• If your recruitment thread involves completely going off site with your partner(s) then it belongs in the Off-Site Ad Area.
  • This area of the site is governed by the official Recruitment rules. Whether you are looking for players or looking for a roleplay, we recommend you read them and familiarize your self with them. Read the Recruitment Rules Here.

Fire Emblem

Thinslayer

Senior Member
Who wants to play a mechanically accurate version of Fire Emblem?


The rules work like so: You'll create a character you want to play, including your preferred class, and I'll assign you stats as appropriate. I'll choose a character to be the tactician; whether he's also a Lord or leader will be up to the players. The tactician is the only unit who can see all enemy stats beforehand; other units are only able to see the unit's class and what weapon they are currently holding.


The battlefield is laid out on a grid of varying size. Grid squares are marked with alphabetical characters horizontally and numerical characters vertically. Movement is called out like so: move F10 to G14. Players will be expected to map out the terrain on their own as I provide it to them. I recommend using graphing paper.


I will assign skills and weapons based on player request and class. Unlike in real Fire Emblem, skills are activated by user discretion and must cool down afterwards. Players are free to navigate the battlefield and activate skills at will, but are advised to follow the tactician's orders.


Combat is decided by dice roll, modified by combatant stats, skills, and terrain. The number of stat categories modified by level up is also decided by dice roll, but players may choose how the points are allocated.


Experience gains will use a constant formula unless the situation necessitates change. Gold and item distribution occurs on an arbitrary basis.


The game will begin once there are accepted applications for Lord and Tactician, and there will be dedicated recruitment chapters for every new player. If the GM wishes to play a character, his application shall only be accepted by majority vote from all active players. Activity is defined as having posted to any subthread within three days.


Who wants to play?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly... I am interested, but I feel because of the nature of PCs, each (or most) PCs should be tactical leaders of NPC squads and that no one has a fog of war free view of the battle field (without such things as magic or scouts). I know this isn't 100% accurate to Fire Emblem, but it would save us from people quitting due to lack of agency.
 
Yeah, the relative lack of agency is troubling. Currently, players are free to operate independent of the tactician, but at the same time, I wanted the tactician to be tactically relevant. I think we can afford to drop the line of sight and fog of war restrictions, yes.


Thanks for the feedback!


EDIT: OP edited according to feedback.
 
I also think it's starting to sound like an All Jedi/No Jedi problem too... Like, what's the reason for not playing a Tactician X for any X you might want to play.


I'm thinking/hoping that making all PC squad leaders might abate that.
 
There can be only one tactician. Of course, the role is going to be competitive, but I also have a bit more faith in players than I used to. I think some will gun for other classes just for the cool or fun factor. There will always be those who try to min-max things, but those can be weeded out.
 
What I'm saying is, unless you make the tactician a single point of failure for a team, which massively unbalances the game, you're not being 100% faithful to the mechanics of the game.


If you made the number of units a PC can lead and sight distance a skill, and make the tactician specialize in those two things, you might be able to strike a good balance.
 
I'm not intending to be 100% faithful to the game mechanics. The discretionary skill use is already a major departure in that respect.


I'm reluctant to give players their own armies because it could make the game considerably more tedious. You'd have to do dice rolls for every. Single. Character. And when each player has a veritable army, like 6 or so per player, then we're looking at...what, 24 dice rolls for a game with 4 players? And that doesn't even account for multiple rounds of combat and level up. We could be looking at nearly 100 dice rolls PER TURN, just for a game of 4. If each player controlled only their own character, we could limit the tedium tremendously.


The tactician and/or Lord is already a single point of failure for the team. It was always that way, both in the real Fire Emblem games and in this one. Players can lose this game. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
 
Thinslayer said:
I'm not intending to be 100% faithful to the game mechanics. The discretionary skill use is already a major departure in that respect.
I'm reluctant to give players their own armies because it could make the game considerably more tedious. You'd have to do dice rolls for every. Single. Character. And when each player has a veritable army, like 6 or so per player, then we're looking at...what, 24 dice rolls for a game with 4 players? And that doesn't even account for multiple rounds of combat and level up. We could be looking at nearly 100 dice rolls PER TURN, just for a game of 4. If each player controlled only their own character, we could limit the tedium tremendously.


The tactician and/or Lord is already a single point of failure for the team. It was always that way, both in the real Fire Emblem games and in this one. Players can lose this game. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
I'm not saying player's ability to lose is a bad thing. I'm saying whether one character stays up or not shouldn't be the only determining factor. One lucky crit shouldn't take out an army.
 
But why shouldn't a lucky crit take out the army? The fact that it *can* happen gives players a reason to keep the commander/tactician safe. I agree that it shouldn't happen, but that's not my problem.
 
Armies have a chain of command for many a reason, and succession of athority is one of them.


What reasons do the other PCs have to stop fighting after the tactician dies or looses conciousness?
 
In real life, they would either:


*continue fighting with an impromptu leader


*continue fighting without a leader


*rout


And in real life, this leader probably has lots of strategic and tactical experience & training that few, if any, others in his army will have.


But that's just real life. In fantasy life, killing the leader brings down the entire army, if not the whole freaking civilization, but only for the bad guys. In fantasy life, every possible hero is impossibly well-versed in modern battlefield tactics and is easily better than the most respected commanders; they just failed to recognize their talents. In fantasy life, new generals rise to the challenge and whoop arse where the by-the-book generals couldn't.


This isn't real life.


In the fantasy world I'm creating, killing the leader defeats the army. It's plausible, but not realistic. Since we're not gunning for realistic, that's okay.
 
Thinslayer said:
In real life, they would either:
*continue fighting with an impromptu leader


*continue fighting without a leader


*rout


And in real life, this leader probably has lots of strategic and tactical experience & training that few, if any, others in his army will have.


But that's just real life. In fantasy life, killing the leader brings down the entire army, if not the whole freaking civilization, but only for the bad guys. In fantasy life, every possible hero is impossibly well-versed in modern battlefield tactics and is easily better than the most respected commanders; they just failed to recognize their talents. In fantasy life, new generals rise to the challenge and whoop arse where the by-the-book generals couldn't.


This isn't real life.


In the fantasy world I'm creating, killing the leader defeats the army. It's plausible, but not realistic. Since we're not gunning for realistic, that's okay.
Right... but since clearly the Tactician is the only important one, why would anyone want to play anything else besides the guy telling everyone what to do?
 
Because


1. There can be only one of them.


2. Players can still do whatever they want even if they're not the tactician. Heck, they can even order people around if they want, so long as others are willing to listen.


3. Other classes have cool factors that Tacticians simply don't have. Wyvern Lords FTW!!
 
I get that... It just seems like you're trying to be both a war game and a role play game, but only giving troop leadership and importance to one PC...


All Jedi/No Jedi mate.
 
I hadn't considered that it assigns "importance" to a select few characters. *facepalm* Doh moment.


Supposing we just let the tactician emerge from natural player action and drop the dedicated role entirely.
 
Dropping the one guy goes down army loses gets ride of the super importance. But ya, letting the party select it's tactical leader and strategy it's self is good start.
 
If only my laptop was working I could dig up the PDF I found where someone did a percentile system for Fire Emblem that acted pretty much like the games with classes and skills all there for people. But, maybe I can find it again and send it your way.


 
I found a copy of this fan made game: here you go


Hope this helps. I'm a big fan of the series as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top