|
Howdy folks! In brainstorming pitches for a previous 1v1 recruitment, I had a strange idea that I'd now like to follow through with and see if I can get it to fly.
This would be a solo game, though both myself and the selected individual would participate, both as players and as GMs.
We would begin with four nations/power groups: A,B,C,D.
A and B would be fully-fledged, developed powers, each controlled by one of us.
C and D would be fledgling groups, and each nation would be the setting for the "campaign" of the player; C would be for the selected, controlled by myself, and D for my PC, controlled by the selected.
These four powers are vying over some central resource or great thing.
For gameplay, in addition to the "campaigns" for each (wherein our PCs work to advance their nation's/personal goals), we would also be at war with each other for the central objective.
This sort of thing would require a greater deal of communication and cooperation between us than a typical campaign, as well as a far greater deal of involvement in the set-up and customization of not only the setting, but the rules we'll use to keep things fair, many of which we'll either have to borrow from elsewhere, or most likely, make up for ourselves. We've been given Mass Combat and Kingdom Building guides, but this stretches a bit beyond those into a not-quite-Pathfinder style campaign.
Consider this an interest check; there's no real "recruitment" process. If multiple other parties are interested, I will choose based on the rapport between us; if it comes down to more than that, I'll set up some stricter structure for qualifying.
Feel free to ask questions; I don't have a great deal of this set in stone yet, but I have a fair idea of how I'd like this to work.
|
|
1) The two fledgling powers are just that: they're just getting started, or lack the big resources for whatever reason (most of the fluff of the individual kingdom is up to the "owner"). Those'll grow in strength and influence as the game progresses, and I like (for the most part) the Kingdom Building rules to determine how much they grow and how close they are in game-power to the two established nations.
2) Yes, and they will be, to partially answer -
3) I haven't decided on a finite nature of the "thing-what-the-countries-fight-over," but whatever it is, they all want it for themselves. Countries A and B are in outright conflict with each other over it, while C and D aren't, as yet, powerful enough to make their own claims.
Part of the way I've organized this is to keep an inherent balance. Both players will receive one full country to control, and will likewise receive one developing country. However, each PC we have will be in the other player's developing country, and as the PCs level and learn, they'll take more active roles in the conflict (though the exact nature of which is up to the player). In this fashion, no one person has more control than the other, at least at the start. While I might control the NPCs which your PC is trying to affect, my ultimate goal is to give you a good solo campaign, and so won't be actively trying to hinder you in all aspects (and I expect the same from my counterpart in the game). The war aspect is meta, above the individual campaigns, and that's where I'd want to discuss actual turn details, how we'd go about arranging things like treaties or cooperative warfare vs. another country. Neither of us can unilaterally control two countries, until the solo campaigns are played out and our PCs effectively rule. But, we have all of that time to see how our nations have diplomacized in the meantime.
E: The meta-game is where the real work comes in, in that we don't have an already-established ruleset for this sort of thing. Troop limitations, meta-Diplomacy, and strategic battle planning are all the sorts of stuff we'd have to decide on together (probably stealing from games like Risk and Diplomacy, too, but still). Because I still want to beat -you- in the meta, as well, it's just secondary, and kind of more fun, than the solo campaigns themselves.
|
|
I would definitely be interested in this sort of campaign, especially the Kingdom Building and Mass Combat rules.
Let's talk about your goals then, and of what you'd like your solo campaign to consist.
I see two distinct ways of gaining influence: via the military, or via social diplomacy. For myself, I'm most likely to go the social route.
|
|
I'm down with whatever you'd like to take as far as character, really, with the exception of 3PP; there's too much out there and enough in Pathfinder.
Why don't you go ahead and make a level 5.
Two traits, normal rules, campaign if you want.
Gestalt. Only rule here is no hybrid with a parent, but you can multiclass with one (as a bad example, Warpriest-Cleric 5 is not okay, but Warpriest-Rogue 3/Cleric-Fighter 2 is okay).
25 buy; you okay with no low limit? 5 is generally it anyway, and I don't mind weaknesses as long as they come into play.
Any Paizo, as long as we can link it work?
And double wealth, so 21,000. However I expect at least 1/3 of this to be spent on non-combat things; whatever you're using to survive, if you own a home/business, etc. Some sort of plot points to establish a baseline of influence in your nation.
Background skills.
Anything else?