 Barons or any other combo that added to 12 tiles? Would the Despot decide which tiles each appointee would control? I assume we want tile control to remain static except for the results of the conflicts.

Do you envision it this way Shaitan:

The Despot controls the capital and the 8 tiles surrounding it. Once borders expand the Despot points to a character and says you will control tiles A, B and C. Since you're being given control of 3 tiles you are an Earl. He points to another character and says you will administer tiles D and E. By the way, you're a Baron. Then he's left with one tile which he gives to another character who doesn't get a title. The Earl sees an opeing and attacks the un-titled character out of spite while the Despot and Baron look on (with evil grins no doubt). The Earl wins the battle, takes the tile and says, "Hey. I'm a Duke now!" The game continues with the Despot handing out any newly available tiles. If he hands an Archduke any tiles the Archduke would in turn have to appoint lesser characters to take the load? What if a Duke (with 4 tiles) conquers all the land an Earl has (3 tiles)? would the Duke become an Archduke (with 5 tiles) and have to appoint a character or characters to control the extra 2 tiles?

All tiles in the borders would be used. Titles could be handed out any which way by the despot but there would generally be a progression from the lower ranks to the higher ones. The NPC despot would appoint the first few lords randomly. After that, the despot increases their titles as land grows and those imperial nobles request titles when they need lower nobles to manage territory. The despot may or may not, depending on whether he thinks it would be a healthy move for him to do so.

The division of nobles could be a load of petty titles, a couple of archdukes or whatever mix seems to be working.

That's pretty much what I envision. One clarifyer though - in a despotism titles are controlled/verified by the despot. If the despot removes a title the noble would need to decide whether they are rebelling. They keep the effects of the title until the rebellion is settled one way or another.

I like this. It saves time and puts a much bigger Roleplaying aspect onto it.
/me can guess who the Despot would be
unless he/she is a NPC

So the BIG questions are how do we topple a Despot and how is the next despot determined? I assume an NPC Despot could still die randomly even if no one rebels or attempt assassination.

A despot, or any other character, could die in many ways:
There's the possibilites of random death by disease, as controllable by the Game Manager.
People could die is combat, or, better yet, captured and held as a PoW, giving the option of execution to the capturing leader (conflict manager's domain)
I also envision assasination. A player could make the attempt. The game manager could then factor in body guards, and skill levels, to decide if the attempt is succesful.
Don't forget the Acts of God the Game Manager needs to throw in.

After we have a despot gone through death or capture, or exile for that matter (giving him the option to gain strength and return :)), a new despot would be the toppler in cases of forced change, a close advisor or noble the despot choses before death, a son who is a player selected at random, or the beginnings of a new type of government if the rebellion is a peasent one. The possibilies are endless. :D

We'd just have to play these things by ear, letting the Game Manager use his judgement to make the most logical choice.

When the land gets to a critical density the despot will no longer hold the balance of power personally in his hands. At that point the country is ripe for revolution.

i didnt read all of it, but many of those ideas are just ... fantastic :-)

some additions:
1) characters
each player is allowed to introduce as many npc's as he likes (maybe we should limit this to 3 simultanious characters?) but
* has to keep track of them in the rpg-registry
now this leads to the problem how those characters earn money:
* each player has to post HOW he distributes his income
so each PLAYER gets income, and he has to distribute it to his PC's. the list for the distribution is posted in the rpg-registry
example:
if the PLAYER disorganizer has a regular official income (from his positions, not from land or other ownings) of 150 gold and he has 2 characters (disorganizer and dis-the-bun), he can post in the rpg-registry that his character disorganizer gets 100 and dis-the-bun gets 50 gold each TC.
if now dis-the-bun owns land which produced 100 gold income, the player disorganizer can not use this money for the character disorganizer until dis-the-bun gives the money to disorganizer in a official transaction (i hope you get the grip on how it works).

the other possibility to give those character their own "live" would be to force players to only 1 simultanious character with which they play....

2) character stats
stats for new characters should be random. with one exception:
if a new character is a descendant of a existing character, the stats of the "father+mother" should somehow (shaitan, any idea for a formula?) influence the randomizer.
a good warrior would propably produce someone not kompletely away from being a warrior...

3) death
* if a player's character dies and he has not "produced" a descendant or posted how he wants to have his possessions inherited, all items are given to the void. the player is then suspended from the game immediately until he creates a new character and that new character has to start from "plain".
* if a player has already produced a descendant, he can either post how to distribute his possessions or the descendant automatically gets all the died character owns.
* death should hit characters by random. maybe influenced by how old they are and whether they are in fighting. there should also be an influence by social status in the early ages, for example the despot should have a much lesser propability to die than a farm worker ;-)
* at any time someone can try to kill someone else. he maybe must take the consequences though. even 2 characters of the same player can try to kill each other.
one of the consequences may be that the killer is dying in the attempt... or he goes to jail or is killed by the nation.
we should define stats for that or work on a formula defining when someone is dying... and when someone is dead.
this would also define how we get rid of despots, for example ;-)
or how we could work on rebellions and how we could punish people...

i posted a list of other things in the citizen forum, so here is a compilation of that:

1) tech enforcement
only known techs... and one rpg-manager to approove all items which are introduced into the rpg BEFOREHAND for tech-conformance (the item manager?). this also includes storylines.
only exceptions: bank and land-sales. but these are necessary for organizing our nation.
example: no share should be given out before economics, but true business partnership can be used instead (giving parts of real ownership to others with all rights)

2) character features
if a character, wether npc or real player, wants to use a feature which is not covered by anything existing in the rpg (for example wants to become a vampire or something) also a manager has to approove this (if for example somebody wants to become a vampire and somehow manages to get this approoved, he may add the feature of "flying" to his character)

3) no opting out of the conflict rules
if somebody wants land, he has to take the consequence of having to build an army to defend it. so sneaking away from this should not be possible

4) land-block advantages
the earning-per-tile for land ownings should be drastically reduced. instead, we should use earning-multipliers for "land-blocks".
example: for each 4x4 block, the earnings are doubled, for each 6x6 block the earnings are trippled, for each 10x10 block the earnings are multiplied by 4.

5) character death
it should be possible to have children and to die... but this may need tuning and work during the game itself as it is a pretty new concept

6) banning of dg2 names and referrences
all references and names of dg2 should be banned in dg3




and i still think we should throw the opting out of the conflict rules away immediately... its like cheating...

and an addition to the despot idea:
PERFECT! lets emulate the dg government!

1) despotism
* the despot has all powers. he can give, he can take
* he stays in power until thrown out by force, gives it away or until the DG goes into another government type
* the despot defines the first noble family line.
* he owns all land tiles. but he can give ownership away
* cities are not owned by anyone except the capitol. they can be occupied by troops though.
* he has to pay for troops to protect his land
* he has to tax his people to gain income
* he has an additional income proportional to the nations income in the DG
but
* anybody can buy troops and can fight for land against the despot. conflict rules apply. if a despot is completely defeated he is "thrown out of the office" and a new despot is put into place

2) revolution
if the mayority of the rpg-population of a city decides to start a revolution against the government, a randomizer influenced by the number of the governmental rpg-units placed in the city is deciding whether it is successful or not.
if unsuccessful: the initiator(s) of the revolution (the citizens posting the request for the revolution decission) are "arrested" and the government can decide how to punish them (even with death sentencing!).
if successful: all units in the city now belong to the revolutionary forces. all tiles in the city radius belong to the revolution. the revolutional leaders can then decide to buy additional troops.
if in multiple cities a revolution in succussful, the "revolutional cells" can decide to join into one revolution.
from then on conflict rules apply between the revolutional partie(s) and the governmental troops.
if the governmental troops are defeated completely, the government is considered overthrown. this may lead to different consequences:
despotism, communism and monarchy: new government is chosen for the rpg
republic and democraty: a military government is implemented for the rpg until the next official elections of the dg. the the official government takes over again.


one addition may anyways be needed for those changes and for many others:
we may need an official representative to the rpg of the official dg government in government forms democraty and republic... maybe we could try to enforce this into the DG-rules.

I think the RPG government should not be tied to the actual government in the Civ 3 game or the demogame. The revolution idea is good but should be entirely internal to the RPG and of course should be dependant on the proper techs being discovered. No monarchy or republic until we actually get those techs. But we may want to be a monarchy even while the Civ 3 country switches to a republic.
I'm still leaning towards a very strict tech limitation in the RPG. No incomes (other than food and shields until currency). No lawyers until code of laws. No shares until corporation. No knights until chivalry, no kings until monarchy. No forts without construction. Religious restrictions in-line with mysticsm, polytheism and monotheism. Perhaps it would be good to have a sticky thread about tech limitations where we could post suggestions like this. The item manager could use the thread as a basis for making decisions on what to allow and not allow as the individual cases are brought up.

One clarifier regarding kings: that title was independent of monarchy. The leader of a group of people was called King (or Pharoah, Tzar, etc). Monarchy deals more with how land management is organized than a real change in the title structure of the powerful.

Another key distinguishing feature of monarchy that we can key on in the RPG is hereditary monarchy. While despots may or may not try to name their heirs as successors, kings would be succeeded by their heir, though I foresee troubles in deciding who is heir. ;) Dis brings up a good point though about children. Just as dying will be important to the game so will children. I'd suggest lots of leeway with children. They could be NPCs that come to the forefront when characters die (though it should be known before a character dies whether he or she had children). We should also allow one player's character to be the child of another player's character if the two players mutually agree when the characters are formed. Think of the fun we can have when a child inherits the kingdom. Who will be the Protector of the Realm during the minority? Methinks monarchy will be even more fun than despotism!

As for toppling despots we need to define what makes the despot the despot. Simply killing the despot should not elevate the killer to despot status. A hired assassin who is successful should not be made despot. How about control of the capital? Should that be the defining element in naming the despot? Or should there be more to it, like control of the capital and the elimination of the previous despot?

The despot is the person that gains control of the country through intrigue, alliances and lack of opposition.

to money:
you are right. but gold and other items were used as currency before money was invented. as such we maybe need to "restructure" our economy during play... like pay with stoneplates and such and maybe gold rings before currency... or as you said just item for items... but where do those items come from? how would you as character get those things?

to despots:
the despot should be gone when killed. no question. the heir would follow up. if no heir is defined, then chaos reigns until a true leader arises out of chaos to change the existing reign to order.
the question is still how a despot is defined. we should definitely find a way to define "clans" and let them have fights. this way the most powerful clan could decide who is the despot. in doubt by fighting against each other.

idea:
we should start of with a despot undoubtedly found to rule us... he should be kept pretty weak or propably be a NPC.
it must be somehow possible to raise armies and build clans beneath the existing government, so that power may arise beneath the NPC first-time despot. if a "clan" feels powerful enough, he can start a revolution. the clan will have to fight against the NPC-army and defeat it. people can decide whether to join the revolution or stay with the government... now the following things can happen:
1) other "clans" decide to join into the revolution and thus approove the clan who had started the revolution as future leader. the armies of that clan then join the revolution to defeat the government
2) other clans can decide to support the government. they will then fight for those forces against the revolution
3) other clans may decide to start their own "counter-revolution" to gain controll themselves

those options apply for each clan and can be revised at any time during the revolution. so the following scenario would be possible:

situation:
government has 5 knights in capitol
clan 1 has 2 knights in city A
clan 2 has 2 knight in city B
clan 3 has 5 knights in city C

now clan 3 decides to start a revolution. they begin to march towards the capitol. at that time, clans 1+2 also decide to join the revolution.

next round, clan 1+2 suddenly decide to turn against clan3. clan 2 starts a own revolution, clan 1 goes with the government.
the government now has controll of 2 knights in city A and 5 in the capitol. they surround the 4 approaching knights of clan3 and defeat them. clan3 joins the revolution of clan2 now... they draft additional knights and now clan1 also joins that revolution... as the government had split up its forces too far, it looses all of them and is deleted. clan2 as the winning clan now decides about the new despot.

Sure. Anyone could assasinate the Despot, and declare himself Despot, but would he be able to hold it? If all the other Nobles refuse to accept him, then he will have a rebellion to try to put down.

This could lead to some *very* interesting story lines.

addition to the above:
neutrality:
it would of course also be possible to stay neutral thus allowing troops to pass in both direction but not into the cities

clan definition:
the clans could be defined by city-ownership. a clan could also give out the land around the city to its members for using it. the owner of the city-tile would be the clan-leader and clans could join themselves by deciding who is the leader and then joining their tiles.

Remember that in a despotism the despot owns the land. He appoints people to manage the land for him and those can turn against him. The use of the land could be given as an incentive by a lordling but if they tried to actually give the land away they would find themselves about a foot shorter.

Neutrality wouldn't generally be a workable option. If the despot beats back the revolt you can be sure he will remove the nobles that failed to support him. If the revolt wins, how much will they trust a group that betrayed their despot but wouldn't fight?

Anybody have suggestions for the random events? Please PM them to me. I've only received suggestions from one person so far. :(

that was me!! :D I'll try an think of some more.

Random events?

Large ones that can affect the entire nation...
earthquakes
volcano (smaller than the current one, probably in actual mountains)
plague
appearence of comet (thus scaring anceints, or exciting modern peoples)
administrative mistake, causing starvtion is some areas, abundance in others

Local events
drought
floods
plague (again)
fire
severe storms
tornado (inland)
huricane (coast, multiple areas)
tidal wave
riots
savage animal attack
barbarian raids (border areas)
disease affecting trees, crops or livestock
meteor strike

Temporary random bonuses..
fertile lands
discovery of gold or other resource
happy peasentry

If it would be of interest I could try to make a program that holds a database over all the players, NPC, items, money and other things that exists in the RPG, to lessen the burden of the game managers.

It should be easy to insert, delete and edit the datas, and at the end the program could give out a list over the data so the game manager could post them on the forum.

It could also calculate if someone dies and other random events the game manager want to know. But I would need a list of what formulas I should use, and what options may be interesting?

to the events:
we could also have buildings or people which affect propability for certain events to happen...

for example:
a healer would reduce the plague risk in the city he lives in to 75% of its original value.
a doctor (available after medicine) would reduce that risk to 50% of its original value
having a doctor and a hospital in a city will reduce that risk to 25% of its original value.

same could be with shamanes+temple (ancient age) and priest+cathedral (middle age) for all other natural-events.
having a cathedral and a bishop in a province would do this for the whole province instead of the city.
in the industrial age, people start to disbelief in godly strikes and trust a bit more in science, so the effects of religious influence could be halved and be replaced by scientific features...


or at least something along that line...

doctors, shamanes, healers and priests would get a minimal payment by the state (like mayors), there can be only 1 per city and they must pass exams at an academy.

becoming a bishop would need passing another exam+ the approoval of the majority of all priests in the province where you want to be bishop. the payment would be the next higher class than for the priest.
same principle would go for the scientific line, maybe starting with alchemist in the ancient age (reduce risk of whatever), then promoting to scientist (similar to priest for religious) and then to professor (similar to bishop for religious)

i hope you get the idea... i didnt know how to explain it better ...

ah, one more:
of course the effects and risks of some catastrophes should vary during the ages.
for example, the plagues in the beginning had much more disasterous effects eliminating whole cities, but stayed within very small boundaries around the infected city.
with invention of medicine and hospitals, the severity of the plagues was drastically reduced. some of them were even eliminated.
therefor with the invention of airplanes, those plagues spread much wider throughout the whole world. there are no more completely eliminated citites, but therefor much more people die of them all around the world...

As you may have guessed by my absence from this discussion I am once again being pummeled with work and RL committments. It's severely limiting the amount of time I have for the Demogame and RPG. I fear it is the RPG that will be feeling the pinch. We need to eliminate the concept plan of me as a DM/Game Manager. That model will still work but you'll need to find another hand to throw the thunderbolts.

I'll step up to the plate - Throwing thunderbolts is fun. :)

and we should implement as much tool-support as possible. the best would be that all things are held and calculated in tools so the only thing the manager needs to do is input them. best would be a kind of webpage where for example transactions are entered... but we tried this 1 game ago and it never was finished :-(

This is an outline of what we've been discussing, added to the established protocols. Note that this isn't a finalized rule set, it's an outline. Many of the elements need individual fleshing out but this gives a decent look at how they all flow together. I especially like the way the game broadens and colors with changing technology and government forms.

I propose that we get these hammered out quickly (they're mostly hammered out already this is just all of them in one spot) and elect the needed Managers. The individual managers can then handle organizing the rules for their sections using discussion and the existing DG2 RPG rulesets.

Fundamental Rules

1. The stories and enjoyment of the players are the primary goals of the RPG. Rules exist as a framework to promote a cooperative and fun environment.

2. Thou shalt not resurrect characters, locations, plots, etc from previous RPGs.

3. Thou shalt not kill another player’s character without express permission from that player or the Game Manager. Same for any major alteration in another player’s character’s fortune, health or plotline.

4. Each player may have several characters. When posting make it very clear which character is involved.

5. Storylines often require one person to declare actions/dialog for another player’s characters. Be nice. Anything you declare that another player’s character is doing or saying should be in line for how that player has developed his character. When a storyline involves several characters give the other players a chance to contribute. Don’t jump the story beyond their chance to respond.

6. Thou shalt stay in the bounds of the demogame. Local technology is limited to what is possible in the demogame. If we are at war with a country in the demogame then we are at war in the RPG as well. We are not at war in the RPG unless we are at war in the demogame. Try to build in and build upon the demogame events in the RPG storylines.

7. Thou shalt stay in the bounds of reasonable suspension of disbelief. Your character may believe he is a vampire that can fly and mesmerize with his stare but he can’t actually physically do that. His actions must be explainable in a real world sense.

8. No take backs. Unless the Game Manager determines that an improper or illegal event has been put into a storyline everything that has been written happens.

9. The Game Manager has overall authority for activities in the RPG. He determines random events and can insert/remove elements to guide and enhance storylines. He determines when characters die from age or unpredicted (non-storyline) violence or accident. When he determines that an event will occur that directly affects a character he notifies that player so the player can work it into his storyline. If the player can’t do so the Game Manager will write the event story himself.

10. The Item Manager has overall authority for all items in the RPG. His responsibilities include tracking the exceptional items owned by each character and monitoring to prevent abuse or introduction of inappropriate goods.

Character Rules

1. When a character is created the player decides if he will be of high, medium or low birth. Each player may only create one character at a time that is of high birth (but could have more than 1 high caste character if their medium/low borne characters rise in position).

2. Each character has a life expectancy equal to that shown in the current save of the demogame. A character will die of old age at the life expectancy plus/minus 10%.

3. Character statistics are the innate traits of the character. These are determined by a combination of assignment and random contribution.

4. Character abilities are the learned skills of the character. These are determined by the player.

5. The Character Manager has overall authority over all things character related. He can add/remove/modify as he feels appropriate in order to prevent unbalanced or game threatening characters.

Land Rules

1. Might makes right. The despot starts out with everything and everybody else grovels at his feet.

2. As territory grows it gets beyond the ability of one character to control. New nobles are raised to run these territories. They are sworn to allegiance but rebellions have been known to happen. The despot can actually give away land but this generally only happens as a reward to a long time loyal follower. More often the lesser nobles are running the despot’s land in service to him.

3. It’s possible for there to be more than one despot. If a revolt succeeds and is not put down by the despot that territory is then a separate entity. Note that newly acquired territory in the demogame still goes to the despot who holds the demogame capital.

4. In a monarchy new land goes to the most logical king. That is the royal character that has adjoining lands, nearby capital, etc.

5. In republic and democracy new land is offered for general sale to the populace.

6. In communism all land reverts to control of the government.

7. Land provides a number of gold, shields and food that it would generate if worked in a city. If no city controlled by the tile owner can access the tile it never makes more than what is shown when right clicking on the tile in the game. Gold can be converted to food or shields with one gold making 1/2 of either. If currency hasn’t been discovered yet all gold produced must be taken as shields or food.

8. Cities produce the number of gold, shields and food for the tile they reside on plus an additional gold for each population point.

9. A single contiguous land territory that has at least 5 * P (where “P” is the number of provinces in the demogame) will receive an additional gold per tile in the territory. If the territory has 10 * P receives 2 gold per tile in the territory and one that has 15 * P receives 3 gold per tile in the territory.

10. The Land Manager has overall authority over land issues and is responsible for keeping track of ownership, territories and the base g/f/s values of the tiles.

Unit Rules

1. Each character may raise a certain number of units per chat. This is based on their caste level and modified by their statistics and abilities.

2. Each character also has a maximum number of units that they can maintain command over. This is based on their territory controlled and modified by their statistics and abilities. (Note that with the proper statistics and abilities a character can raise and maintain troops regardless of their caste level.)

3. Each unit costs one shield and one food per chat to be maintained in fighting order. A unit without this support becomes a half strength unit. After 2 chats at half strength the unit will disperse.

4. Each unit costs a number of shields to raise that is equal to 1/10 of the number of shields to build it in the Civ3 game.

5. Mercenary units must be supported with gold and cost gold equivalent to their unit raising cost each chat. (Example: It costs 3 shields to raise a swordsman. It would cost 3g per chat to maintain a mercenary swordsman.)

6. Units are stationed in a territory and can be assumed to be located anywhere inside that territory. A unit can move into (through) one territory per chat for each of its Civ3 movement points. If movement is not contested and is along roads a unit can move into (through) 3 territories per chat for each of its Civ3 movement points. A unit must always stop movement when it enters a contested territory.

7. Units in a contested area will fight using their unit attack/defense values from the Civ3 game modified by character warfare skills, terrain, defenses, etc. Forces may be destroyed, rebuffed, routed, etc.

8. The Conflict Manager has overall authority over all units and is responsible for tracking the units for each character, their location, movement, upkeep, status and all conflicts resulting from actions in contested territories.

Economic Rules

1. The economy of the RPG grows with the technologies known in the demogame. There is no effective economy until the discovery of currency. At that point each character will begin earning a default amount of gold based on their caste level. This is a small amount assumed to be the result of their basic living activities.

2. Currency also brings about the advent of shops. These are personal or collective establishments and must be appropriate to the skills and abilities of the proprietor/owner. Each PLAYER will be able to start one shop during the course of the game.

3. Banking technology allows the addition of companies and banks. Companies are large organizations that are owned and run by shareholders. The focus of a company does not have to be based on the skills and abilities of the owners. Banks are lending institutions that may process loans and advances for private and commercial interests.

4. The Corporation technology allows stocks and corporations. Stocks are portions of a company that can be bought and sold as a commodity. Corporations are multi-company organizations that can act in their own right to purchase/sell stocks, companies, corporations, land, etc according to their charters.

5. The Economic Manager has overall authority over the economy and is responsible for approving shops, companies and corporations. He also tracks the amount of gold that each character, company and corporation has and bankrupts a those that cannot cover expenditures.

Nobility Rules

1. All characters begin play in a specific caste (Imperial, Royal, High Noble, Noble, Upper Gentry, Lower Gentry, Common). It is possible for a character to become a higher (or lower) caste through appointments and storyline effects.

2. During despotism all peers and titles are under the direction of the despot. The despot may grant and take titles on a whim. Granted titles are almost always bound to an appropriate territory.

3. During monarchy the noble houses become forces in their own right and sponsored characters may be given title despite the wishes of a king. The king no longer has the power to remove titles but a council of nobles may be able to do so.

4. During republic any character may achieve a noble title with the expenditure of sufficient resources.

5. In democracy new titles cannot be gained though hereditary ones may still be passed on.

6. In communism all titles except the gentry are lost.

7. The Nobility Manager has overall authority of noble titles and is responsible for tracking the noble houses as well as the individual titles of each character.

reads pretty good... just some points:
age: in ancient age, people would die each TC. how can we fix that?

territory: it should be defined that a territory as defined in the land rules need not be in explicit ownership of one person, but also can be defined as "cooperative territory" with one actual "operator" of that territory who distributes the income to the participants of the cooperative (see lancre in dg2)


and an addition:
* if a storyline effects the area of a rpg-manager, he should be needed to approove the effects (for example if a storyline would raise someone in his caste status, the nobility manager should have to give his approoval before(!) the storyline event is posted)
* if a random event hits the area of a rpg manager, he has the ability to cancel the event (this will enable the managers to prevent random events from disturbing large storylines) with the approval of the overall-rpg-manager.
(example: if a random event would degrade some nobles during a large storyline needing their ranks, the nobility manager and the rpg-manager could comply on canceling the event to not disturb the storyline)

one more question just arose.... how is the despot determined?


oh, and another thing:
the despot should be forced to spend his money. despots always spent all of their money in nice houses, clothing etc.
this could also force him to lent money of others and thus force him to promote them to higher ranks ;-)

otherwise the despont may only sit on his money and never produce nobles.

Just one thing about the despot... What's that going to do with city and province threads? It seems the despot owns it, so that would take out some possible storylines for provinces and cities.

For example, What if the mayors of two cities wanted to have a tournament? It seems like they can't do that since they don't own it. I'd really like the demogame to affect the RPG more in this sense. Remember Asphinxia and the Asphinxia thread in DG1? That's how I'd like it to be. A storyline-type thread that isn't affected by the RPG, but by the demogame. Maybe the despot could be like the House of Cards (?) thread, where you're only affected if you're a part of that group.

Great Job, Shai

just a question: do we mere mortals who are currently managers keep our manager jobs? (if no, good luck finding another land manager :P)

I think there should be a max limit of how many medium/low characters someone can have.

Originally posted by disorganizer
reads pretty good... just some points:
age: in ancient age, people would die each TC. how can we fix that?
Age will be counted in game turns. For example, if I start with a peasant who is 20 years old and the average life expectancy is 40 years, that character will be dead in around 20 turns. I'll make that more clear in that section.
territory: it should be defined that a territory as defined in the land rules need not be in explicit ownership of one person, but also can be defined as "cooperative territory" with one actual "operator" of that territory who distributes the income to the participants of the cooperative (see lancre in dg2)
Not in the basic rules but the Land Manager could implement something like that in the Land Rules subset.
and an addition:
* if a storyline effects the area of a rpg-manager, he should be needed to approove the effects (for example if a storyline would raise someone in his caste status, the nobility manager should have to give his approoval before(!) the storyline event is posted
*if a random event hits the area of a rpg manager, he has the ability to cancel the event (this will enable the managers to prevent random events from disturbing large storylines) with the approval of the overall-rpg-manager.
(example: if a random event would degrade some nobles during a large storyline needing their ranks, the nobility manager and the rpg-manager could comply on canceling the event to not disturb the storyline)
The Game Manager will pass events to the Manager or player or post a public notice, as appropriate. There would have to be a pretty good reason not to use the random events though. These are critical to realism and to throw quirks into the storylines. If everything is to be put through an approval process then there is no real reason to use random events.
one more question just arose.... how is the despot determined?
The first despot should be an NPC created by the Game Manager. After that it's up to whoever can grab power.

Yeah, and wouldn't everyone make themselves a high class if they get to choose?

ct: right :-) so its good nobody can ;-)

just one thing to preven a noble-flood:
the kings and the despot should have to pay a tc-ly amount for each noble he created... this way there would be a natural limitation (income of despot) to the number of nobles we get ;-)

Dont forget my question!

CT Just one thing about the despot... What's that going to do with city and province threads? It seems the despot owns it, so that would take out some possible storylines for provinces and cities.

For example, What if the mayors of two cities wanted to have a tournament? It seems like they can't do that since they don't own it. I'd really like the demogame to affect the RPG more in this sense. Remember Asphinxia and the Asphinxia thread in DG1? That's how I'd like it to be. A storyline-type thread that isn't affected by the RPG, but by the demogame. Maybe the despot could be like the House of Cards (?) thread, where you're only affected if you're a part of that group.
Unless a despot (or noble territory controller) appoints a mayor there won't be one in the RPG. Players can still use the territories and cities. The despot isn't going to be concerned with matters that don't cost him money. Then again somebody might play a despot that drives people into the ground with an iron fist. It all depends on how the characters develop. The territories that form will be like the areas and provinces in the demogame.

SAAM: just a question: do we mere mortals who are currently managers keep our manager jobs? (if no, good luck finding another land manager :P)
We'll have all new managers. DG2 managers may of course run for the new positions.

Strider:I think there should be a max limit of how many medium/low characters someone can have.
That will be up to the Character Manager to decide. If a person can't handle the number of characters they are running or if somebody is taking advantage of the rules to run a single character with 10 names then the Character Manager has the authority to fix the problem.

CT:Yeah, and wouldn't everyone make themselves a high class if they get to choose?
Each player may start one character as high born at any one time. When that character passes away they can start another one.

disorganizer:just one thing to preven a noble-flood:
the kings and the despot should have to pay a tc-ly amount for each noble he created... this way there would be a natural limitation (income of despot) to the number of nobles we get ;-)
It will be regulated by land. There is a minimum amount of land that is required to support a title.

Really, I'd place tighter controls on the creation of characters. To create their own, and other NPC, players, the game or character manager should assign castes in life so we don't have an unrealistic number of nobles in the game.

For example, if I wanted to create my character midgame, I'd have to sign up with a manager. I'd be assigned certain character attributes at random, like caste, starting gold amount, etc. I could be a peasent, in the Duchy of New Hydra, with about 3g to my name, and a small hut in New Augusta. I could also have a job, like preacher, with X number of followers.

Each time a player character died, the player would need to register again for a new position.

i second octavian with one exception:
if somebody has children, the caste should be the parent's caste... same maybe with some of the stats.

Perhaps a new noble character may only be started when the number of noble characters is 25% or less of all characters?

Please continue discussion in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51544) thread.