Looking for a GM and players for A grand strategy game with defeat and non-con?

[Vonandi]

Hello, hello.

I have this itch that has only been scratched once that involved a system game with five major players controlling clans across fantasy japan. The object was to paint the island all your color using dice rolls and your character's traits, with some technical abilities and clan traits thrown in to make it more fun. If they failed a roll retreating or if their clan was destroyed entirely the leader of the clan was at the mercy of those who conquered them, they could try to assimilate them into the clan, or they could take the much less friendly approach. I'm not doing the game justice and I would have no clue how to run such a thing, but If anyone was able and willing I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

~Vonandi

[Melkart]

It's an intriguing concept. I suspect that it would be difficult to execute because of its complexity. It could also create bad feelings if some of the players were overly competitive or a large alliance attacked a single group. It's likely that it would not happen but not impossible.

I think that perhaps the game would require an umpire/GM in charge. Players would inform the umpire of their moves and the umpire would resolve them.

Example:

Player in charge of Clan Kurita sends her moves to the umpire by PM. Her clan will send a force of 100 warriors lead by a champion to occupy a strategic bridge that belongs to Clan Ozawa. She also informs the umpire that she will be reinforcing a border fortress with 30 warriors.
Player in charge of Clan Ozawa sends his moves to the umpire by PM. He decides to build a fort at the far side of the bridge and sends a force of 80 warriors led by two champions. He retains the rest of his forces in the main fortress.
The umpire asks both players a number of rolls which could determine scouting and surprise and the battle of the two forces that are approaching. Then he would post the results of the battle openly and send more precise information to both players by PM.

Battle report by the umpire in the IC thread post:

"The battle of the Bridge of Cranes was a disaster for clan Kurita. The leader of the force, the renowned woman samurai Kimiko advance with the confidence of knowing that there was no enemy force nearby only to be surprised by a hail of arrows as her force approached the bridge. Many brave warriors of Clan Kurita fell without baring their swords. With a mighty battle cry the warriors of Clan Ozawa charged taking advantage of the chaos that had engulfed their foes. Led the fearsome sister and brother Keiko and Ken they cut through the warriors of Kurita and overrun them. Many died while others were captured. Some managed to escape. Brave Kimiko was wounded and captured by Keiko and Ken and taken to their camp near the river bound and disarmed".

PM to the player in charge of Clan Kurita:
Battle results. Kurita rolls first and Ozawa second:
Scouting and surprise: 02-18 More than 15 Ozawa strategic surprise. +5 bonus rolls in battle.
Battle: 8+2=10-16+5+2+2=25 More than 15 for Ozawa major victory for Ozawa.
You have lost 54 warriors counting death and prisoners. Since you do no control the battle field you still don't know well who is death and who is captive. Rumours indicate 30 death and the rest captives. Kimiko has been captured.

PM to the player in charge of Clan Kurita:
Battle results. Kurita rolls first and Ozawa second:
Scouting and surprise: 02-18 More than 15 Ozawa strategic surprise. +5 bonus rolls in battle.
Battle: 8+2=10-16+5+2+2=25 More than 15 for Ozawa major victory for Ozawa.
Your loses have been minimal, only 5 death. You control the battle field. Your forces have captured 18 enemy warriors and Kimiko. The fort is almost complete.

Then the Kurita player would decide what to do with the captives. Depending on the game rules this could vary from ransom, enslavement or sacrifice/execution. Each one would have advantage and disadvantages.

This is obviously a complex way to play with much intrigue and politics as alliances would be formed and broken. The main difficulty would be to create a balanced set of rules and be able to keep the pace of the game.

Perhaps it could be useful to start with very simple rules and two small tribes fighting each other to play test them.

[Zaer Darkwail]

There was a game quite similar to that couple years ago, in there I led a clan which was front wise 'manufacturer of finest weapons, monopoly on iron and heavy military'. However I sneakily made alliances to other clans and even performed a 'kidnapping a other clan's leader's sister through hired shinobi (it was agreed in PM kidnapping happens and succeeds and there was plot reasons for it happen and later on build nice story but leader was not happy loosing one their clan officers in turn 1).

Indeed alliances can screw over clans very fast as starting positions to each clan (and what resources they have) is important. Example game above used rice as resource measure max cap of your military so those with lots of rice have lots of troops and thus able attack multiple areas at once (if have officers to lead troops). However officers also were uneven; some clans got 3 + leader and others got 1 leader and officer. Conflicts between forces were decided by dice rolls (one with superior forces got bonus to their roll so it was not impossible for lower forces from winning unless facing overwhelming odds and multiple officers attacking same defended area).

[Synecdoche17]

Over in the world-building forum, Ontan is working on a game system for this kind of thing, but there haven't been updates for a while.

[Captain America]

I mean...Song of Ice and Fire does this. You could pull it off with L5R which is also by the same folks,  Green Ronin.  But SoIF was great for this if the players built their houses and a PC or two as house members.

I group I was.in did a wonderful tabletop campaign.  We each had a small house and made the lord and a few npc personalities ( a maester if you had one, advisors, etc) And had some Westeros wide crisis to address but also actively worked to build our houses and often to undermine and absorb or destroy others.

[legomaster00156]

I mean...Song of Ice and Fire does this. You could pull it off with L5R which is also by the same folks,  Green Ronin.  But SoIF was great for this if the players built their houses and a PC or two as house members.

I group I was.in did a wonderful tabletop campaign.  We each had a small house and made the lord and a few npc personalities ( a maester if you had one, advisors, etc) And had some Westeros wide crisis to address but also actively worked to build our houses and often to undermine and absorb or destroy others.

The ASOIAF RPG system also works well outside the actual books' setting, as it serves well as a system for PC's to operate on grand scales: politics and wars; as well as for smaller-scale D&D-esque scuffles.

[Hamadryad]

I'd be keen on playing this :)

[Captain America]

Same

[Amyclas]

I like this concept.

But here's an idea: have a game mode for life after defeat... after losing all your holdings you are reduced to either exile in an allied court or to banditry and insurgency within your own former de jure lands.

Thinking through what kind of focuses would be useful for planning a game system:

How detailed will armies be: do we want descriptions and numbers for equipment? Do we want to distinguish tactically between footmen, archery, cavalry and artillery? How much of a focus will be on court intrigue? Can I run a brothel in your city?

[Captain America]

That's already a part if ASoIF. Also...there is the wall. You can take the oath and go hangout with the other riffraff there.