Skip to Content

GM-less NRPG

8 replies [Last post]
Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013

If anyone recalls my last thread about an idea on Nation RPGs from the link below one of the main issues with this concept was having an effective GM-less RPG design to have everyone more or less self policed based on an agreed set of rules.

https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/design-theory/nation-rpg

Even playing the role of a leader with absolute power there are circumstances inside your nation that is beyond your direct control. There are the basics such as making sure your people aren't starving and to levy an army large enough to ward off an aggressive neighbor and protecting trade by bandits on land and pirates at sea.

The GM-less part has been the biggest challenge in the design process and I believe there is a solution to keep everyone in check to reduce the more power-gamey aspects of it. Everyone has a nation focus based on five categories, weekly reports, monthly reports and yearly reports. One turn equals one week.

Weekly reports are mainly movements in trade routes, military operations and anything of that sort that is resolved within a week.

Monthly reports are diplomatic missions, special events and political intrigue.

Yearly reports is population, political climate, treasury and resource consumption/extraction.

Before I go any further in details what do you think of this concept so far?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Maybe you can put your yearly

Maybe you can put your yearly reports into trimester or season reports. The ones that you have named can change that quickly. But if a trimester or season is too fast for the game that you have in mind. Stick with years.

How many years will your game take?

Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
There's really no set time

There's really no set time but things start off in the early Renaissance periods to industrial revolution and possibly beyond.

It's generally a fantasy world with a steampunky flair to it.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Worried that it may take TOO LONG

I agree with X3M's assessment that the "reports" are not realistic at all.

My version would be:

  • Weekly is cool, basically "Each Turn".

  • Bi-Weekly is okay, on "Every 2 Turns".

  • Monthly is not bad, about "Every 5 Turns".

Yearly is just NOT REALISTIC. You need 48 to 60 turns before reaching 1 Year?!?! Do you see how that is not realistic?!?!

So on Turn #10, You get ALL THREE (3) "reports"... Which is INTERESTING.

But it's your game idea... Maybe you didn't do the math about HOW LONG a Year would be game-wise. 48 (4 turns/month) to 60 (5 turns/month) turns...

Note: If you want the "Yearly" report to happen ONCE (1) per game... maybe then it's logical. But I'm not getting the feel that that is the case... You can correct me if I am wrong.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Another way of looking at it

You can have Actions or Event that take place "on each player's turn".

After all the player's take their turn, you can have Actions or Events that take place "once per round".

After every "third round", you can have another set of Actions or Events that occur (which are different from the events that occur "once per round").

Thinking of it in terms of PLAY TIME might be more "reasonable". IDK — it's your game idea. I'm just seeing what are the other possibilities.

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I think the ROUNDS version is better

Why? Because if you play FOUR (4) or more players, doing something "On each player's turn" is reasonable. After 4 (or more) turns, you do the Actions "Once per round" UNLESS it's the THIRD round.

If you think about the third round Actions, they would occur every 12 (or more) Turns.

Still realistic — because we broke everything into relative terms with regards to PLAYING the game.

That to me sounds much more realistic... But it may not work for you. Just some examination into the suggestion.

Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
So it's better off just to

So it's better off just to leave things on a weekly basis? Instead of weekly, monthly and yearly?

The main reason I wanted to implement a check is to make sure people aren't pulling weird numbers out of their derriere.

Do you know of a more reliable method than this?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
No turns should be Monthly...

Experimental Designs wrote:
So it's better off just to leave things on a weekly basis? Instead of weekly, monthly and yearly?

I understand your dilemma. How many players to this game? 4 or more?? The reason I ask this is because more than 4 players could make the intervals greater between turns and make a weekly basis seem longer.

Experimental Designs wrote:
Do you know of a more reliable method than this?

Okay I have thought about it some more and here is my recommendation:

Each player's turn is a Month. During his turn, he does everything that is possible in a Month.

Next according to the Season, activities that change according to the climate happen quarterly (so every 3 Months).

Lastly as per your original idea, each Year (or every 12 Months).

And voila, a balanced game — much more reasonable and you can KEEP your original plan/ideas just by changing things a smidgen in order to make them more realistic.

So Monthly/Quarterly/Yearly...

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Is it a 4 or 5 player game???

questccg wrote:
So Monthly/Quarterly/Yearly...

I asked you about the number of players for one very specific reason:

You could maybe use the term "weekly" if you allow for four (4) or five (5) players. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense. Let me explain.

Each player plays "A TURN". If that TURN is a "week" and there are 4 or 5 players, all their turns TOGETHER form a "MONTH" (4 or 5 weeks).

A MONTH is "A ROUND"... Every 3 rounds is a QUARTER. And every 12 rounds is a YEAR.

But it doesn't work if you have 2 or 3 players... Makes less sense.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut