Game Concept: "Regents of the Realm"

[nineGardens]

Okay, so me and a friend hit upon a game concept we want to make/see a few days ago.
Before we get into the nitty gritty of BUILDING the thing, I figured I'd come here, give you lovely playgroundites the pitch, and see what sorts of things people were most keen on seeing.


Here's the concept:
Tabletop RPG where you and your fellow players play the role of a council of regents (as opposed to a band of heros).
While one person in the party might play the general of the army, another might play "The Grand architect". While in classic tabletop RPGs actions take place of minutes and days, in this, actions flow over weeks and years.

The sorts of dangers you and your allies might face are such things as "Rumors of a plague in a neighboring kingdom", Wars, famines, revolutions, assasination attempts, Feuding noble houses, etc etc etc.
Often you'll be dealing with two or three threads trying to unravel at the same time, along with a number of minor nuisances.

The tools at your disposal are such things as "The Navy (33 ships)", "Lady Armia de sol (A diplomat)", "A thriving silkmaker's guild" and "A magical superweapon our Wizard spent eight months building".


So... obviously the trick here is balancing the games RPG elements, against the tendency for such things to get very "Boardgamey". I am not trying to make "Civilization: the boardgame" (for one things, that already exists).

So, if you were playing such a game...

• what would you want it to FEEL like? On a scale from "My little pony" to "Game of thrones" (light vs dark)
• where would you want it on a scale from "City simulator 2000" to "Discworld Logic" to chess (Simulation vs narrative vs boardgame)
• Would you as a player want to know the name and accent of sixty three nobles, or just the tone of each major house? Or is each house just a game token to be shunted around?
• How close to the action would you want/expect to be? Is it sufficient to hear about things via rumours and reports, or would you need to "be" on the battlefield and at the trade negotiation in order to feel connected to the story?
• Would you expect player characters to have personal "stats"... or just abilities attached to their role?
• What level of detail would you expect in terms of the cities "Stats"?
• Do battles involve delicate tactics, or is it just "Your army got in a battle, roll a d6?" (I suspect somewhere in between)
• What Role would you be most excited to play in such a game? (Me and my friend have brainstormed some, hidden under spoiler tag so as not to pollute your thinking, but please make up whatever role you would most want).

Spoiler: Roles

Show

"The Grand Architect" - controls construction of infrastructure, and potentially trade and guilds (?)
"The Commander" - controls armies... also potentially the city watch.
"The Courtier" - wrangles the noble houses... also recieves a regular supply of "Skilled personal" to be handed out to the other players and assigned to tasks.
"The Benevolent" - Liaises with churches and the common people. Controls healers, orphanhouses, etc.
"The Sorcerer" - conducts research from the mages tower. Send out minions on quests. Does absolutely crazy magic from time to time, not all of it safe.
"The Diplomat" - deals with foreign affairs.
"The Spymaster" - master of spies. (duh).
"Gamemaster" - is a GM, plays the role of the world outside.

[rferries]

I recommend you take a look at Pathfinder's kingdom subsystem, seems precisely what you want.

[lightningcat]

Isn't that the entire point of Reign? While I have not played it, it is a One Roll Engine game about rulership.

[Quarian Rex]

I recommend you take a look at Pathfinder's kingdom subsystem, seems precisely what you want.

Or not. Some (myself included) find the PF Kingdom Building rules to be clunky, immersion breaking, and just really ill-suited to simulating kingdom management.

Right now, I'm using Domain rules from ACKS (a 2E revival that has kingdom rules that are universally applicable) modified by government and economy modifiers from Lords of Prime (so that a slave nation ruled by a despotic tyrant is mechanically different from a free estate republic) and using the leadership roles from the Power Structure section of The Book of Strongholds & Dynasties (providing meaningful actions that can be taken only by those in key leadership roles in a kingdom, like Council Members, the Chief of Defense, the Treasurer, Head of Intelligence, etc.).

The key with a game like this is to have mechanically interesting options that apply at multiple levels of play, both when shaping kingdoms during months of downtime as well as leading armies in a border conflict (something the PF Kingdom rules fail hard at). There are many options out there, have a look at them and see what appeals to you.

[nineGardens]

Thanks for the info (especially Quarian Rex)

Hmmm... re-reading my original posting (and peoples responses), I suspect I worded things poorly.


I am less interested in a list of "Here are random citations of things that exist" and more in ... what do people WANT to see. Or... if something gets recomended, what is particularly liked about it.

I am less interested in "X exists" and more in "X exists, and I like it because"
Or even just "If I was playing a kingdom ruling game, I would want...."

I am focused on the design of such a thing, not the search for ones that exist (hearing what exists can be useful for design... but only if a little more context and discussion is given, as QR has done)

[Quarian Rex]

... what do people WANT to see. Or... if something gets recomended, what is particularly liked about it.

"If I was playing a kingdom ruling game, I would want...."

I am focused on the design of such a thing, not the search for ones that exist (hearing what exists can be useful for design... but only if a little more context and discussion is given, as QR has done)

In that case, I'll try to expand on what I said before. Well, I obviously have an interest in the subject and that is mainly from attempts by friends trying to add elements of kingdom building into a game (something that we were interested in to varying degrees) and noting why it didn't work out. From my perspective that was due to a lack of mechanical support. While at the time we had the Stronghold Builders Guide (which is a fine resource for what it is) what we lacked was any kind of crunch-based feedback so that we could see the effects of our efforts. It's not enough to cross out an arbitrary amount of gold from the character sheet and have the DM tell you that the town now has a sewer system, that sewer system needs to actually do something. Otherwise it is just a gold sink and a game of mother-may-I with the DM.

That's the reason I like the ACKS Domain system. It is relatively simple (only about 20 pages) and that covers everything from establishing a domain and kingdom growth to urban settlements and vassalage, from criminal hideouts and merchant caravans to Wizard created dungeons and encounter frequency based on how pacified your territory is. And it is simple. It uses gp throughout and aspects can be started (or not) at any level of play. Too low level to really consider trying to hold some territory but recently came into some extra coin? Buy some carts and horses, load then up, hire some mercenaries, and start your own caravan (the next dungeon is in that direction anyway). Seriously, looking through these rules is the only time I have ever actually considered such a thing, but it opens up all kinds of interesting options (like Firefly with Sorcerers).

The rules also encourage a level of engagement with the rest of the game world that I appreciate as well. For instance, your kingdom gets a boost to population growth during a month if its ruler actively adventured during that time. People play D&D for a lot of reasons and it is good to have a mechanical impetus (so it doesn't feel like you are falling behind in your task) to indulge those reasons (like adventuring) even when you are trying to focus completely on a separate aspect (kingdom building).

Lords of Prime provides some mechanical differences between different forms of government and economy, things that the players might otherwise have a hard time caring about. Give them the slightest concrete reason to actually care and all of a sudden that political sub-plot that the DM has been foreshadowing has new levels of interest and importance. Watch as the players scramble to preserve the status quo (or shake it up) for their own benefit.

One thing that I liked about the Pathfinder Kingdom Building rules was the idea of multiple important roles in the running of a kingdom. While having each member of the party run their own kingdom can be fun it violates the first rule of adventuring, 'Don't split the party!'. Having meaningful roles solves that. I just hate the way pathfinder goes about that solution (just additional/alternate modifiers on a kingdom roll to see if your people actually pay their taxes or you go broke this month). The Book of Strongholds & Dynasties fills that niche with mechanical actions for those roles that can actually matter or even be critical to the survival of a fledgling kingdom. When running this kind of game you have to be aware that it will appeal to some players more than others. While one might be gonzo for figuring out how to grow his perfect little kingdom, his buddy may just be happier as the arse-kicking Captain of the Armies.

To make a kingdom building game successful there has to be an actual game at that level of play. You need a way to respond to questions that you may not have answers for. Things like, what happens if I hit the invading army's supply lines? How long does it take the King to replace the 20,000 soldiers that he just lost in the last battle? What plunder do I get when I take these 500 mercenaries and raid our neighbors territory to force him into war. How will that affect his kingdoms morale/treasury? You need to have answers to questions like these and sometimes the answers will be things that neither the players nor DM will expect. That's part of what makes it a game. Tis a tricky thing, you need all the tools you can get.

[rferries]

To clarify my own comment: the PF rules have lists of the sorts of things you were looking for (plague events, kingdom roles, armies, buildings, etc). It's a useful compilation of stuff to adapt for your own purposes.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

My experience with realm-focused campaigns basically mirrors that of Quarian Rex, though I ported ACKS rules to 3e and combined it with most of the 3e Birthright rules and flavor, and I 'brewed up my own "house roles" system since I wasn't aware of Strongholds & Dynasties.

Rather than repeating a lot of the same points, I'll mention some things I did in my campaigns that touch on your questions and might give you some inspiration:

• How close to the action would you want/expect to be? Is it sufficient to hear about things via rumours and reports, or would you need to "be" on the battlefield and at the trade negotiation in order to feel connected to the story?
• Would you expect player characters to have personal "stats"... or just abilities attached to their role?
• Do battles involve delicate tactics, or is it just "Your army got in a battle, roll a d6?" (I suspect somewhere in between)

I've had great success with switching between House and party scales. There's a "domain turn" every season in which House actions take place, random events are generated, and so forth, and the players can choose to go on one short adventure per domain turn, usually to "zoom in" on one event during that turn and take care of it themselves instead of leaving things to abstract action rolls. That ensures that people who like the realm management part more and people who like the adventuring part more both get to have fun, it really helps sell the impact of the Houses on the world if e.g. the players decide to raise taxes on one domain turn and then the next turn they adventure in a more heavily-taxed region and see the results.

It also adds some depth and drama to the domain actions if the party wants to, say, invade a city, assassinate an enemy noble, and steal the plans for a prototype siege engine, since they can only personally involve themselves in one of those per turn so do they go for the hardest one and hope the others work out, or spread those over three turns so they can personally handle all three but risk the situation changing in the meantime, or....

Also, I feel that having personal stats in addition to role stats is important for fleshing out the characters. A Royal Treasurer who happens to be a rogue with a mercantile background and cares about overland trade's effect on taxation rates is going to have very different priorities than a Royal Treasurer who happens to be a wizard with a divination focus and cares about magically preventing counterfeiting and forgery. A High Priest who's a perfectly pious cleric and has lived in a temple studying theology his whole life is going to have a very different outlook than a High Priest who's a world-weary fighter who slays monsters in her day job and has a more pragmatic approach to faith.

• Would you as a player want to know the name and accent of sixty three nobles, or just the tone of each major house? Or is each house just a game token to be shunted around?
• What level of detail would you expect in terms of the cities "Stats"?

In my campaigns, the party gets to create their House from a set of traits that give various benefits and drawbacks and collectively determine the flavor of the House, from the dominant race to guiding principles to major resources and exports. For instance, "Cultural Inclination: Inventive Populace" and "Military Strategy: Fleet Dominance" gives a bonus to cities' Infrastructure stats and makes ships and airships cheaper, while "Cultural Inclination: Meticulous Populace" and "Military Strategy: Range Advantage" reduces equipment/vehicle production times and gives access to advanced siege weaponry.

Importantly, the party also gets to build their main ally House and their main rival House (or multiple allies and rivals if there are more than five Houses in play), choosing from the same pool of traits. This ensures that all of the Houses are different (since once one House takes e.g. "Magical Tradition: Mystical Servants" no other one can) and gives me a good clue as to what kind of campaign they want to play (if their main rival house has "Cultural Inclination: Devoted Populace" and "Political Stance: Manipulate from the Shadows" and is majority-elf, the party probably wants more of an intrigue-ish campaign, while if it has "Cultural Inclination: Martial Populace" and "Political Stance: Fear Will Keep the Local Provinces in Line" and is majority-hobgoblin, the party probably wants more of a war-focused campaign).

It also immediately gives the players an investment in those other Houses so they're more interested in getting to know their major NPCs. I offer the players the chance to build any other Houses in play or have them generated randomly, and that decision will help indicate their level of investment in the other houses; a group that hand-crafts seven houses probably wants a detailed Game of Thrones setup, while one that focuses mostly on the main rival probably doesn't.

• What Role would you be most excited to play in such a game? (Me and my friend have brainstormed some, hidden under spoiler tag so as not to pollute your thinking, but please make up whatever role you would most want).

Spoiler: Roles

Show

"The Grand Architect" - controls construction of infrastructure, and potentially trade and guilds (?)
"The Commander" - controls armies... also potentially the city watch.
"The Courtier" - wrangles the noble houses... also recieves a regular supply of "Skilled personal" to be handed out to the other players and assigned to tasks.
"The Benevolent" - Liaises with churches and the common people. Controls healers, orphanhouses, etc.
"The Sorcerer" - conducts research from the mages tower. Send out minions on quests. Does absolutely crazy magic from time to time, not all of it safe.
"The Diplomat" - deals with foreign affairs.
"The Spymaster" - master of spies. (duh).
"Gamemaster" - is a GM, plays the role of the world outside.

I've yet to think of any other roles that can't be collapsed into those seven, so that's probably a good set. In my games, though, each House gets to name its own roles according to the House's philosophy. For example, a House whose roles are named Royal Archmage, Senior Ambassador, High Priest, Lord Treasurer, Court Spymaster, Chief Magistrate, and Grand Marshal has a very different vibe than one whose roles are named Wonderworker, Truthspeaker, Farseer, Vaultwarden, Lorekeeper, Lawgiver, and Warmaster, even though the actual setup of Arcane/Diplomatic/Divine/Financial/Intrigue/Legal/Martial roles is identical between the two.

Also, each role gets partial access to another role's domain actions, the selection of which again varies by House based on its theme. If in one House the Lord Treasurer [Financial] role can take limited Grand Marshal [Martial] actions and the Chief Magistrate [Legal] role can take limited High Priest [Divine] actions (implying a more secular, democratic House), in another House the Minister of Thaumaturgy [Arcane] can take limited Minister of Justice [Legal] actions and the Minister of Foreign Affairs [Diplomatic] can take limited Minister of Intelligence [Intrigue] actions (implying a more sneaky, tyrannical House), and in a third House the Procurator [Legal], Consul [Diplomatic], and Pontifex [Divine] can all take limited Praetor [Martial] actions (implying a more hierarchical, warlike House), that both influences the actions the House will tend to take at the Realm scale and gives a sense of where their priorities lie.

[nineGardens]

Thank you all- these details are great!

In my campaigns, the party gets to create their House from a set of traits that give various benefits and drawbacks and collectively determine the flavor of the House,

This is cool, especially love the ally house/rival house aspect.

In my games, though, each House gets to name its own roles according to the House's philosophy.

Hmmm... on the one hand, I like this, on the other hand I feel like there's a reason D&D switched from "Magic user" (1st edition) to "Wizard" latter on... and a big part of that reason was to grant easier flavour.

People play D&D for a lot of reasons and it is good to have a mechanical impetus (so it doesn't feel like you are falling behind in your task) to indulge those reasons (like adventuring) even when you are trying to focus completely on a separate aspect (kingdom building).

This is a very good point...

That's the reason I like the ACKS Domain system. It is relatively simple (only about 20 pages) and that covers everything from establishing a domain and kingdom growth to urban settlements and vassalage, from criminal hideouts and merchant caravans to Wizard created dungeons and encounter frequency based on how pacified your territory is. And it is simple.

That's a lot of stuff to cover in 20 pages. I'm impressed.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Hmmm... on the one hand, I like this, on the other hand I feel like there's a reason D&D switched from "Magic user" (1st edition) to "Wizard" latter on... and a big part of that reason was to grant easier flavour.

Keeping in mind that in my version each House actually has slightly different mechanics for its roles, kinda like ACFs on top of a given base class, a generic base name that gets more flavorful in the final version is actually a perk. But the changing titles thing is mostly for making houses sound different in-game, so you can use the titles you listed out-of-game and have different ones in-game without a problem.

[igordragonian]

Well, first thing, for years I have been looking for the right system for such a game.
Though, didn't had much chances to try.

So I wanted to say I respect this effort.

I have not much to say, but to offer two roles, that I think that would add something.

Treasurer. Money and it's beraucacy it's a whole section of rulership.
Dealing with loans, debts, taxes and etc.


Also, maybe a judge? A legal system might he a whole world of intrigues by it's own rigjf