could I get help making a pen and paper mmo?

[bobthe6th]

as in, running a totally pen and paper world on the internet? like tribal wars but actually fun and modular?

the idea would be to set up a world that is like Erfworld (near pure war game, with some minor economics/diplomacy), but with a more serious fantasy setting. perhaps at the start make it a smallish continent. make it a hex map, sprinkle with terain, potential city plots, and natural cities.

my four points of brew would be
a) a system to run the combat that is easy, fast, and at the same time allowing for strategy/special units.
b) a magic that is simple yet interesting, without the entertaining variety of erfworld
c) a way to run the the logistics without taking more then a half hour of a players time per day(not counting combat), that allows deep control over his cities.
d) a way to make wealth a stable resource... the only resource that there is a finite amount of.

a... I got nothing... perhapce use the mechanics from masters of magic?

b would be intresting, but should wait to be built after the other three. It should work within the other systems rather then as an outside fource.

c I have no good ideas

d I have an idea for(wealth is needed for most things, and when spent re appears as either natural units, gems underground, or in loot piles for some creatures like dragons)

so a little help would be grand, a lot of help would make it a reality.

I would like to stay away from using Erfworld as a source material as a)it is rich balder's and I don't think he'll let me have it, b) it is overly complex, fighting the minimalist ascetic I was planing on and c)it comes with preconceptions of what the game is like.

any one interested?

[Yitzi]

Since it's on the internet, I assume that by "pen and paper" you just mean similar to a pen-and-paper game (like D&D play-by-post games.)

As for the actual points:

1. I think something along the lines of an Erfworld-style "base with modifiers" system would work. Each unit would have a base value (add them all together), and some (the special units) would either have percentage-based positive or negative modifiers (to the whole army or certain friendly or enemy units) or negate the modifiers of other units. (In this, D&D-style unit types/subtypes are your friend; you'd have a "ranged" category, and then any time something interacts differently with ranged units you could simply reference that.) You do want to make "massable" units affect only up to a limited number of other units (with the limit proportional to the number you have. (The strategy then lies in arranging your army negating your enemy's modifiers and weakening his force while boosting your own force, and preventing him from doing the same.) Once you have the values for both armies, roll a (virtual) die with size equal to the army value. Multiply the die result by the army value (yes this means the army value shows up twice; this is necessary for there to be effective strength in numbers). Whichever side is less loses and loses their army; the side that is higher wins, and loses a proportional amount of their army (so if they had twice the total result as the other side, they lose half their army. If they had 3 times the total result, they lose a third of their army, and so on.)
If you want in-battle tactics, it can get trickier; I'd say your best bet is to stick with the same method, but each side can (secretly) choose up to three-fourths of their army to not be included, and then after combat is resolved they continue again (this time up to two-thirds of what's left can be left out; the third time up to half can be left out, and the fourth it's all in.) The idea there is that if part of your army is largely negated by the opponent's force (e.g. your flyers' normally extremely high base value is cut by 90% by the enemy's archers), you can leave them out of the first round and hope to take out the relevant part of your opponent's force.
2. Magic as modifying the numbers and rules (either of terrain or a city, or the base value or modifiers of military units, or even stuff like turn order). For how to get magic, say that certain units are magical and automatically grant the effect to the army they're with; other effects require a city with the appropriate structure and cost wealth each time you use it.
3. This is a tricky one; the deeper the control, the more possibilities there are, and the longer it'll take to find the best choice. I'd say a "spend resources to build buildings, which then can spend resources to produce effects or units" approach is the best way, but you'll still end up with a large empire taking a long time to run optimally.
4. Every city and location has a wealth value. If there is a battle, the wealth value of the slain units ends up in that location, and can be harvested by appropriate units (not necessarily easily or quickly). If wealth is spent in a city for something other than units or buildings, it goes to the city, and the city pays a fixed percentage (possibly increasable to some degree with the appropriate building) per turn to the city's owner. If a building is razed, a portion of its cost goes to whoever razed it, and the rest goes to the city.

[bobthe6th]

By pen and paper I mean I am unwilling to code it...

As for the points.... well first A+ for effort, those are some brilient ideas. You blew my mind sir.

1. That... that is a really good idea. Would need some work to make it a full system, but I like it. Would you mind helping me make that idea a reality?

2. Intresting... perhapce have magic be a group of specials, with different modifications being different specials, and... will work on it.

3. Ok, that seems like a good level of complexity with simplicity.

4. Hmm... perhapce wealth is split equaly between all wealth spots, or they each take a differing share? Thoughts. I think giving wealth independent of the wealth spots would be a problem. I would want to copy the war scrable feel from erfworld, were you need to work to maintain an empire but geting one is easy.

But on the whole sir, those are great base ideas. Now there is a base framework to build from.


An idea, run it as a celander. As in, the map is a cylander on an xyz graph! The layers above Z=0 are above ground, and below z=0 are under ground. Movment is rounded.

[Amechra]

Dang it, where did those go?

I used to have links to some old Play by Email games you could look at; other than that, MUDs are really easy to program, but aren't exactly what you want; I'd look at them for ideas for how to implement it.

For unit differentiation, you want to make this as easy as possible; without computer help, you want any formulas you use to be the bare minimums. I would almost suggest having a RPS-like system between your units...

[Yitzi]

By pen and paper I mean I am unwilling to code it...

As for the points.... well first A+ for effort, those are some brilient ideas. You blew my mind sir.

1. That... that is a really good idea. Would need some work to make it a full system, but I like it. Would you mind helping me make that idea a reality?

I've got my own projects and don't really want to take the time to work on the details for another one; an existing system I wrote with somewhat similar mechanics (and from which I got the idea for this) is here (http://community.wizards.com/coco/wiki/Guilds_of_Gladius).

The other thing I'd suggest is just think about what will be more or less effective than what under what circumstances, and adjust the numbers based on that. For instance, to use an example I already mentioned, flyers are deadly in the absence of archers on the other side, so give them a high value that is mostly negated by archer units. "Fast" units will in turn have a lower value (since they can't be heavily armored) but will negate most of the value of archer units. Generals and morale-boosters will give a bonus to the whole army. Siege units will negate bonuses granted by city buildings (which will otherwise be quite sizable), and maybe even allow the destruction of buildings without actually taking the city. Play, or at least look at, a few existing RTS and/or TBS games for ideas.


4. Hmm... perhapce wealth is split equaly between all wealth spots, or they each take a differing share?

Have them start with different shares for more strategic potential, with most of it starting in cities. Of course, if a lot of battles are fought in a given place, it will naturally gain a large wealth value.


Thoughts. I think giving wealth independent of the wealth spots would be a problem. I would want to copy the war scrable feel from erfworld, were you need to work to maintain an empire but geting one is easy.

Best way to do that (easy to get an empire, hard to maintain one) is the way Erfworld does it, with significantly diminishing returns based on the number of cities you own.


An idea, run it as a celander. As in, the map is a cylander on an xyz graph! The layers above Z=0 are above ground, and below z=0 are under ground. Movment is rounded.

If you want the 3d approach, that would work (use a hex grid rather than truly rounded, though, as it's easier to calculate and pretty close.) If there aren't a lot of burrowing and flying units, though, it would probably be simpler just to use the two horizontal dimensions on the map and have height be a variable property of the unit itself.


Dang it, where did those go?

I used to have links to some old Play by Email games you could look at; other than that, MUDs are really easy to program, but aren't exactly what you want; I'd look at them for ideas for how to implement it.

For unit differentiation, you want to make this as easy as possible; without computer help, you want any formulas you use to be the bare minimums. I would almost suggest having a RPS-like system between your units...

Rock-Paper-Scissors systems (or more complex versions thereof) are pretty much necessary anyway, as any system that doesn't involve something of that general variety is going to be nearly impossible to balance, whereas anything with an RPS-like system pretty much balances itself.

[Techwarrior]

If you do the Rock Paper Scissors thing, make sure they're actually balanced. For instance, in the original Warsong: Archers were disgustingly awesome against Cavalry, and Soldiers were amazing against Archers, but Cavalry were just barely better than soldiers. Still a great game, but it always really bothered me.

[toapat]

A: 4 attribute system: DnD goes overboard with a 6 attribute system (ie: Why in descriptions Wisdom and Int are identical, even though they logically they are not, while charisma gets pooped on as a dump stat), while Erfworld's 3 attribute system doesnt really work, and the Civ series pretty well shows that, as the only way to effectively play Civ before Civ 5 was stack of doom, and even then the internal diceroll system just **** on you if it wanted to.
The attributes should be Offense, Defense, luck, and Life.

B: Erfworld's magic system was built to be hilarious but able once you get past all the sillyness be able to think of ways to exploit it. In simplist terms, magic fills 3 roles: Healer, Spock (to Sword, spear, and bow's rock paper scissors), and increase defense.

C: this runs a huge problem: the more complex the combat, the more time the logistics need to be worked on. yitzi outlined this basically the way it needs to be

D: the problem is, having gold be a static resource leads to problems. there is a reason why upkeep exists in most strategy games (SC has minimal here), and that is because upkeep prevents the early adopters from having million legion armies just stomp the opposition. Wealth being a static resource means the game can easily be beaten permanently.

[Yitzi]

D: the problem is, having gold be a static resource leads to problems. there is a reason why upkeep exists in most strategy games (SC has minimal here), and that is because upkeep prevents the early adopters from having million legion armies just stomp the opposition. Wealth being a static resource means the game can easily be beaten permanently.

Wealth being a static resource is not the same thing as there being no upkeep. You can say that each unit has upkeep, which is returned to the hex it is in at that time; this preserves the "conserved wealth" property while still having upkeep (and actually works well in a sense, as the farther your army is from your territory the more damaging the upkeep is due to it ending up in hexes that the enemy can reach more easily and you can reach less easily.)

[Vitruviansquid]

Masters of Magic is such an easy-to-understand but complex-to-play game that don't see why you wouldn't just start ripping as many basic mechanics from it as possible. (Sid Meier's Colonization and the Civilization series are also really easily understood games with very little in the way of complex calculations to use as a basis for your game)

In fact, I'd say your best bet is to start with Masters of Magic, determine what you would need to modify about the system, and then go from there...

...and my take is as follows, in no particular order:

1. You can completely revamp the magic system to whatever you find most fitting.

2. You should probably change the way armies are represented to make the battles easier to resolve. Perhaps put the actual units on the overworld like Civ 5 (rather than armies meeting on the overworld going into a tactical battlefield). You could also get rid of shield points altogether and use only health to represent a unit's defensive abilities. Or, you could revise what happens when 2 armies meet to Yitzi's model.

3. Give more options to cities and perhaps options for entire nations (a la Civ 4's Civics or Civ 5's Social policies/science tree). Maybe create mechanics for different political systems, different kinds/races of populations (for example, a human/elf mixed city would track how many humans and how many elves there were), the availability of different resources, different numbers of buildings in a city, etc.

4. Allow more to happen per turn or make the game much faster. You'll need some way to speed up gameplay so players always have important choices to make every turn.

[bobthe6th]

ok, only replying to some as it is late... will get more tomarow...


@toapat:
A) intresting... and I can't really disagree, as I love Masters of Magic, but luck should be resistance.
B)I see magic as more a way to add normaly heavy specials(like seige, or stuff building can do), multiple units into one(so one mage=one squad of archers) into a mobile one unit platform.
C)yeah, I concede that point...
D)upkeep exists, it just goes back into the system. so all of one turns upkeep gets split between all the worlds wealth spots(know as city plots...), along with all general gold expenditure. so yes, you could perma lock all the gold, but that implies you rule all the gold plots... on the entire cylinder... otherwise known as a victory condition...


@Vitruviansquid: MoM is the best game ever(I will admit to it being on my task bar), and I probably will end up using mechanics, as it is the granddady of the game type. at the same time, I plan on making the system way, way more modular, and remove the over wizard concept... probably.

[Vitruviansquid]

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "modular." :smallconfused:

[bobthe6th]

not saying swords man=x, but rather a unit with offense 2, defense 2, resistansce 5, 5 life, and a special giving a bonus against archery, could be a swords man, or a pikeman, or a summoned daemon. and to say that you are not limited by say 8 types of units, but rather by what you are willing to spend the gold and time on. That is the main reason I wanted to make it a pen and paper game, so people could really play with the system...

[bobthe6th]

and the rest...
@Amerarch:
units will usualy be in nice sized stacks, as that is really the most powerful way to run them(but at the same time limits the fronts you can cover), so differentiation shouldn't be all that hard... could be a problem.

@Yitzi:
1. I would like to limit the counter system, but a few might be good. probably make the specials also provide a utility bonus. so fliers can be at positive z values, and therefore ignore all the ground defeses, but archery gets a massive bonus against them.

will look into the system

4. it seems up in the air... but yes, diminishing returns is the idea...


but but but, underdarks are so fun to spring on a world conquer...

[toapat]

and the rest...
@Amerarch:
units will usualy be in nice sized stacks, as that is really the most powerful way to run them(but at the same time limits the fronts you can cover), so differentiation shouldn't be all that hard... could be a problem.

stack combat works in terms of never. its why when Civ5 was designed, they threw out the stack in addition to changing to a hex grid.