Grandmaster
Deity
Mmmm.... oreos......
Bringing the RPG in DG3
- Thread starter Octavian X
- Start date
- Status
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
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
Mmm...
Now about the Jedi?
Any word on that?
Thats even if Zarn wants another Jedi for DG3
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
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.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
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.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I don't see that any rule additions are needed, just some rule trimming and correction here and there.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
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.
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.
Shaitan
der Besucher
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?
What changes in land income are desired?
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
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)
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)
donsig
Low level intermediary
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.
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.
Shaitan
der Besucher
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?
Tracking shields and food as well is a neat idea but will treble the work involved. Is it worth it?
donsig
Low level intermediary
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!!!!
Shaitan
der Besucher
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.
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.
Shaitan
der Besucher
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.
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.
donsig
Low level intermediary
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...
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...
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.
Shaitan
der Besucher
The mechanics are complicated but the theory is simple. Let's see what we can do to streamline it.
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
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.
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.
- Status
