Shaping a New World - Suggestions, Discussion and OOC

[CasperTheGhost]

The one thing I enjoy most about writing stories is the development of a new world and the creation of its history. Role-playing allows you to immerse yourself in this new world and allow others to do such a thing. Of course the creation of your own world strikes up problems with such a notation; the whole swathes of history can be daunting and turn people away.

Therefore I propose a solution to this dilemma; by writing the world from scratch. Now this might not seem a new concept to some people but that's not all I propose. I propose we make it a living breathing thing by playing along at the same time, through the medium of the game Civilisation 3.

What am I on about you ask. Well using modifications to the game system we can have several people, representing the cultures and races of the world, starting from scratch and building up a nation; through war, diplomacy and other such methods. Civilisation 3 allows this sort of play through the game and it can be as simple as choosing where to build cities and declaring wars to which technology to research and anything in-between.

My plan is to open this up; as the GM I'll control everything game side. There's a variety of ways I can do this but we'll come to those later. However actual determination of actions comes down to the players (you guys) Discussion and whatnot can be held here, an IC thread will be up for actual roleplaying of actions and then I'll go ahead and sort it out in game.

There's a few problems associated with the idea, hence the need for suggestions, depending on choice of how to play so we'll do those first. There's two or three chief ways that this can be run really;

Methods

First off can be through the use of hot seating. Its a game mode in Civ3 that allows me to play as a bunch of human players, each controlling different Civs. This would allow unique races for everyone and make the game more open. I see this as the more fun option but also the hardest for me. However there are also several potential flaws;

• For one it could get incredibly slow; in the game players can trade and everything is done by back and forth in the hotseat. With people's real life commitments and the fact that bargaining takes place this might slow down the game.
• Another potential speed bump is the orders; either they are done turn by turn, again slowing the game, or done by a series of orders but this may not cover all eventualities. My suggestion for sorting this out would be to provide a brief to detailed plan and then any troublesome events that pop up a PM seeing how to cover this would hopefully sort it out. It would still slow it a bit but not too much.
• It only allows 8 players. While this is not too bad it does potentially limit the number of people as one of these slots will be taken up by me for NPCs and world events.

There may be a few other problems but those are the main ones I can think of at the moment. The only 7 players beside myself could be solved by multiple people controlling one race; where discussion can be done to solve the problems then this will be allowed but if only one person replies then that course of action can be taken. It would also allow discussion for people who know they may have to skip time to say "I want this to happen if this thing happens" so they can still be taken into account. This method might also cut down on the time issue.

2) Option number two is to take a more traditional route of playing Civ3 - we control one race against AI. This would be done through each player being assigned a hero and some troops, as well as representing a voice on the controlling council or something akin to that, and eventually be granted a city or two which they gain full control over. The advantages are:

• It allows more control to me which would mean quicker play and a bit more smoothly as all the basic choices can be deicded through me, with the pauses in the game coming through discussion. For example PlayerA, controlling Rhyus the Necromancer, could state that they wish to clear the Forests of Silence and build his Keep of Undying Harrows. From then on I would proceed to do such actions unless something big, such as the Nation of Legirus, having also marched their forces into the forest with Settlers to found their own. At this point the game can be paused, options discussed (do we really want to go to war for one man's greed) and then game resumed.
• It allows greater RP; you each control a character and unique army choices (I've already go some ideas, although I have many additional options and chances for units in the game to open this all up, plus ultimate determination of character would be yours). Plus it means even if you're not taking direct participation at the time (E.g Rhyus, having killed the Legirus advance party and started a war, is bulding up his keep has left that to my devices. Therefore he takes no part in the battle while Gilrath and his Legion of Lizards wage the war on the Eastern Front) you can still take part in the discussion. It allows more downtime and such forth.
• It makes the events more random as we're against AI; one minute its nice and cuddly, the next there's a war going one

Disadvantages

• It does allow more control but this itself is potentially more restricting for the player. It also offers more chance of me misinterpreting the orders (Although this may be fun RP ways, occasionally, as we can interpret as inept Generals).
• They'd be no direct killing of your fellow players. Say if there's an Dark elf and Dwarf heroes. While part of the same city state they may hate each other for what the former did to the latter's wife one time when he was off to war. Because you're all the same race and whatnot you can't kill each other, can't declare war and everything of the sort. However it does offer possiblites of roleplaying, potential backstabbing and everything in between. The third method I purpose might solve this issue but if we take this method it may not be a major flaw. For example it could be solves this way, by say sneaking units into the territory of an enemy positioned on the border of the Dark Elf's lands, the Dwarf could send agents to kill troops of the other nation, starting a way with the whole City state. Of course, with the warriors on the Dark Elf's borders, it is obvious where they go. Meanwhile the Dwarf's forces, and that are several others due to pay offs, are so far from the front that they have little time to get there.
• While the AI being random is a plus, its also really random. They can be your best buddy at one point then try and chop off your head. Plus I don't tend to play at a difficult level (well too difficult) because I like to have a fun challenge. But that might make it a bit easy. To rectify this the difficulty level could be ramped up but that might make too hard for me to play or at least make it too hard for you all to do what you want.

Method 3
This method is a somewhat advanced version of method 2. Using the hotseat mechanism outlined in one we utilise it in the general principle of method 2. As PC's you are all part of the same City State etc as per method 2 BUT every other slot is controlled by me. This allows me complete control over the world, the general story etc. One slot would be for creatures/barbarians etc. and the others would be for other races/city states.

Advantages

• Like I said, I have complete control over eveything. This allows greater RP (wars can't be started without my choice and therefore tensions might be diffused with good RPing). The turns could pass smoother as major events aren't going to happen unless I'm aware of them; I know there's an army advancing on the Border of your lands and therefore if you happen to have scouts in the area I can pause the game and inform you what you see.
• It offers a chance to get rid of the problem with not attacking each other. Literally you can't attack each other but through the barbarian side I could produce units the exact same as the ones you wish to attack with (taking them off you if you die of course) and launch an attack. Any cities captured would of course be yours then. Its a bit convoluted but with pre-planning this could be done.

Disadvantage

• It potentially limits the number of races, although with a bit of ignorance and roleplaying I'll just use the same ingame race and represent different races/fractions for these.
• Again a fair bit of work for me, although potentially less than Method 1, still more than Method 2.
• The method for attacking each other is maybe a bit too much but it could work. A play-test of this would be in order and if it didn't work then there would be no direct attacking of each other. This might not be a massive problem but limits some of the fun potentially.

Method 4
Again a mismatch; Hotseating with me in control of most of the slots but 2/3 are RP characters. A few people per race which allows them to control each race. It allows some players to attack others.

Advantages

• Allows inter-player-nation war. Opens some cool RPing chances. Plus all the advantages of Method 3

Disadvantages

• I'd say this is the second greatest workload after Method 1 plus it has greater chance of slowing down turns (although with a few players per race, it would cut it down a bit). It would be less likely for just a general plan to work.
• It limits the number of NPC nations and players as there's only 8 slots as far as I'm aware on hotseating.

RPing Basics

Righteo as I'm making the map as I type I thought I would go into the RPing element more as, at the moment it might just seem like a 3rd person playing of the game. I envision something akin to the following.

The beginning starts with a ship landing on the shores of a new land with a contingent of people or the survivors of a tribe/collection of people and races after vicious attack by surrounding nation/tribes etc. From here, with the shattered remnants of your people, it is your job to rebuild your nation and forge your own History.

Yours is a collection of races and people's; Humans, Elves, Vampies, Lizardman, Ogres, even a Werepanda if you want to (Seriously, I've got a load to play with at the moment so if you want something outside the 'normal fantasy' of Humans, Elves etc. its very open at the moment.) Depending on what you are you might therefore get special troops or something akin to that,so if you're a necromancer, upon killing troops you get a chance of a skeleton/zombie. Then each further death, by the zombie or the necromancer, has a chance of producing another. Later on when you potentially get a city/keep/whatever, you might be able to produce other units then.

Of course if you want to be a normal human or something it doesn't limit you to no troops or nothing cool. You may take ships and discover an island fill of walking talking lizards. Initially hostile you make war with them, killing their warriors that resist and taking their villages. Eventually they surrender to you and thus you have the making of an army. Although it may pay to watch them for the years to come on.

In fact the possibilities are all there. The basics are this is I will create the world, the people in it and their background. Some will be small nations, other's will be large ones, having been there for hundreds of years. The basic story will also be mapped out; in fact if you, the players, decided to do nothing but sit there, the story would play out as planned. The impact, and the changing tales would come from your influence. The doomsday plot by one mad-man might be stopped by your people. Or maybe you wish for your plan to go along.

Discussion and talk between nations would be decided by RPing of course. In fact really the only thing that would be decided would be the battles; that would be decided in game, along with the building of armies etc. The movement would be decided via RP and then shown on the map. In fact the game is mainly there to bring the choice to life. Each action would be recorded, the information passed along and posts written up.

For example, in a war the armies clash. Ten units die from your side (say representing 400 men per unit) while 18 die from their side. This would be sent to the player and a post could be written up from your side. I would also write one from the NPCs side. So in a sense the action is merely a basic representation of the bigger story. It allows a slightly more random, but also organised, element to wars and whatnot. Also game mechanics could be ignored for parts; while in game if you kill one unit then you declare war on the entire AI. However, if its an isolated scouting force, it could easily be done so the units die but if not unit makes it back then no one knows what is happening or how they died

However if the players just wish to do nothing major, such as merely RP the determination of their nation, interaction etc. then that's fine. Armies could be built but nothing major would happen until the time either the player wish their characters to or the story progresses so. This allows players to interact when they don't wish anything major to happen but also people to leave for a bit but other PCs to still do what they wish.

So, to sum up, most of the game would be done by RP. The movement of armies, the interaction between nations and players, all done in the 'normal' forum RP form. Even the battles would be wrote up like that, just the outcomes decided by the game. The results would be PMd to the player and then the posts put up. If quick enough it could even go before the next round up.

So there's some more explanation. Later on I'll put up more detailed ideas and workings but hopefully that's enough to get people more interested.

So what do people think? Is the idea interesting. If a few people are interested then I'll open up all the resources for unit choosing etc. I also think a trail run would be a good choice, just a small version. Method wise I think 3 would be the best and smoothest but I am open to any of them to be honest. I'm thinking the world will be more fantasy based but again we can run through this is people have other ideas.

So thoughts or interest?

[slayer11392]

This sounds like a very interesting idea and a really cool and interesting one. Being a history buff history of nations and people is something that I have loved for and read about for years. (One of the main reasons I love Warhammer so much is the rich history) I would be totally willing to try this out and to see what happens in the world as everything happens, so count me in as a player or leader of a nation or what ever. As for style method three sounds like it be the easiest yet method one sounds like the most fun and the most real life choice for the players. What you could do is that maybe the players aren't necessarily the rulers of the states/ races the the advisers so each plan and action must be passed by you for approval before it happens and leaves you free to do what you want with diplomacy and what not since your the king. So ya thats my two cents. Again great idea and i want in.

[CasperTheGhost]

As for style method three sounds like it be the easiest yet method one sounds like the most fun and the most real life choice for the players. What you could do is that maybe the players aren't necessarily the rulers of the states/ races the the advisers so each plan and action must be passed by you for approval before it happens and leaves you free to do what you want with diplomacy and what not since your the king. So ya thats my two cents. Again great idea and i want in.

Indeed, one is the most interesting; it was my original idea that spurred on the very process of this; heck method 3 and 4 I only thought of while typing the thread out and testing the game at the same time.

The diplomacy isn't the issue per-say, more the time gap between it. Basically, in game a player makes an offer (say Iron Working tech for Writing and 100 gold). That's how it works in Single Player and can flow really easily. In multiplayer it works like you offer the player a sum of money and they offer something in return for that on their turn. And so back and forth till the deal is done. All good fun but obviously I'd have to go through everyone else's turn. Of course this could be sorted out through discussion on the forums and then sorted out in game.

My main worry is players not posting orders in a while and different lives of everyone. Some people can get on here everyday some can't. If 4 out of 5 people can post orders to me everyday and only one can't, it can slow the game down for everyone and make it less fun. Of course it does open the chance of someone moving into their spot, or if enough interest more people per race, so its potentially solvable,

What I like most about 3 is the chance for people to move in when they need to or leave if they want. I plan something along the lines of doing a great act before you character gets a village; therefore it means that a new character can start and they'd just be where someone people where (or indeed are). It some ways its turns into a hero game where people get some cities (or a nation through utter conquest). But again it does somewhat limit the whole "I've got a whole race at my command and world to conquer."

Glad for interest, especially so quick. I'm thinking that I might run a small game when a few people are interested; it could represent the starting of the race/city state/etc. and would be an interesting way of starting the history, testing the game and also potentially testing out more than one method in the same game.

[slayer11392]

What could happen for diplomacy to make it quicker is that have people do their trading in the forums and then the trade in game takes less time. now talking about all this really makes me want to play Total war.

[CasperTheGhost]

What could happen for diplomacy to make it quicker is that have people do their trading in the forums and then the trade in game takes less time. now talking about all this really makes me want to play Total war.

Indeed that would be the best way to do so. And buy Civ3 on Steam. Its only £3

Righteo as I'm making the map as I type I thought I would go into the RPing element more as, at the moment it might just seem like a 3rd person playing of the game. I envision something akin to the following.

The beginning starts with a ship landing on the shores of a new land with a contingent of people or the survivors of a tribe/collection of people and races after vicious attack by surrounding nation/tribes etc. From here, with the shattered remnants of your people, it is your job to rebuild your nation and forge your own History.

Yours is a collection of races and people's; Humans, Elves, Vampies, Lizardman, Ogres, even a Werepanda if you want to (Seriously, I've got a load to play with at the moment so if you want something outside the 'normal fantasy' of Humans, Elves etc. its very open at the moment.) Depending on what you are you might therefore get special troops or something akin to that,so if you're a necromancer, upon killing troops you get a chance of a skeleton/zombie. Then each further death, by the zombie or the necromancer, has a chance of producing another. Later on when you potentially get a city/keep/whatever, you might be able to produce other units then.

Of course if you want to be a normal human or something it doesn't limit you to no troops or nothing cool. You may take ships and discover an island fill of walking talking lizards. Initially hostile you make war with them, killing their warriors that resist and taking their villages. Eventually they surrender to you and thus you have the making of an army. Although it may pay to watch them for the years to come on.

In fact the possibilities are all there. The basics are this is I will create the world, the people in it and their background. Some will be small nations, other's will be large ones, having been there for hundreds of years. The basic story will also be mapped out; in fact if you, the players, decided to do nothing but sit there, the story would play out as planned. The impact, and the changing tales would come from your influence. The doomsday plot by one mad-man might be stopped by your people. Or maybe you wish for your plan to go along.

Discussion and talk between nations would be decided by RPing of course. In fact really the only thing that would be decided would be the battles; that would be decided in game, along with the building of armies etc. The movement would be decided via RP and then shown on the map. In fact the game is mainly there to bring the choice to life. Each action would be recorded, the information passed along and posts written up.

For example, in a war the armies clash. Ten units die from your side (say representing 400 men per unit) while 18 die from their side. This would be sent to the player and a post could be written up from your side. I would also write one from the NPCs side. So in a sense the action is merely a basic representation of the bigger story. It allows a slightly more random, but also organised, element to wars and whatnot. Also game mechanics could be ignored for parts; while in game if you kill one unit then you declare war on the entire AI. However, if its an isolated scouting force, it could easily be done so the units die but if not unit makes it back then no one knows what is happening or how they died

However if the players just wish to do nothing major, such as merely RP the determination of their nation, interaction etc. then that's fine. Armies could be built but nothing major would happen until the time either the player wish their characters to or the story progresses so. This allows players to interact when they don't wish anything major to happen but also people to leave for a bit but other PCs to still do what they wish.

So, to sum up, most of the game would be done by RP. The movement of armies, the interaction between nations and players, all done in the 'normal' forum RP form. Even the battles would be wrote up like that, just the outcomes decided by the game. The results would be PMd to the player and then the posts put up. If quick enough it could even go before the next round up.

So there's some more explanation. Later on I'll put up more detailed ideas and workings but hopefully that's enough to get people more interested.

[canberraguy]

FYI a mate created a world for a D&D campaign we played and he found some interviews with Ed greenwood very helpful.