""CHOOSE OUR OWN VICTORY CONDITIONS."" Topic

I am experimenting with a new development in my general wargame obsession with IWG's or "International War Games." These are games where each person is the king of a country and the action is more or less played out on map and table, over the mail or e-mail. Table top resolution is rare, and the games focuse certainly on war, but also on diplomacy, economics, cabals and intrigueetc.

The present experiment allows players to design their own countries from bottom up, but of course mandates certain forms and conventions. However the system I am working on generally handles it all.

THERE IS ONE POINT I WANT TO ASK FOR OPINIONS ON.

That is-

In addition to beign able to design everything from the size on up, to cities, fortress armed forces etc., I want to allow the players to design their own victory conditions. That is, they may chose the method of how their country may win. I have a basic system already but I want to canvass a more general base to see what the range of possibilities would be, and what might be added.

so all you have to do is answer the question.

What victory conditions would YOU wish to have to fulfill to win in a campaign or game of the above type. They can be anything you want, the sky's the limit, but they must have five qualities.

1.They must be expressable in rational terms.(No, "I;ll let you know if I win."

2. They must be observable and be able to be verified by inspection. (the fact that you have won by the criteria must be clear. Simply saying "If I enjoyed the game" is not sufficient."

3. They must be measurable in some objective means. (Some means of calculating the victory or the degree you have made victory must be possible.)

4. They must NOT be contingent on some other thing. ( I win if Brobdegnag (my neighbor) is destroyed."

5. You cannot make victory conditions for others. (Brobdegnag wins if he conquers the whole world) and you are not Brobdegnag.

NOTE! All the countries in the game would be hypothetically "Imagi-Nations" and fictional so there is no need to link this to a historical or possible historical outcome. This moves it purely into the pure game design field. Also note that EACH country gets to design its own victory conditions so that means there is no question of a one-for-all victory. It would be possible that in any game you wouls have none, one, some, or all players winning, or losing.

I will crosspost this on lists pertnent to the subject only.

I've always liked this sort of customization. I think it works best, however, if it's not kept secret. For example: all the other nations know that Ruritania's victory conditions will always be: "Glorious Charge." The Ruritanian army wins a VP if they can conduct a charge with at least three cavalry units – win or lose. (You could even have figures of 18th century portrait artists, to use as VP markers, since the whole point of Ruritanian "victory" is eternal fame to hang in the Ruritanian national museum.

I think it depends a little bit on what's represented in the rules, too. For example, Psuedo Arabia wins if it can control all oil production — but this is only a reasonable goal if oil production is represented in the rules.

I would keep the victory conditions the same for all countries. I understand what you are going for, but you would be better off listing what constitutes a victory rather than off the wall or unconventional behavior.
For example, if the victory conditions are confined to a certain area or country, or a specific goal, it's going to get very dry quickly.

Just rolling a 6 would work me me some nights ;)

Human nature what it is the players will pick an easily attained objective and declare victory (i.e. I will secretly land a battalion of Marines in the Falkland islands and declare victory over the lone sheep herder). I would assign objectives or have the players make a big fanfare press release what their stated objectives are if they are going to choose.The worst thing that can happen is players pick objectives that neither side cares about as they fullfill their own victory conditions. I have seen that occur on a few table top games where little or no combat occured and both sides declared victory.

I would take a look at the fantasy game Divine Right. In that game you could get a KO if you took the capital. The usual victory was won by a player that managed to knock off one or two border towns and had more points at the end of the game. Victory points were calculated against your allies losing settlements so you had to be careful about who you formed an alliance with.

I like the idea, with some other limitations.

For example, the victory conditions need to make sense for the imagination, but also must require some sort of effort with inherent obstacles, and must reasonably be expected to last over a decent range of turns (whether explicitly: "if after 7 turns, Myministan achieves X…",or implicitly: "Myministan must acquire X resources", with the game system set up so that such an acquisition will necessarily require several turns).

Some guidelines must be in place— that is the goals must be either economic or political or territorial or military. Examples:
Economic— Myministan must gather X resources each turn for Y turns.
Political— Myministan must make X alliances/non-aggression pacts by turn Y.
Territorial— Myministan must claim X additional lands by turn Y.
Military— Myministan must build a force greater than X infantry, Y armor and Z aircraft by turn W.

So if one's goal is to be Switzerland, one can do that, and so on.

Dear Klumpenproletariat.

No, that's not the type. It's not a tabletop Victory condition, it's a war-wide condition.

Fore example, one player might want to be known as the Patron of the Arts, and might want to spend his bucks on subsidizing Mozart and Rembrandt, or Shakespeare etc. Another might want to be the greatest lover of history and sire 357 bastards like Augustus the Strong of Saxony.

Or one player might simply want to, at the end of the game, have his borders inviolate, at peace and with a slightly larger balance in his treasury.

The point is to allow the players to do what they wish. If one person wants to make a victory condition of "conquer all my neighbors" and another the guy above who wants peace, quiet and contentment and a slightly larger balance in his treasury, both are equally valid as victory conditions.

The question is to sample on this forum what players thought would be victory conditions for THEMSELVES, if they could chose them, not for the whole game.

Thus for example, assume one player wanted to be the patron of the arts and literature and the next guy wanted to be the "Don Juan" of the age, the two could both fulfill their victory conditions.

I immediately thought of something, only for Pt 5 to shoot it down – A disputed border region: one that has changed hands a number of times – you need both countries to have it as a condition, no matter how minor.

You can have non military objectives – control x% of
- world trade
- world shipping routes
- a certain resourse raw production

Have x% of total GNP in the game

- these are how Britain won the 19th century. Wars are conducted for a political end

One player sires 357 bastards. Another player increases the balance in his treasury. The third player becomes a parton of the arts and sculpts statues all over the place. All can declare victory. Are you creating a campaign for a wargame or something else?

I'd have no problem with this kind of thing, but it might turn out to be a game rather than a wargame.

Could I suggest that players might have two (or maybe more) objectives, one of which would be declared and the other would be secret? At least one of the objectives should bring them into some type of conflict with another nation.

Finally, if there is a back-story to the Continent, then past histories of conflict or alliance could influence how people choose there objectives and make them rather less random than they might otherwise be.

No, that's not the type. It's not a tabletop Victory condition, it's a war-wide condition.

Ottoathome:
I'm not sure I follow you. Don't war-wide 'conditions' shape battlefield conditions? I have to agree with Klumpenproletariat. His example may be the Ruritanian "victory" goal for the whole war, but it would still be a core goal for any particular battle.

Or one player might simply want to, at the end of the game, have his borders inviolate, at peace and with a slightly larger balance in his treasury.

Don't follow the Mozart, patron of the arts example, but the second would definitely circumscribe what the player would see as his battlefield goals with those 'war objectives.'

The point is to allow the players to do what they wish.

Well, what general got to do that in choosing goals? ;-7
For 'pickup games', our group has often used a set of cards with various personal [career] and military objectives.

Career goals are part political, part military. These would be given to all players, CinC or not.
For the Napoleonic wars they would be:

Glory:
Gaining the most victory points of all the friendly players with one's command

Command figure attached, make a successful charge with infantry or cavalry. Points for various results.

Political points: Avoid casualties, bad combat results like exhuasted commands, backing other players who are politically connected regardless of orders. [could be subordinates or other players at similar command levels.

Military:

Obviously, cards would dictate defensive or offensive goals, which could include priorities on enemy distruction, exiting the opposite side of the table, taking particular objectives on the table. It could be avoiding casualties, or avoiding defeat rather than winning. This can have a campaign backstory.

Giving points to all these could mean the player who did well in battle may still not have as many points as those who simply avoided losing. It also means that one player on a side could be a winner personally when their side lost.

This isn't a new idea, but it has a lot of variations. And players can choose to be on the offensive or defense, subordinate or not… or have everything chosen for them.

McLaddie

Generals are completely irrelevant. Each player, as I said first, is the sovereign of a country. He is the King. He can, as any king, determine what the goals for his state are. He can determine what he wishes to do.

Battles are relavant only insofar as they mean something for the goal, provided that's your goal. Most battles in this game would be resolved by abstract resolution and not toy soldiers on table tops. But for exampele, if a person wanted to be a patron of the Arts and Literatue, sponsor Mozart and Hayden, fund an academy to attract Liebniz and Voltaire, why shouldn't a player be free to do that--or sire 357 bastards, or any of the areas that Kings spend their time and energy on. Remember, you aren't just a general in this game. You are a King and you can do what you wish.

So, winning a battle is absolutely irrelevant for the person who wishes to found an academy, or sponsor the arts, or who, if he wishes to acquire gold and riches, build "Scrooge McDuck's Money Bin and dive off a diving board into a pool of bucks" That's his goal.

My point is that what if a player does not want to go to war? What if a player wants to "play King?" The happy fact is that most kings throughout history seem to have wanted to do this. What if you like collecting "viols" or musical instruments? As several of the small German Princes did? What if you wanted to collect diamonds, snuff-boxes, and mistress' (including diamond studded snuff-boxes with portraits of your mistress on it?) or what if you liked to save every pffennig you could lay your hands on and store it up in the wine casks in your wine cellers and on the side, collect very tall men to put into your grenadier regiment and never go to war? All three of those are actual historical rulers?

What if a player in such a game, say set in the Ancient World instead of playing Alexander, wishes to spend his time and money building his fabulous city stocked with a succession of "Wonders of the World." I actually had one of these in the IWG I ran, who decided he didn't want to go the route of invasion and subjugation of others, but plied all his money into trade and wanted to build all the wonders of the Ancient World, Great Tombs, fabulous temples, Lighthouses, Colossi, grand collenades, Hanging gardens etc. He did it too. Did he win the game, depends on who you asked he seemed to? And, if we postulate a future history for he world, certainly his name would have lasted into modern times with his fabulous city?

Is it a wargame? Perhaps not? But then how is it not? If war is a part of it, one of the activities you can desire to engage in, if you wish, then why not. Let you give me another example from my own Imagi-nations. One of the Imagi-Nations I have is "The Grand Duchy of the Grand Duke of Gorgonzola." It's fictional but located in real Europe and consists of the territories of Venice, Crete, Greece,Naples and the Two Sicillies. The Grand Duke is quite mad. His goal is to gather titles and honors the way other people collect hummel figures. So not only is he the Grand Duke, stylized "the Duke of Athens" (from Shakespeare's Midsummer Nights Dream), Prince of Aragon (from Much Ado About Nothing) The Lion of Judah (Ruler of Ethiopia) The Grand Shofet of Carthage, the King of Jerusalem, The Pharoh of Egypt, The Basileus of Constantinople, and -- wait for it-- the Emperor of Atlantis. Now the how and why of the gathering of these is up to the player. That's part of the fun, of thinking out how to do it. He may be mad, but he IS, the King! His courtiers carefully keep from him all copies of the Baron Munchausen for fear he will covet the title of "The King of the Moon."

I am drawing an extreme paralell, but remember, nothing says ANY of the above have to be logical. For example, it might be possible to convince the Grand Soltan to simply let the Grand Duke have his yearly procession through the capitol once a year to avoid the incessent wars, and govern (on a personal arrangement known only to the King, as his "Personal Viceroy."

Yes, it may not be strictly a war-game, but on the other hand it might be a real hoot to play.

I had one player in a recent playtest of an IWG decide she didn't want to do the conquest thing, but her own interest in India and the Far East had her determine to build a home-land theme park devoted to the sexuality of the Tantric cults of India, including spending millions on recreating the temples in all their lustful ancient glory.

I've always been fascinated by this and allowed it.

I split this into a seperate post.

Remember the question here is not really to debate the problem but to try and get as wide an example of actual conditions players would chose for yourself. Therefore the feasibility or sensibility or even propriety of it is not inqustion, or its squaring with traditional ideas of a game.

Consider it as a thought experiment where you get to make whatever conditions to win in the grand game of politics or life on the scale of a country where you are the king, and you can do whatever you wish.

If you need to invade and conquer other lands for YOU to feel that YOU have won, put that down.

If you would like on the other hand to even-- say be a magnificent failure, a man of sorrows who has mishap and misfortune come his way and be a figure of pathos, then say that.

I am very much in favor of custom victory conditions.

But … if you allow each player to create their own victory conditions, then unless you only ever play the game with your few most well-matched gaming buddies, you WILL experience many cases of players making their own victory contitions easily achievable, and then playing the game only to acheive their own victory. I would expect that to suck much of the fun out of a game.

In my own gaming I almost always create custom victory conditions. I've never tried letting the players create their own, but I think it could be done. Here is how I would approach it …

I would make it a question of victory points, not victory conditions. So more a matter of "I get 1 VP for crossing the bridge. I get 1 VP for holding the village. I get 1 VP for each skirmish where my adversary retreats and leaves the field in my hands, regardless of my casualties." Then I would also require victory point loss cases. "I lose 1 VP for each 3 casualties. I lose 1 VP for each adversary who has any forces on the north side of the river at game's end."

Require each player to declare an equal number of + and – points.

This way no gamer can "fix" the game with his own "plus point" conditions. Even if his own "plus points" are ridiculously easy to achieve, he can lose them all if he does not prevent his adversaries from pushing his "minus buttons". And his adversaries will be achieving their own "plus points", and no matter how well he does on his, he must ethier prevent his adversaries' "plus points" or ensure his adversaries' "minus points" if he wants to win.

In this way no one can simply sit on his victory conditions to win the game. Each player MUST get into the other gamers' faces. And that's what makes it a game.

Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

It's going to be a rather dull game if each player has a different goal that does not conflict with the goals of others. Everybody wins, but nobody has fun. There needs to be at least some conflict or competition, otherwise it's not really a game.

Will all countries start out with about equal resources, population, etc? If so, not very "realistic."

You might consider confining it to geo-political type victories:

1. I need "living space."

2. I need to maintain the balance of power.

3. I just want to keep what I have and be left alone.

4. I want X province returned.

5. I need a source of X material (iron, oil, gold, etc.)

Things like that.

link

The best victory conditions had TSR "a line in the sand". Take a look at them and you have your conditions…. Keeping peace … Let other people make war, kill armies, build armies, status q, unite contries…..

Have fun

Victory is achieved when one side has the ability to impose its will upon the other.

I like the idea. May be what you need is to put some non-controllable pressure on the players, just like actual monarchs suffered. For example, Tsar Alexander refused to give in to Napoleon's demands, but his decission was not just a matter of patriotism or a expression of his will as Russian sovereign. Actually, he was afraid that if he didn't resist Napoleon, he could end like his father: murdered by his own courtiers. As for Napoleon, he hold a lot of personal power, but in the end he knew that his dinasty's future laid in his ability of carrying successful wars, just to hold off all his enemies plots against him. Some decissions he took were based on that -two clear examples: when he left Spain in 1809, to deal with rumours of Fouche's and Tayllerand being plotting against him, and in 1815, when he left Davout back in Paris because he didn't trust anyone else to stop a coup against him-.

History is full of examples, that you can use for your campaign. For instance, say that His Highness, the Prince of Ruritania, has reached the throne after the unfortunate death of his elder brother. Many voices in the court are implying that the young prince had a hand in his brother's demise. A coup, lead by his sister, who is married to Duke of Hamfistburg, is a distinct possibility. If he wants to hold the throne, he needs to think over a foreign adventure that will take his subjects minds from the unsavory affair of his brother' suspicious death.

Best

Let's suppose that there are over-riding "National" victory conditions that would ordinarily be rational.

As an example, let's considere the Low countries. The player controlling Angle-Reich, an islanmd trading nation, might conisder it imperative that no strong continental power control the Low countries.
Frank-Terra, a continental power usually at odds with Angle-Reich thinks its "natural borders" encompass the Low
countries.

EVEN IF the current situation would rationally make Frank-Terra and Angle-Reich allies against Teuton-Land, the overriding "National" victory conditions would… blah blah blah.

What if Teutopn Land has built a fleet strongenough to challenge Angle-Reich, AND has also conquered the Applesauce Lagrange region of Frank Terra.
How do these two current natural allies reconcile the Low Countries?

I hate numerical victory points, were X is worth 50, but Y is worth 100, but…

How do you "force" a nation-state to ignore short term goals in favor of the Big Picture?

Generals are completely irrelevant. Each player, as I said first, is the sovereign of a country. He is the King. He can, as any king, determine what the goals for his state are. He can determine what he wishes to do.

Ottoathome:
Sorry. I misunderstood your parameters. In reality, no king, even Louis XIV or Frederick der Grosse was able to determine all the goals of his state… or even the primary goals. There is a reason Louis didn't try to invade Britain, and Freddy the Great invaded Silasia and not Hanover--regardless of what they really wanted.

Most all goals were based on current conditions and resources available. Pick the wrong, irrelevant goals for a KING,[A political position with governmental responsibilities and political power] and the player may get what he wants, but lose the state in the process. Of course, that is assuming some sort of effort to model reality and conflicts between states. Not all kings were equal in what they could do and not do…

Most battles in this game would be resolved by abstract resolution and not toy soldiers on table tops. But for exampele, if a person wanted to be a patron of the Arts and Literatue, sponsor Mozart and Hayden, fund an academy to attract Liebniz and Voltaire, why shouldn't a player be free to do that--or sire 357 bastards, or any of the areas that Kings spend their time and energy on. Remember, you aren't just a general in this game. You are a King and you can do what you wish.

So, winning a battle is absolutely irrelevant for the person who wishes to found an academy, or sponsor the arts, or who, if he wishes to acquire gold and riches, build "Scrooge McDuck's Money Bin and dive off a diving board into a pool of bucks" That's his goal.

Okay, I think I understand. Winning a war is at best, one of many, many social, economic, spiritual, libidenal, political and artistic goals you see for the player king.

Dear Mc:Laddie

That is corect. The Player in the game is not the disembodied spirit of "the nation" as it were, but a real person, a real king, a King who can make decisions. You as the PLAYER determine entirely the state you wish to play and be king of.

Second, there are no state goals, simply becasue there is no state. Or not in the sense commonly thought of. Remember it's part of a design your own country scheme where everything is decided by the players. The size, extent, settlement, character, terrain, national characteristics if you will or benefits in the game. So you determine everything about your state, and-- it's victory conditions. There is no pre-existant history of the state save what you wish to make and nothing at all to encumber you, unless you wish to be so encumbered. In short totally everything is up to the players to chose, and-- in addition, there are no civilian or electorial factions or people to inhibit you. You are in a very real sense the king, and the state well-- you finally get to say "L' etat cest moi!"

So what Victory conditions would you chose in such a situation?

Ottoathome:

In that game situation, I would give the players areas to excell in and let them chose. Generally, victory conditions in a game are based on some common objectives or victory points determination.

If I get to create the state however I want and choose whatever goals for that state without limits of any kind, then how does one determine in game terms, the winner between the King with the objective of bedding 400 women and the other to double trade with three other states? OR is this like SimCity where just doing it is the point?

Ottoathome:

Neat question!

I'd pondered something similar and came up with a couple of ideas before, but note that these were entirely untested!

I did however steal the ideas from elsewhere, so I guess someone, somewhere tested them out.

Mix and mingle them freely.

Option 1:
The players don't choose their _singular_ victory. You give them several conditions, some easy, some hard. It becomes about the plurality of objectives achieved by each player. Some of the objectives are at cross-purposes with one another just for a sngle nation.

Option 2: Kinda like option 1, but the value of an individual objective is variable, and the player chooses ahead of time how many dice rolls the objective is worth. For example: "Hold Brumberg by turn end of game: 2d6" or "Have The Duchy of Alsworth as an Ally through marriage: 1d6". The variable value reflects that sometimes nations simply chase after things that don't really turrn out to be that valuable or which cause chaos at home in the long run.

Option 3: Also related, give each nation 3 goals, 2 Medium difficulty (2d6 VPs), and 1 very difficult (4d6 VPs)and allow them to self create and have approved up to 5 easy/roleplaying victory conditions, each worth 1d6 VPs.

No idea if it would work. Sounds fun though.

The problem with esoteric goals such as 'being a great lover' or 'patron of the arts' is essentially, 'Who cares?'

The goal doesn't interact with other players, and the player can just declare 'I give money to artists' and win. (He can also say 'I sex up loads of babes' and win, but if he wants to play it out, then ew.)

Because with goals such as these, there is nothing and nobody trying to prevent them from achieving the goal. Because nobody cares. It doesn't affect them at all, unless they all want to be love machines and are running out of girls.

The other nations may well find an easy victim in an artsy, militarily underfunded state, but after a while that's going to get tired.

In a traditional campaign, anyone that doesn't want to go to war should be playing something else.

If someone wants to play a game where he doesn't need interaction/conflict with other players, he doesn't need to be in a game with other players. It would be like sitting at a wargames table playing solitaire.

Let them play a solo RPG and pretend to collect violins. If they want to build a city, play a sim game.

But in a campaign, everyone should be playing the same game.

If someone wants to play a game where he doesn't need interaction/conflict with other players, he doesn't need to be in a game with other players. It would be like sitting at a wargames table playing solitaire.

That's exactly what I was trying to say!

Agree with Gisby and Donlowry.

Gisbygeo

But a player would not be able to simply do that. He would have to devote time, money and resources to doing it. I had a primitive system where this worked. The game was funded by "Notes" which we can consider the "monopoly money" of the game. With this money in addition to other things you could buy "draws" from a Victory deck of 144 cards. Each card was in one of 12 suits, these suits were the Victory criteria of the game and you could choose at the start of the game to be "patron of the arts" or pursuie "Laurels o the field of Mars" or "Triumphs in the courts of Venus", Internal Development, Money and Riches etc. Each card had on one half one attainment of Victory in a suit. The other half was a useful ploy or stratagem to be used in the game. You could save the card or play the card. Saving cards of a suit you didn't choose were useless for Victory but you could use them for a ploy. It cost one note per card, but on any draw you had only a 1/12'th chance of drawing a useable victory card. Now as notes were fairly scarce, you didn't get many of them in a game, and one note could also repair a defeated army or was needed for some military actions, the amount of resources and time representex by the notes, gave an equivalence of difficulty across the 12 suits. Also you could DO things to gain Victory points on your own like buying monuments if that was your thing or setting out to gain a province etc. So there was an equivalency.

So you see it wasn't possible for a player to say he had won without having the cards to prove it. At the end of the game the player with the most Victory cards in his hand in each suit won, in his suit, and usually this was in the neighborhood of one or two cards. If he was the only person who chose that suit and had even a single card- he had won.

The play of the game which had various strategems centered around filching cards from other players you wanted, depleting another players resources so he couldn't buy cards or develop a strategy, or capturing places that he had built without the cards. The key was imagination.

What I was trying to do in this is develop on this system into other theories of Victory.

There was plenty of interaction when we did some playtest of the game. So there was lots of interaction. The interesting thing was that for the first time players were able to interact WITHOUT the mandated internecine violence. Three players commented that they were quite able to pursue their goals stated becase A,B, and C, each had chosen different categories, and were at one point, able to combine against D and quash his belligerant character completely secure that they weren't weakening each other, and A,B, and C knew neither of them were going to betray each other. They in fact had lots of fun in the peaceful contact of the game and being able to build and do what they want.

You are assuming that all contact between all players in the game must be felonious and hostile, and that all alliances are ultimately extremely temporary and merely a prelude to treachery.

So in opening this up to even BEYOND the 12 categories I had in my hypothetical playtest, (and there seems to be no logical reason you could not) you also have to remember the original conditions I said in the first post.

1.They must be expressable in rational terms.(No, "I'll let you know if I win."

2. They must be observable and be able to be verified by inspection. (the fact that you have won by the criteria must be clear. Simply saying "If I enjoyed the game" is not sufficient."

3. They must be measurable in some objective means. (Some means of calculating the victory or the degree you have made victory must be possible.)

4. They must NOT be contingent on some other thing. ( I win if Brobdegnag (my neighbor) is destroyed."

5. You cannot make victory conditions for others. (Brobdegnag wins if he conquers the whole world) and you are not Brobdegnag.

So I am quite willing to allow a player to say "I win because I had sex with a lot of chicks." But he has to find out a methodolofy of doing it in game terms, it has to be quantifiable (how many, and how much) and it has to be expressible in game terms with game means.

You also are forgetting this is NOT sitting at a wargame table. It is a game indulged in for itself. While the campaign system was played at a table it also has been played on line or through the mail in the playtests. So direct interaction with the players is not necessary. In fact, several players enjoyed the game and the newsletters and updates that came from it, but were quite happy to sit and putter with their own country.

Gisbygeo

One question.

In your post you say "In a traditional campaign, anyone that doesn't want to go to war should be playing something else."

Why?

Beyond the fact that this IWG is not really a "traditional campaing" why are you so hostile to a player, among a dozen, who might not want to go to war? And aren't you assuming that the ONLY means of interaction between players is the violence of a battlefield?

Remember, diplomacy and the will to war is up to the players in such a game. He might not feel that participation in a given war is in his interest-- or-- at all to his liking. In fact, what if a player finds it far more fun, as once did in an IWG I ran, to sit and build his city of wonders?

After all it is certainly historic. Not only have many kings wished to live quietly and tinker with their clocks, viols and mistress' but isn't that the history of China? Quite content with its cultural sufficiency ?

There are however certain goals that flow from the chosen objectives and which cannot be ignored. There are also certain goals that cannot be ignored and which exist independently of the "Kings" personal objectives.

Given that the game revolves around each Kings personal goals I have to assume certain historical parallels. This game is set in a period equivalent to the later 17th and 18th century in Europe. This allows absolute monarchy and classical aspirations. If we accept this setting then there are some basic goals built in.

For a start national prestige must be maintained or even better increased. The kingdom cannot loose territory and ideally should gain some either from neighbours or from exploration and colonisation. The state should always have sufficient funds to allow the King to follow his current whim. If the King bancrupts the state then revolt and revolution should be an ever present danger.

Even in a game such as you are proposing you need to create conflicts and scarce resources to maintain some form of competition between players. This could be as simple as jobbing great artists being in short supply so competing kings have to bid for their time and services.

I do quite like to mix in non military objectives into wargaming and I like to reward my players for maintaining peace. Afterall most citizens only really want a quiet life and the chance to live free from fear. If a king can give them those basics then by and large he can do what he likes.

Someone further up pointed out that even rulers who thought they were divinely appointed couldn't always do what they wanted (see Charles 1 of England, Ireland and Scotland). Provided that the GM provides some challenges for the player (bad harvests causing peants unrest; dmeands for revenge following historical defeats, nobles seeking rewards – whatever) then the self-defined victory conditions are fine.

Equally, having been told that player X wants to collect viols, then make sure that the best viols come from somewhere far away, requiring embassies to be sent out. Provide a plague of the greater musician-mite (which as everyone knows, feeds primarily on viols… And of course other players may suspect that these embassies are in fact excuses for spying…

Of course if some of players do choose miltary objectives, they will create a lot of friction for other players whatever those peacefully inclined would rather do.

What I am suggesting is that a combination of GM-defined events and player interaction can develop a story which can become quite involved and (if my experience of role-playing is any experience) can rapidly develop a life of its own.

I like the idea but for practical purposes it may need a little more structure. With complete freedom of choice you could get some silly, game-breaking VC ("I win if I survive one turn since my expectations are so darn low.").

A good example would be the mission cards in updated versions of Risk. They're generally secret and they don't repeat so nobody else knows your objective and it's unique to you.

Examples include:

- eliminate player X (maybe he insulted your grandmother on a Cougar Cruise).

- conquer territory X (you've always wanted to own a vacation home there and now's your chance!)

- ensure that players A and B fight grind each other into oblivion (more of a diplomatic feat than a military one)

etc.

I also have a friend who used this sort of thing for table-top games set in Vietnam. Made for very interesting and tense games.

Wartopia

It's fairly easy to manage. Done it. But then I'm the type of Umpire who simply will not allow players to do stupid things like that. Remember the player has to come up with a methodology of achieving his goal. There's no gamesmanshipping around the umpire in an IWG.

My methodology with the player who says "I win if I survive one turn because my expectations are so damn low is simple."
I would guarantee he lasted till the end of the game. The planet could be hit by an asteroid the size of mars and he would still survive. Remember, he said he had to last one turn. I would rule if he lasted more than one turn, he would lose.

When I was umpiring AD&D one of the treasures I used to give out regularly was a "Ring of Invulnerability."

Well-- the ring was invulnerable.

When the player attacked the dragon he found that it was indeed invulnerable, but he was quite tasty.

What most people here are agonizing about is the loopholes. When you have an Umpire you don't get loopholes.

Otto, I think the biggest problem is going to be the victory conditions that are outside the player's control, the ones that his country imposes on him.

The old standby of 'must not decrease national prestige' is a good one, and I'd add a 'must not look weak personally' clause. Must make sure the people are fed, must keep taxes low, etc.

Then you're into how to measure national prestige and personal strength/weakness.

So. Civ 5 then…?

Lion in the Stars

I understand what you are saying, but there's a dimension here that hasn't been said. This dimension really admits of no contravention or remedy.

This is NOT a game you play in a few hourse or an afternoon. IWG's have ALWAYS been LONG-TERMED games, games that lasted in some cases months and years. The problem you are facing is the stamina and attention span of gamers. Gamers can get quite excited about and idea and carry it through for a few hours, but a few weeks or months? That's a different kettle of fish. ANY IWG also, as many that I have run have been used as a format for fieldign table-top games. X moves his army to Shagundala, so does Y there is now a battl at Shagundla which you fight out on the table top. As this goes on you can see that you have a campaign lasting weeks, or months, even years. I was in three that lasted over a year, one went three years.

The problem with this is that a lot of gamers just don't have the stamina for that, and a lot more will drop out at the least difficulty. This happened even before computer games and what I call "the reboot generation."== "Got beat? Lost a Battle? No problem!! Just reboot and start over and don't do that last thing again." It happened before computers. Players who got into a fix just stopped playing, and it's impossible to find someone to take over a postion. Imagine- "Hey I got a position in the IWG for you! -- The previous guy screwed up really good and now has only a rump of a country left against two guys who are enormous! Want to play it?" One can imagine the response.

So the part of the problem is to keep up interest in the game. That's why I've developed the system to allow players to design their own countries and with it, their own victory conditions. The problem is still though that if they lose interest…. that's the reason most of the structure I've made allows for that-- that a player's intrest can wane, and his country managed by the Umpire.

But one thing I've found is that players generally don't like having tasks imposed on them. So that's why Iam thinking of letting them choose their own victory conditions.

It's a big problem, that of fixed attention span over time.

When you have an Umpire you don't get loopholes.

Excellent point. I better understand your approach with your mention of D&D and fully approve! :-)

Another friend runs IABSM in a free-style manner. He uses the (many) charts and dice and markers but he also expects players to role-play their forces. I gladly do this since the game has so many moving parts I'd rather focus on the story of the game and let him handle the complexities.

EDIT: Otto…is this anything like some of the campaigns you wrote about in that game magazine published out of KY in the early 90s? Those were based on the renaissance and inspired me to purse that period with abandon. Loved your battle reports too and enjoyed your HMGS events with the large hexes and combination of renaissance and fantasy forces (I know I've mentioned that before but it's worth repeating since they were WONDERFUL events!)

Dear Wartopia

Yes. I've always been fascinated by this type of game, and generally have moved back and forth between the "Narrative Campaing" mode in some to a more formal game. The game mechanics and structues really just provide a framework, or set of guidlines in which and around which the players operate, and yes there is always a certain amount of role playing.

My fascination comes from the fact that it is up to the players to use their imagination and initiative. For example in one game I noted to one playe that his enemy had occupied the city behind him and cut his communications. He said "can't be, how did he get there!? The unfordable Running Sore River was between that city and his army!" "He built a bridge! "was the answer. "Well then!" the player asked "Why can't I just build a giant death ray and wipe him out!" "Sure, go ahead, I said" all you have to do is develop the supporting technology to do it, including probably a nuclear pile reactor for the power source. There's obviously bridges in the game, they are on the map, so there is the technology to build them…"

The point is that in any set of rules there are a lot of things you don't have to make rules for simply because the occasion to use them will be very rare, and they can be made up ad-hoc with an unpire, and quickly forgotten. That's the minutia and trivia of gaming. I'd rather concentrate on the big things like why people are fighting or contending-- or not--

I actually noticed this in some big campaigns I was in, and even in large table top actions. Sometimes players were so bewildered with the game and in pursuing the ultimate stated rules of winning that they lost heart-- or more likely lost interest, and started doing things on their own. These "little things they were doing on their own for their own satisfaction" were far more intresting than the big and the grand picture, and they were quite innovative, quite intriging, and they seemed to have far more fun doing it. I was really impressed by the imagination they put into it.

Then also something interesting was also noticed. I used to craft these carefully nuanched and complex battle scenarios, which after I dutifully explained and coached the players on, fell apart in 15 minutes once I dropped the thing into their mits. It never worked out, and they always moved it into somethign their own, and I realized the utter futility of doing any work for this. The same thing happend with AD&D and I realized that the best GM'ing was with a few sketchy plots, and a truckload of improvization and ad-hoc designed to keep just a few steps ahead of the players, who were, I might add, going to go where they wanted to go and not where you wanted them to.

That's where I wound up about the time you read my stuff in "Historical Gamer" the Kentucky place you are talking of, and "The Courier".

Since the only thing I've figured out is that as far as wargaming rules, you really don't need much more than Moreschauser or Featherstone, and the rest can be played along ad-hoc with an umpire or GM supplying what you don't have ad-hoc.

That's why I'mn toying with letting players make their own Victory conditions. I'm sure it will be much better anything I can cook up.

That's why I said *additional* victory conditions. Who will follow a king that appears weak? Either you end up with a puppet on the throne, or the nobles overthrow him.

It's kinda like party dynamics in a D&D game. You can't constantly follow your own goals to the detriment of the party's success, eventually the party is going to either leave you to die someplace or actively kill the character.

You can say, you need to do the following two things to stay in power, but your personal goals can be anything.

So if someone is waging a war to expand the national prestige, what happens when the taxes get too high? Revolt. Now you need to stop the external war and put down the rebellion. Heck, for that matter one of the other players might be secretly fomenting the rebellion in your territory. Now you have conflicts!

You need to have conflict in order to make the game interesting. You don't need to have combat. Those are two different things.

THERE IS ONE POINT I WANT TO ASK FOR OPINIONS ON.
That is-

That is- people who write in capital letters will be shot.

;-)

The same thing happend with AD&D and I realized that the best GM'ing was with a few sketchy plots, and a truckload of improvization and ad-hoc designed to keep just a few steps ahead of the players, who were, I might add, going to go where they wanted to go and not where you wanted them to.

That's how my sons "play" D&D. I bought them the rule books and many expansions but they don't bother with dice or rules or procedures.

They and their friends simply the game in their heads with the GM deciding the results of actions in the interests of advancing a good story. They even play while at recess on the playground sitting on a bench talking out the story.

That's where I wound up about the time you read my stuff in "Historical Gamer" the Kentucky place you are talking of, and "The Courier".

Ahh yes, the adventures of Atholl!!!! (sp?) Now I remember! :-)