User:Dismounted Feudal Knight/Hotseat RPG

Why?

Skip if you don't want the lore dump,

I've been sitting on this for several years. It comes because I've played the game in handful of ways. I like the aesthetic of Medieval 2, I think its mechanics are closest to what I want from any total war game in the franchise. But I've done the following enough (or tried and didn't like it) that I'm on the last stretch.

• Vanilla campaigns
• Modded campaigns
• Campaigns with rules
• Campaigns with much more weird rules
• Multiplayer hotseats (didn't really catch for me and I never liked 'save scumming' let alone the kind of work some people put in to simulating hotseat outcomes)
• Multiplayer battles (battle micro is a weak point for me)
• Straight up roleplay campaigns
• Palpatine campaigns (I play multiple or even every faction in roleplay form)

You notice a trend here, I like the roleplay aspect. It doesn't come up on TWC much but I like imagining total war as playing out a long-term scenario. A bit like a show with its characters and events, my own little Game of Thrones. This is to the point my gameplay is almost mutilated by roleplay inclinations and neglect of 'gamey' elements of Total War, which is probably why I didn't get on with regular multiplayer very well.

So then I figured why not do a 'palpatine campaign' but add another human being to it.

What is it?

This is a campaign where there is a GM who plays the world and there is a player who plays in it.

Obviously this changes a few things off the bat. The GM is there to make things interesting, clearly not to win (though, reward brilliance and punish stupidity). This can range from playing fairly normally with roleplay fluff to steeping in the roleplay side and adding certain 'mechanics'. I lean to the latter although as a Total War game, the player will invariably have a goal of conquest. So why not make the conquest a bit more immersive.

Player rules

Kinda whatever the player wants to follow - the only hard rules I'd recommend are to not cheat/heavily exploit, avoid save scumming and other min-max things (taking a loss from time to time is okay), and respect the roleplay element of the world. There is potential to engage in unique diplomacy for example and it would be a shame to just, not.

GM rules

Like the player rules this is somewhat informal but for me, this is the sort of ruleset I think would be reasonable for GMs.

• There is no point for a GM to use exploits or cheat outcomes especially regarding the player (if the world is made for them to enjoy, why screw with that?). I actually think GM console is okay in order to make things happen elsewhere that benefit 'the story' and don't abuse the player, or to realize certain things like the player giving money to a character in another faction, or to manage certain traits like granting VictorVirtue to a player general after a major battle. Obviously trust is required here and console is optional, but its absence would limit possibilities.
• Likewise the GM should not be save scumming and messing too hard with events. They can use strategy especially as it correlates with a skilled leader in the faction of course, but not to the point of, again, abusing the player (ganging up on the player with all factions for no reason for example).
• If the player intends to roleplay or use GM mechanics, this should obviously be respected. Success is not guaranteed and I will recommend 'roll' mechanics later for fairness.

GM mechanics

This is where it gets fun imo. So the list is: rumors, diplomacy, intrigues, and events.

Rumors:

• A general message each turn to the player notifying them of what's known to be going on in the world, among their neighbors, and within their faction.
• Can be affected by spies, character traits, declarations by the player, outcomes of intrigues and events...

Diplomacy:

• Ability to send messages as characters, which could impact how messages are received by the character the player is messaging. No longer would it be about using AI diplomacy: the game diplomacy seals a deal that was struck properly. This could be through ingame messages, chat depending on the format, or even messages between characters as a proper roleplay structure.
• With diplomacy you can do anything from attempt to bribe characters, negotiate with certain leaders, make backchannel deals, arrange marriage, the doors are open. You could even negotiate with bandits pillaging the countryside if that might do you any good, or woo the pope, or sponsor a heretic.
• Not every attempt will go as planned of course and depends on the disposition of who is messaged, who is messaging and the circumstances. These could be rolled events but I do not prefer that for diplomacy.

Intrigues:

• Ability to capture characters. No more ransom, release, execute as your only choices after battle - want to hold the king? This will be possible. Or capture the princess, or whatnot on these lines. These will be rolled events, with modifiers based on circumstance. You have good odds if you just smashed them in battle or order an arrest at the capital, less so if striking at someone in the countryside or in deep hostile territory with a pyrrhic victory.
• You can capture and even execute offending characters as implied above even outside of battle. Chances will depend on the circumstances. It will go better if, again, they're at the capital and you have spies/assassins on hand vs making an attempt in the middle of hostile territory with a level 1 spy. But attempts can be made. Of course they might make attempts on you. This is a possible way to deal with an inquisitor, but obviously not done carefully that could have severe consequences.
• Attempt to frame other characters or factions for actions. Successfully sabotage Milan and blame it on Venice...
• Immediate post-battle negotiation, perhaps. A faction will probably want to sue for peace and become a vassal instead of commit suicide for their faction. Vassalage may actually be worth it as opposed to just taking direct control in vanilla, with you imposing terms as you wish (within their means to follow of course. Or maybe not?)
• I'd like to avoid doing too much to a player's faction but if there's a major rebellion this will certainly be an intrigue others make note of, and will be taken more seriously. As would bandit spawns, settlement revolts, heretics and witches.
• Title assignment even beyond what certain mods do. Designate a spymaster maybe, designate someone as the true faction leader and that will be respected beyond just what the game says, this sort of thing.

Events:

• Missions but more to them; granted by whichever faction, groups a part of the player faction which might give unique rewards, the pope...
• Failing events could have longer term consequences than ignoring the council of nobles of vanilla
• Some things may have different right answers, no right answer, difficult to predict consequences

Rolled events

Basically anything that is attempting to do something and it's hard to 'logic out' an outcome. So capture attempts, some events, may use this for espionage and other abusable vanilla mechanics, whatever seems more fair. Could be used for diplomacy but I personally don't care for that too much.

Battles

This is the main pain point of how medieval 2 works, obviously all the work above means little when battles are the same old same old. So I think for this the best arrangement is autoresolve minor things, manual battles between other factions and perhaps against minor things if the player wants to trounce bandits and just report the outcome, multiplayer battle for major clashes between player and GM. These battles could even be played by outsiders, adding more depth to the campaign.

Historical accuracy

I can't promise this. In fact I'd probably do better at simulating the Elder Scrolls mod this way than giving you a proper rendition from the 1648 mod unless you want it infused with Medieval 2's natural and total derailment of history. I would assume/hope some GMs could exist which are better at this and can offer a more historical experience to their setting.

Mods & modding

This could be done in standard hotseat picking whatever mod kinda works on hotseats, but would be more clunky. There are some things I would want to add for setup.

• EOP 3, for multiplayer battles and useful extensions.
• Custom trait work for things like character capture (zero MP), event traits, and titles. Ancillaries possibly for the last one. If a mod includes some of these it would be convenient, but this could be glued onto vanilla if need be.
• Setup faction order to put the player faction first (or almost first). They will get a fresh turn with full capabilities.
• Depending how the campaign is formatted (see below), have a 'blank' faction to end the turn so the GM has a clear stopping point and can hand over the save so the player can get the fresh end of turn report and other vanilla scrolls. This of course is a hard ask for mods which cap out turn order, although for pacing it seems to be ideal to choose a somewhat smaller campaign anyway, like a kingdoms expansion or a more localized mod.

Format of play

This could be done on the forum, on discord, wherever it is possible to report results and exchange the file. Rumors and other things could be done ingame, or they could be done through standard posts to bypass ingame clunkiness. If I'm being completely honest a few discord channels would probably be the most convenient format. Choice of server doesn't matter much but I would support this happening on the official TWC discord.

Between two people the usual turnaround time problem should not be extreme, but for me personally having several days at least would be best to process things to account for 1. the effort of properly representing several factions plus overall and player stuff and 2. the fact some days are better than others and no heart may be in it on some days, I'd even request an uninterrupted week of turnaround and extend a similar courtesy to the player faction, though naturally that should come sooner. A somewhat longer GM turnaround is also a chance to work through diplomacy best served in back and forths without going through what might be months or years in game time for an in person conversation.

This would require even more trust but I also think it might be good to have a format where the GM can first view the player faction in order to assign traits, manage events, properly write 'rumors' and so forth. Because some of this would probably demand viewing the full map with the visibility cheat and doing potentially quite precise console commands, even on the start of the player's turn, I think it may be best to cut the chase and let the GM just see the player faction outright and not abuse that visibility to unfairly change events. But this should be arranged between player and GM to what is most comfortable and what level of 'mechanics' is desired.

And for now this is it, but redrafting for clarity, details etc will probably be needed...