Other About the Nature of Roleplays & My Unusual Idea for an RP

[Darkraven]

Hi guys, looks to me that this is going to be my first thread. But anyway, I have a question that's been needling at me for a week or two ever since I have this idea of a roleplay pop into my head, and recently, I've decided to write it out to see if it is even viable so I won't go insane from not knowing.

Anyway, as it is, there are three modes of roleplaying. In the most common one, we play as a character who goes on an adventure (though adventure could either mean a long adventure as in the normal sense, a fight as in an arena or just everyday life that's just hard to survive in). On another, we take control of a nation usually from a chronicler's perspective. Am I right on this one? Then there's the 'Choose Your Own Adventures' format, where players pick a choice and watch the story unfold.

Edit: Ack, I struggle to remain clear. So the question is... If it's a character-driven RP, does it have to be the characters who are personally on a quest, personally? Is this formula so popular because it's the best way to roleplay or is it possible to go a different route without creating something that ultimately won't work?

Now, I've been working on a roleplay that is a mix of all three, though it's about 80% character-centred. What you do is that you take the role of a character in a fantasy world, and you've been given a task by the Empire you're a subject of to raise an army for war with other player-characters and NPCs. There's, of course, going to be many problems to solve because the Empire has already become war-torn, unstable and chaotic, so there's going to be a lot of stuff from the adventure perspective. The 'nation' element is in the management of the army. The CYOA bit comes from decisions that has to be made by PCs, as well as NPCs, that the player may not directly take actions on.

Furthermore, players will then lead the army on a campaign. That's probably going to be where most of the 'action' comes from. The world will change in spite of or because of the players depending.

Now, I've predicted a lot of problems, which is why I'm so uneasy with this idea...

• Will people even find managing an army even palatable? I mean, I aim for it to be quite realistic. In anticipation of this problem, I plan to make the player-characters more like specialists and executors of the general rather than desk-bound officers, so they'll be given some interesting tasks, but the issue remains: Would it be even roleplay material for people to say, root out corruption in the ranks, fend off political opponents and intrigue, chase down deserters or decide on how to solve matters that have been plaguing their army?
• Then there's the format. The players will be directly subordinate to an NPC general in the beginning, but may have to fill in for him if he gets killed/incapacitated/captured/killed. He will hand out tasks to the players, or the players will have to solve problems based on what their subordinates tell them. That said, players will have their own subordinates, and of course, the entire army are their subordinates save for some NPCs who will be of equivalent rank to them. Every week or during emergencies, there will be a meeting to decide on certain matters that surfaced, such as, for example, whether to close an eye and allow recruiters to conscript under-aged children into the army, or to decide between spending precious money that you can't spend on buying supplies... or to raid the Empire's own farmers and merchants to stock up the army's food stocks. Usually, this is where there will be a lot of debates between both PCs and NPCs. Politics might result as characters find reasons to dislike one another. Is this viable?
• That said, there won't always be combat. There might be many days or even weeks in real time where there's no combat and battles to be had. I know not all roleplays are about battles and war, but is there an audience for this, in lieu with the unique offerings of my planned RP?

Also, I would love to have suggestions on how to proceed. I've never done anything like this before...

EDIT: For the CYOA-esque decision-making bit, it will be handled realistically in that PCs and NPCs will be able to make their own suggestions, so the list of choices will shrink or expand as a meeting progresses. In other words, it won't function too much like CYOA, but an ad-hoc CYOA while roleplaying happens. That said, it will never be a yes/no decision or even choose 1/2/3/4 kind of question. Say for example.... You decided not to let under-aged children pass into the ranks of the army. You'll lose, say, 500 recruits. And then what? Where are we going to get those 500 recruits when the surrounding area is tapped of willing participants? Are you going to force a conscription, or are you going to find some less-than-honourable men to fill the ranks? Are you going to bend other rules to gain more recruits? How...

So yeah, it'll be more like standard roleplay.

 

[Bone2pick]

Anyway, as it is, there are three modes of roleplaying. In the most common one, we play as a character who goes on an adventure (though adventure could either mean a long adventure as in the normal sense, a fight as in an arena or just everyday life that's just hard to survive in). On another, we take control of a nation usually from a chronicler's perspective. Am I right on this one? Take control of a nation or faction (gang, guild, witch coven, ect), often from the point of view of the faction's leader(s). Then there's the 'Choose Your Own Adventures' format, where players pick a choice and watch the story unfold.

Edit: Ack, I struggle to remain clear. So the question is... If it's a character-driven RP, does it have to be the characters who are personally on a quest, personally? For an RP to be "character driven" there needs to be an emphasis on the characters, yes. They need to be shown and heard from regularly in order to overcome conflicts and grow. Their development should be the core of the RP. Is this formula so popular because it's the best way to roleplay or is it possible to go a different route without creating something that ultimately won't work? Folks create outside the box RPs all the time and the better ones work, just like in traditional RPs.

Now, I've been working on a roleplay that is a mix of all three, though it's about 80% character-centred. What you do is that you take the role of a character in a fantasy world, and you've been given a task by the Empire you're a subject of to raise an army for war with other player-characters and NPCs. There's, of course, going to be many problems to solve because the Empire has already become war-torn, unstable and chaotic, so there's going to be a lot of stuff from the adventure perspective. The 'nation' element is in the management of the army. The CYOA bit comes from decisions that has to be made by PCs, as well as NPCs, that the player may not directly take actions on.

Furthermore, players will then lead the army on a campaign. That's probably going to be where most of the 'action' comes from. The world will change in spite of or because of the players depending.

Now, I've predicted a lot of problems, which is why I'm so uneasy with this idea...

• Will people even find managing an army even palatable? I mean, I aim for it to be quite realistic. In anticipation of this problem, I plan to make the player-characters more like specialists and executors of the general rather than desk-bound officers, so they'll be given some interesting tasks, but the issue remains: Would it be even roleplay material for people to say, root out corruption in the ranks, fend off political opponents and intrigue, chase down deserters or decide on how to solve matters that have been plaguing their army? Yes there's an audience for all that, assuming you execute it properly. Nation Builder RPs often have managerial aspects to them, but yours sounds like it may have more than average. That's fine. Just make sure it's known up front in your interest check. Let potential players know what types of challenges they'll likely face, from the big stuff on down to the small stuff.
• Then there's the format. The players will be directly subordinate to an NPC general in the beginning, but may have to fill in for him if he gets killed/incapacitated/captured/killed. He will hand out tasks to the players, or the players will have to solve problems based on what their subordinates tell them. That said, players will have their own subordinates, and of course, the entire army are their subordinates save for some NPCs who will be of equivalent rank to them. Every week or during emergencies, there will be a meeting to decide on certain matters that surfaced, such as, for example, whether to close an eye and allow recruiters to conscript under-aged children into the army, or to decide between spending precious money that you can't spend on buying supplies... or to raid the Empire's own farmers and merchants to stock up the army's food stocks. Usually, this is where there will be a lot of debates between both PCs and NPCs. Politics might result as characters find reasons to dislike one another. Is this viable? Yes very much so. I suspect you're underestimating the maturity and interests of faction roleplayers. You need not.
• That said, there won't always be combat. There might be many days or even weeks in real time where there's no combat and battles to be had. I know not all roleplays are about battles and war, but is there an audience for this, in lieu with the unique offerings of my planned RP? Combat is just one source of conflict, and nation builder RPs are rarely chock full of it. As long as there're other important (preferably emotionally heavy) problems to solve your players will have direction and motivation.

Also, I would love to have suggestions on how to proceed. I've never done anything like this before... Why not construct the RP in a WIP thread in this sub forum? Then you could ask members for help with solutions for any trouble spots you come across as you work.

EDIT: For the CYOA-esque decision-making bit, it will be handled realistically in that PCs and NPCs will be able to make their own suggestions, so the list of choices will shrink or expand as a meeting progresses. In other words, it won't function too much like CYOA, but an ad-hoc CYOA while roleplaying happens. That said, it will never be a yes/no decision or even choose 1/2/3/4 kind of question. Say for example.... You decided not to let under-aged children pass into the ranks of the army. You'll lose, say, 500 recruits. And then what? Where are we going to get those 500 recruits when the surrounding area is tapped of willing participants? Are you going to force a conscription, or are you going to find some less-than-honourable men to fill the ranks? Are you going to bend other rules to gain more recruits? How...

So yeah, it'll be more like standard roleplay.

 

[Darkraven]

Take control of a pnation or faction (gang, guild, witch coven, ect), often from the point of view of the faction's leader(s).

Ah, I see. I guess my specialisation into character-driven RPs have left me blind to the nature of nation RPs. So noted. Thanks!

Folks create outside the box RPs all the time and the better ones work, just like in traditional RPs.

I guess maybe I should hunt them down to see how they manage it. Maybe I can gain some insights. Good to hear.

Yes there's an audience for all that, assuming you execute it properly. Nation Builder RPs often have managerial aspects to them, but yours sounds like it may have more than average. That's fine. Just make sure it's known up front in your interest check. Let potential players know what types of challenges they'll likely face, from the big stuff on down to the small stuff.

I was kinda hoping that there will be far more character roleplay than army management... But maybe the best idea is to strike a balance between the two? Will have to play by ear it seems. There's only one 'nation' though, as all players will be coming together to raise an army. So that's one difference between this RP and Nation RPs.

Yes very much so. I suspect you're underestimating the maturity and interests of faction roleplayers. You need not.

I didn't mean to sound like that . It's just that I kinda drifted here from another roleplaying site, and I'm a little bit of a fish out of the water, as I've been on that other site for most of my roleplaying life. I just needed to make sure that my kind of RP is part of the trend here.

Combat is just one source of conflict, and nation builder RPs are rarely chock full of it. As long as there're other important (preferably emotionally heavy) problems to solve your players will have direction and motivation.

Good to hear... Maybe I can take that element of the nation RP and apply it to my hybrid RP.

Why not construct the RP in a WIP thread in this sub forum? Then you could ask members for help with solutions for any trouble spots you come across as you work.

Hmm... We can do that? I didn't know. There's so much for me to learn about the culture here. Thank you I'll consider exporting what I've already done to this forum... I'm gonna hang on to it for a bit though until it actually looks like a real OOC starter.

 

[Alteras]

I have definitely seen character-driven elements in a Nation Builder before. Heck, the very first RP i joined, a nation builder, had quite the amount of character driven interaction, not only as the leaders of nations, but as ambassadors, generals, spies, and even prisoners. We even had a god of randomness who forced certain events to occur, at the same time, those CYOA elements you're planning have occurred in Nation Builders, one form of which is diplomatic meetings!! In the RP I mentioned, more pages were covered in Diplomacy and Meetings than in War. Entire subplots can occur in these meetings, so I don't think you need to worry much about finding more things to keep the players interested. There's definitely an interest for the kind of RP you are thinking of. It should be fine if your RP is more character focused, just make sure you state it clearly in the interest check. Nation builders here (At least the ones I've joined) tend to become a number game depending on the RPers, and sometimes they might go overboard aiming for total realism. You should be fine though, as long as you properly convey to the RPers you're looking for character-based stories.

Ahh, I do want to ask, when you say specialists, are they like heroes leading an army?

 

[Darkraven]

I have definitely seen character-driven elements in a Nation Builder before. Heck, the very first RP i joined, a nation builder, had quite the amount of character driven interaction, not only as the leaders of nations, but as ambassadors, generals, spies, and even prisoners. We even had a god of randomness who forced certain events to occur, at the same time, those CYOA elements you're planning have occurred in Nation Builders, one form of which is diplomatic meetings!! In the RP I mentioned, more pages were covered in Diplomacy and Meetings than in War. Entire subplots can occur in these meetings, so I don't think you need to worry much about finding more things to keep the players interested. There's definitely an interest for the kind of RP you are thinking of. It should be fine if your RP is more character focused, just make sure you state it clearly in the interest check. Nation builders here (At least the ones I've joined) tend to become a number game depending on the RPers, and sometimes they might go overboard aiming for total realism. You should be fine though, as long as you properly convey to the RPers you're looking for character-based stories.

Well, in that case, then I guess there's nothing to worry about. My idea is considerably less grand than a real nation RP, so the scale will also be to my liking I will always remain a character roleplayer at heart heh. However, the world will run in the background like a nation RP - but I'm having fun constructing everything now

Ahh, I do want to ask, when you say specialists, are they like heroes leading an army?

In a way. They are more like Lead Captains to Colonels, acting on behalf of a General or some other higher authorities to help lead an army. I say specialists because they have to be adept at running certain parts of the army, as well as go on errands personally that are vital to the army. However, since it is war and anyone can die, they might end up acting on their own, either being elected into the role, taking the role, promoted into that role or be forced into the role. Heroes? Depending on what they do and how things go, they might end up becoming Villains in the eyes of many instead, but yes, they could become Heroes.

Kinda reminds me of this movie I watched a long time ago when I think about it: