Personal-Level And Kingdom-Level Character Interaction

[Steve Long]

One of the most important things I want to make sure the Kingdom combat/creation rules do is “dovetail” with the rules for personal character creation and play. There have been other RPGs that deal with the concept of creating Kingdoms, but generally speaking they don’t allow for interaction between a Kingdom and a personal-level PC. I think many people are going to use these rules in ways that mix personal-level and Kingdom-level play, and I want to make sure that’s possible, easy, and fun.

I think the simple fact that this all uses the HERO System is a big step in that direction. For example, if your PCs undertake a mission to destroy a refinery in an enemy country, the GM can then define that for Kingdom-level play as a loss of points of Kingdom REC, or perhaps a Drain on the Kingdom’s REC. But there are bound to be other concepts and questions that arise in this style of play, and I’d like to address those concerns in the book as much as I can.

So, please keep an eye out for these issues as you playtest, and try to mix personal-level and Kingdom-level play some. For example, one issue that recently came up in my own playtesting is this: “Suppose I’m running a Kingdom, and I also have the ruler of that Kingdom as my PC for personal-level play. The Kingdom defines one of its +1s to Diplomacy as having a particularly skilled Minister of State. If my PC, the ruler, buys the Minister of State as a Follower, what effect does that have? Does that insulate the Minister from being attacked during Kingdom-level play?” I don’t have a firm answer to that yet... but I will.

So, if you come up with questions/issues like that, please post ’em here.

[GreyGuardian]

My post under campaign suggestions might be more appropriate here. But it boils down to - smaller factional entities or non-governmental (or faction within a government) entities that are gamed with generally at an organizational level rather than solely by interaction with npcs from that organization. And those actions can then affect the player character level game by suggesting appropriate physical, political, financial attacks and effects on the player characters.

[ErikGuttman]

Hi Steve,

This is a very exciting project. Its hard to restrain brainstorming, though I'll keep on-topic. I wanted to ask a few questions:

[1] Many polities depend upon a particular ruler (royal family, etc) to continue existing. This is particularly true in heroic fiction; the evil tyrant falls ending the threat posed from their kingdom. How would you capture this?

(Note - in medieval law the body of the sovereign was the body of the state and all its subjects literally. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish)

[2] Kingdoms on the other hand have continuity of interests and behavior irrespective of who is running them or how (this is not a very pleasant thing to acknowledge - but see http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-.../dp/0393020258 ). How would you capture these geopolitical and strategic inclinations?

[3] How does the personality and disadvantages of the leader(s) transfer to the behavior and attitudes of the collective state?

[4] How to deal with intrinsic diversity in a kingdom? What makes real political entities interesting (and a challenge to rule) is their conflicts and contradictions within their borders, as well as with their neighbors or with natural or supernatural adversity. How would you capture these factions, nationalities, etc. within a state? This makes a playing a kingdom harder, but couldn't the factions and social movements sort of behave as 'non-player characters?' could you use the same rules to describe sub-state level groupings, especially regional powers, etc.?

[5] In heroic fiction, the archetypal story (going with J Campbell) involves a hero bettering the world, usually the kingdom. Of course that is what heroes do - but in game terms, could they 'heal' the kingdom? would their exploits constitute 'experience' for the collective? By succeeding in a heroic venture, might the hero 'buy off a disadvantage' of the kingdom, etc.?

[6] Doesn't the personality, beliefs, etc. of the kingdom rub off on the inhabitants? So if you had an individual character in a kingdom, wouldn't you generally adopt the prevailing views (or oppose them and acquire a social disadvantage, etc.?)

I have more thoughts, but I'll wait to see if these are the sorts of questions you had in mind.

Best regards and I wish you great success with this cool project,

Erik Guttman

[teh bunneh]

Back when I was still playing a lot of AD&D, I came up with a concept to help define each nation's "personality". Basically, I gave each country an alignment.

Good/Evil Axis:
Good countries tried to maintain peaceful relations with their neighbors and had a generally benevolent government that looked after the needs of its people.

Evil nations were aggressive (diplomatically and militarily) against their neighbors. The ruling class looked after its own desires first, often to the detriment of their people.

Law/Chaos Axis:
Lawful countries had a strong and consistant rule of law. If you commited X crime, you could expect Y punishment whether you were high-born or common.

Chaotic countries had no consistant rule of law at all. All legal procedings were at the whim of the ruler (or his appointed judges). One person accused of X crime could be executed, the next could get a slap on the wrist, the next could get off scot-free.

A neutral nation might have a consistant rule of law, but it would be weak, underused, or ineffective. Or it might have a different code of law for various social classes -- nobles might be able to get away with anything, while commoners had to watch themselves (or vice versa!).

I found it very useful (as did my players, since once they figured out a country's general alignment they had a good idea of how to behave themselves while within its borders). Not sure how that relates to UBK, though. Maybe Psych Lims or Soc Lims for the country?

[Steve Long]

[1] Many polities depend upon a particular ruler (royal family, etc) to continue existing. This is particularly true in heroic fiction; the evil tyrant falls ending the threat posed from their kingdom. How would you capture this?

Well, partly through GM fiat, of course, as with any game. But also in this case, if the tyrant is defined as the "special effect" of many of his Kingdom's resources and bonuses, then when he's killed the Kingdom needs to be restructured to represent the new regime. Ordinarily you don't switch stuff around like that, but this is obviously a pivotal point in the game.

(Note - in medieval law the body of the sovereign was the body of the state and all its subjects literally. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish)

Two quick points here:
1. The Geeky Point: I have a law degree and have written articles about medieval law. I know how it works.
2. The Game Point: here I think you're likely going beyond the level of detail the rules might have, given than they must represent many types of entities, not just medieval kingdoms. But you could certainly come up with more precise rules about this if you like -- I don't think it'd be hard at all.

[2] Kingdoms on the other hand have continuity of interests and behavior irrespective of who is running them or how (this is not a very pleasant thing to acknowledge - but see http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-.../dp/0393020258 ). How would you capture these geopolitical and strategic inclinations?

I think my answer above more or less addresses this. Rulers may change, economies may even change, but ultimately the Kingdom remains, in some form.

[3] How does the personality and disadvantages of the leader(s) transfer to the behavior and attitudes of the collective state?

In many games, not at all, since no personal-level character action is a part of the game. In others, that's a question of how much personal-level character play the GM wants to allow, and is resolved through play rather than rules.

[4] How to deal with intrinsic diversity in a kingdom? What makes real political entities interesting (and a challenge to rule) is their conflicts and contradictions within their borders, as well as with their neighbors or with natural or supernatural adversity. How would you capture these factions, nationalities, etc. within a state? This makes a playing a kingdom harder, but couldn't the factions and social movements sort of behave as 'non-player characters?' could you use the same rules to describe sub-state level groupings, especially regional powers, etc.?

This came up in one of the other threads just yesterday. The options are: buy the factions within the Kingdom as Kingdoms themselves that sometimes act together collectively but sometimes squabble; buy down (or don't buy up) one or more Kingdom abilities to represent the weaknesses and problems this causes; or buy an ability that simulates the situation (like ghost-angels suggestion for a Skill Level defined as "infighting over the budget").

[5] In heroic fiction, the archetypal story (going with J Campbell) involves a hero bettering the world, usually the kingdom. Of course that is what heroes do - but in game terms, could they 'heal' the kingdom? would their exploits constitute 'experience' for the collective? By succeeding in a heroic venture, might the hero 'buy off a disadvantage' of the kingdom, etc.?

Kingdom improvement is handled not through Experience Points (or what have you) but various types of Combat Maneuvers. More than that you'll have to wait on the book to learn about.

[6] Doesn't the personality, beliefs, etc. of the kingdom rub off on the inhabitants? So if you had an individual character in a kingdom, wouldn't you generally adopt the prevailing views (or oppose them and acquire a social disadvantage, etc.?)

I think this is a philosophical question rather than a rules one (and my answer to the main question would be, "Not necessarily, though it's easy to go with stereotypes, esp. in an RPG").

[ErikGuttman]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your responses. A few more thoughts.

abstractly -

It seems to me that you could draw a dotted line between many things you buy for individuals and what is available to them. In buying a kingdom, you might also have to invest in certain overall resources; this would enable or prevent options in character generation.

The 'negative' side of this could also be true: a 'messed up kingdom' might impose disadvantages on everyone residing there.

concretely -

How do you represent the 'resources' available for individuals in a society:

- the 'knowledge' that they can learn - e.g. accumulation of books, disciplines, oral traditions (limit to knowledge skills?)
- the 'wealth' they can own (limits to affluence perks?)
- the 'privileges' they can enjoy (limits to social perks?)
- local trades or expertise (limits to skills that can be learned?)
- infrastructure (limits to out of combat movement?)
- regional strengths, talents etc (could there be a bonus or discount as a result of the kingdom's 'talent pool', or would this just amount to a package deal emphasized locally?)

how do you represent what individuals in the kingdom are 'subject to'
- depredation - piracy, lawlessness, etc.
- taxes or expropriation
- mobilization or enslavement
- locally incited bigotry and or ignorance (there are places where by default - that is, by DESIGN of the powers that be, the general populace has certain 'false beliefs' - how would you capture this?)

I hope you haven't already worked through all this elsewhere.

respectfully yours,

Erik

[Steve Long]

Some of what you're asking about is already accounted for in the rules, albeit abstractly. But much of it is beyond the scope of what I'm trying to accomplish here, or are issues I'd prefer to leave to the GM.

[algesan]

I know, you don't want readers, but I had to read them before I could use them....

I think the Kingdom/subKingdom/personal level will all interact in the same manner given the rules you have written. The issue here will be the level of interaction and detail wanted by the GM. Simplest interaction: Kingdom chooses to do any covert ops and the PCs will be the ones who do that. Alternatively, if the PCs just go about their business and clear the old mines that were inhabited by creeps, then the PCs' actions would simply be a "random" event for the benefitting Kingdom.

From my experience in various games that had some interaction, if the Minister of X gives a +1, then if he is a hypothetical NPC, he is subject to the rules you have given (roll the dice, see the result), if the Minister is a follower, then you game it out on the personal level.

That is rather general though and the level of interaction would depend more on the importance of the PCs. Low level would be kind of minor and at high levels the party (or even individual PCs, in one campaign we are doing off and on, the party itself is minor in a Kingdom sense, but one of the characters is a fairly big political player in a Kingdom sense) would act as a kind of mini-Kingdom.