Birthright on rpol.net...maybe?

[fbaker4]

I'm thinking about starting a game there after Easter (mid-April) but I want to get a sense of interest and 'scope'. I'm often torn myself between a more purely strategic (Realm Ruler) roleplay and a more adventure-driven game with the setting as a backdrop.

If I went strategic, I was thinking that I might streamline the rules & domain actions for ease of play, and provide all the major players with Tolkien-esque Palantir seeing stones to ease the continuity of communications, and enforce a real-time deadline of one domain turn per week with a resolution phase following every third week.

For more traditional D&D 3.5 roleplay...I dunno. The PC might just start as regular folks, or related to regents, but not regents themselves.

Anyway, just trying to get a sense of who, if anyone, would play a strategic game.

[Cade]

I would be interested, especially in the more strategic approach

[Urulòki]

I'll be glad to jump in too, providing that Strategic gaming is retained...

[fbaker4]

Does no one play this anymore & only talk about it?

To have a solid strategic game, need a minimum of 10 players if we're doing all of Ainure, 5 if it's a regional - and that's if we limit it to regents only!

20 player regents makes a good Ainure; 15 makes for a regional with guilders/high priests, etc. 30+ makes an Ainure strategic with guilders etc. I put a feeler out on RPOL.net as well, and there's likely a few there too...

But I was hoping for more comment here...

[rodsantos]

I am very interested in both proposals, but im more inclined to the strategic approuch.

Every time i see a new game, it is already full'

If this game happens, i would like very much to be in

[Urulòki]

I might be wrong, but I guess that most of people here are waiting to see what comes up eventually before stepping in. There have been campaigns, planned, announced even started but ran for a very short time.

[fbaker4]

I see. I was hoping that folks would just weigh in; naturally, it can take a bit of time to work up a game, and I don't have the time to spend unless i get indications.

Here's a key question for people:

Would they/Could they game on rpol.net?

Can weekly turns be enforced? 10-day?

Will people be ok with only regents (at least at start)?

I'm also planning on 'streamlining' the actions (domain, free, etc.). Is that something that would drive people away, at least in principle (and without getting into specifics)?

How about changing the borders of certain realms? It might be fun to have PC regents of Ghoere, but that would be too powerful. However, if Ghoere were three realms, that might work well.

Thoughts?

[irdeggman]

I might be wrong, but I guess that most of people here are waiting to see what comes up eventually before stepping in. There have been campaigns, planned, announced even started but ran for a very short time.

Plus the fact that most games don't survive 2 turns. Very, very few have withstood the test of time and made it much longer.

People get real frustrated when they put a lot of upfront time and energy into working things out (and planning ahead) only to have the DM become overwhelmed (most often the case) with the enormity of the game or with real life situations (the other big factor) {It sucks that life interferes with gaming}.

Also people probably want to know what rules set is being used (2nd ed, BRCS, or house-rules), saying 3.5 for character level doesn't automatically translate into 3.x for domain level - many people prefer to keep the two separate (based on posts in the past).

[fbaker4]

I'm clear that people don't like to waste their time. But that applies to GMs too...I think that there's enough interest here and on rpol to start gathering data to make things work...but there's a lot of opportunity to have it all go south, that's for sure.

My hope is that by primarily recruiting from here, players/regents will at least know the setting and the basics. I've been a player in many BR games, that as you mentioned fail after two turns - and part of that fail has been players who drop at the first sign of difficulty, players who won't file their turns, and players who need so much handholding that they exaust the gm.

Since my 'plan' (no plan survives contact with the enemy) is to play a significantly strategic game where all the players are regents, I'm hoping to avoid some of the pitfalls...wish my luck...

And watch this space as I work through the specifics here _before_ starting a game.

[Urulòki]

I shall move to a more practical field, the frequence of Turns submission. I think that avoiding too long delay between turns is a good thing to keep players motivated, but if you plan weekly submission for seasonal turns, I believe that it would be clearly too fast-paced (at leat for me).

Maybe that weekly or decade-long Action submission would then be more suitable. Do not know what other people here do think.

Also, considering the rules' streamlining idea for actions, I second it strongly for DM's work sake.