Roleplaying MTW

[Roark]

Hi guys,

Tony has inspired me to take the roleplaying aspect of my campaigns to a new level but, being a disorganised person, I have only ever introduced broad and rudimentary aspects of roleplaying to the game. Eg:

- Muslim solidarity/non-aggression
- Titles only for nobles and/or natural-command generals
- No spamming of elites
- No unatural alliances (English-French)

So I'm curious about:

a. What roleplaying elements (ie: not necessarily iron-man rules) have you introduced in your own games?

b. For the hardcore roleplayers, like Tony: How you keep track of everything. (ie: Do you maintain a campaign journal or something similar?)

Thanks,

Roark.

[Martok]

Well you already follow some of the same rules I do (no weird alliances like Egyptians-Papacy, no spamming Huscarles/Varangian Guards/etc.). I tend to roleplay my faction in general -- not necessarily in terms of what they did historically (although I certainly end up doing so sometimes), but in terms of what they were more likely to do than not.

Take the Sicilians, for example: While I (of course) set up trading networks in the Mediterranean and build up a significant navy, I'm also less squeamish about signing peace treaties & alliances with Muslim factions (although I'll still usually do so only reluctantly). I'm more likely to go after the Byzantines, since I'm still Norse at heart and I covet the wealth of Constantinople -- and on a related note, as a good (perhaps *too* good, so to speak) Catholic, I'm going to have less compunction about going to war with Orthodox factions. Speaking of which, I'll also befriend the Pope, and usually side with him if I'm forced to choose between him and another ally. I'm also not afraid to get involved in any dynastic conflicts involving the French and/or English, since I may have a possible royal claim due to my Norman lineage.

I also tend to roleplay my notable personages -- faction leaders, princes, generals, & governors -- to at least some extent as well. If a general has the "Natural Leader" line of traits, then I tend to put him up towards the front in battle, despite the danger. If I have a prince who's "Chivalrous" and/or an "Honourable Warrior", then I'll usually have him behave as such (i.e., he won't execute prisoners, and will release rebels). If I have a governor who's "Zealous", I'll have him build churches/mosques, monasteries/ribats, etc. -- if I remember to, I'll even sometimes place an Inquisitor/Imam in that governor's province as well to raise the zeal there. And so on.


Now I don't necessarily do all these things on a consistent basis, but I try to. The main key, though, is to just get a feel for how you think your faction (and the major characters in it) ought to behave, and then act accordingly. You just do what feels "natural" to you.

[bondovic]

For me, the historical accuracy is not particularly important when roleplaying. Rather, the best element is concentrating on the persons who emerege through the campaign and trying to get a feel for their whims. Especially the king and the heirs, but also powerful generals and important governors.

To do this right one has to approach it with a no-holes-barred kind of mentality. Everything goes - heir assasinations, king assasinations, generals assasinating governors whose titles they covet, etc - what would they have done? Also it helps if you play with green generals and confine yourself to troop production only when your monarch is at 5 or lower influence, since loyalty really soars for new units at higher values.

EDIT: You want low "inherent" loyalty because you want more civil wars. Plain and simple.

Make exceptions to your own rules only when it's needed in order to continue having fun. Boring rules obviously should not be used, the point is to make the game more enjoyable.

[Tony Furze]

Great to see this topic, Roark!

I'm really fascinated by the role playing genre of gaming but I find the ones I have played -Neverwinter for eg-much too individual based and with too much looking around for chests to get gold. MTW has that little bit of flexibilty, that window of opportunity for the imagination to run riot if you're an imaginative player.

I have uninstalled MTW VI at present but my fingers are aching to get that disc back in there! (School begins on Monday and I should really be...etc etc)

A good set of flexible (meaning bendable) rules are needed so you don't take ages for one turn. Then concentration on key characters-in my case they tend not to be the monarchs. Heroes are really good ones for roleplay. Thank goodness emissaries and the like were not given v& v s!

I love roleplaying muslim factions. I follow the pope crusade idea-never attack another muslim faction, unless they attack you. Then you may attack as a warning only-the province must be returned to the faction. Something like that.

Great topic-I'm off to do some shopping with the missus-back sooooooon

[m52nickerson]

Here are some suggestions, or at least thing I have done

1. No alliances with factions of another faith
2. If you are a Catholic faction, you must obey the pope.....including crusading requests.
3. No using Inquisitors against other nations.
4. No breaking of alliances, unless it interferes with rule 2
5. Only one unit of knights per army stack.

....and for a true challange

6. When you get the message that a general has died, you must disband his unit.

[Roark]

6. When you get the message that a general has died, you must disband his unit.

Owwwwwwwww...