How might you level up in an RPG to having guilds / large operations without turning the game into a management sim? I think there's nothing worse than having too much money in an RPG and nothing to spend it on. A key part of the science fiction RPG hybrid I'm working on right now has as its goal the ability to let you expand a single shop or lowly shuttle into a large scale operation across ships and bases. What I'd like to do is sidestep the management headache and loss of RPG focus. Here's how it might work: It's All About The NPCs You can expand as much as you like, but everything depends on a limited pool of NPCs who follow you. They're responsible for whether your property / operation does well, what events you have to attend to, and how big you can grow. You can only have between 3-25 followers total, depending on your skills and character class. The higher the skills of the hireling in things like Leadership, Law, Statecraft and Business, the larger the asset they can manage. The higher their reputation (i.e., experience) the easier time they'll have with semi-random events (see below). Finally, the more money you give to the NPC to manage a ship or base, the more likely they are to succeed and return a profit, with certain factors like their personality, the operation type, their alignment and apparent loyalty all acting as moderating variables. As the network grows, you still are limited to your main followers, who in turn must be promoted to (behind the scenes) manage more followers. If you want more bases / ships, you have to promote the NPCs to a higher rank and group several assets under one NPC. If you promote an NPC above your own rank, however, you must pay them more and over time guard against them losing loyalty and trying to take over the operation. This is done to encourage you to get out and earn rank yourself, but allows an out if you want to sit back and empire build without exposing yourself to risk. Player Still Vital A problem with this idea is that you might grow insignificant at later levels. Here's a possible fix: Semi-random events strike all of your properties periodically. They depend on what the asset is, where it is, and how experienced the NPC leading it is. A super experienced, loyal, perfect NPC running a mining outfit, for instance, hardly ever talks to you but to say, "hey, boss, here's another 50k we made..." Most, however, call you up periodically with either opportunities or problems which create missions. A NPC might call about a syndicate that's pressing them and ask what you want to do; or tell you that if you buy a bunch of raw goods near you they can capitalize on a trade opportunity for a one time quick cash bonus. There would be a wide list of semi-random events, with urgencies and consequences relating directly to the NPC's experience. Early Start This idea is no good if you only get to do it at the end of the game. So you can start this early. You can use probes, automated machinery, fellow shuttle pilots and shopkeepers on stations to form early networks. A shopkeeper, for instance, might enter into a deal to sell rare crystals provided you only sell to her. Build her loyalty, and later she may join you in larger ventures. Banks and loan sharks in the game may lend credit based on your skills and reputation. Banks will set a mission for you to earn X number of credits in Y time. Defaulting could result in anything from bill collector probes occassionally following you around and ruining your reputation to bounty hunters coming to collect your property. Operation of Your Choosing Just by posting NPCs on property you own and making it so that you don't have to micromanage them as much as you would in a full blown tycoon style game, I'm hoping that you can establish an operation of your own choosing. This could be an assassins guild, a research operation dedicated to scavenging for ancient technology, a Babylon 5 style space station, a syndicate or some other corporate network. The important thing is that you don't get to manage the financials. You do get to choose where to expand, based on revenues; who you hire; how you react to the semi-random events; how you handle rivals and alliances; and what operation you get into, with some being more shady or socially desirable than others. If your focus was killing monsters, leveling up and doing missions, hopefully this would not be too much of a wild deviation from that. You could, for instance, establish a refueling and rearming base in the middle of hostile territory, or even a shop to buy and sell your goods so that you didn't have to travel back to civilization. You could import training centers, rec facilities for your crew, etc. Would you play this in an RPG, or would it feel too much like some other game?

I would really like to see something like this implemented. It reminds me a little of the Dune card game in that you can create hierarchies of personell.

If I may suggest something from the game... Each personell has a certain macromanagement ability (I'm not sure what you would call this, and it's been a while since I played the Dune CG), that is, an ability to manage other people. Each personell can manage someone of lesser macromanagement ability.

This would go for the player as well. They would start out being able to macromanage maybe 1 person. THey hre an undreling of no macromanagement skill. (a grunt) Then the player upgrades to two... They hire 2 people with macromanagement ability 1 (either NPC or player, I think would be a neat implementation), and promote them to his 2nd in commands... The original grunt's loyalty would drop since others were promoted before him even though he was there first. The grunt is now no longer in your control, but in one of your #2's control. Kind of a financial feudalism.

I've always wanted someway to govern over captured assetts. I really enjoyed teh part of Baldur's Gate II where you could be lord of the castle you save. I wanted some more interaction with the towns people then BGII allowed, though. Still, it was fun to disappear on some quest for a week or two and come back and collect taxes and see how my little principality was doing ;)

I think as long as the complexity _can_ handled by your underlings (you can be as hands off/on as you want), it wouldn't take away from the RP element. If anything, it would add to it.

Also just a quick side note: It always bugged me in MMO games that the virtual economy was so simple. The government should create fiscal policy to offset inflation (since money comes from spawned things, it's always increasing, so nearly all MMO games have infaltion). Also, NPC's should adjust their price based on supply and demand... There's nothing worse than trying to sell those boots to the UO shopkeeper, only to be told "sorry, I don't have any money".

I'm not saying that the game should be an economics simulation when the emphasis is on RP, but people just tend to overlook the "soft" sciences when making games (esp. sci fi). Sure the ships and weps are all realistically modeled, but those NPC shopkeepers just keep buying those boots at 36gp even when there's no demand for 50 pairs of boots and he's nearly out of money.

His poor sim children. Boot soup again...

Quote:

Original post by Numsgil If I may suggest something from the game... Each personell has a certain macromanagement ability (I'm not sure what you would call this, and it's been a while since I played the Dune CG), that is, an ability to manage other people. Each personell can manage someone of lesser macromanagement ability.

There's a whole personality system behind NPCs, so I was thinking that if you put someone in charge who has lower skills, certain conflicts may arise. For instance, if it's a Coward who gets put in charge of a Heroic personality, the Heroic personality is less likely to obey them in dangerous situations because they don't respect them.

The personalities create a bunch of strategic tradeoffs. Do you think this is too much to ask an RPG player to consider?

Quote:

The original grunt's loyalty would drop since others were promoted before him even though he was there first. The grunt is now no longer in your control, but in one of your #2's control. Kind of a financial feudalism.

I like this, but again I'd modify it slightly with the personality system. If a character was a Fanatic personality type, for instance, highly loyal to you, and this happened, there'd be no problem. This would be the reward for getting them that loyal. But many others might have a problem and based on their personality do everything from threatening to quit at the next port to covert sabotage.

Quote:

I've always wanted someway to govern over captured assetts. I really enjoyed teh part of Baldur's Gate II where you could be lord of the castle you save. I wanted some more interaction with the towns people then BGII allowed, though.

What I thought might really make you feel like the hero is if, depending on who you were, the people either looked up to you or hated and feared you-- and that this would be expressed in semi-random events. Maybe you're beloved and walking through a station you've acquired, and someone comes up to you beseech you on behalf of their ill mother. If you're hated, there's a chance that the guy coming up to you could instead be an assassin who screams out "Freedom Now!" before opening fire.

Quote:

I think as long as the complexity _can_ handled by your underlings (you can be as hands off/on as you want), it wouldn't take away from the RP element. If anything, it would add to it.

Since you can't run a detailed simulation on a bunch of different locations all the time, I think it's best to make this sort of thing deterministic. For instance, if you mine a planet, it produces X units time some factor determined by the experience and leadership of the NPC. There isn't really a mining sim going on, just the illusion.

Quote:

I'm not saying that the game should be an economics simulation when the emphasis is on RP, but people just tend to overlook the "soft" sciences when making games (esp. sci fi). Sure the ships and weps are all realistically modeled, but those NPC shopkeepers just keep buying those boots at 36gp even when there's no demand for 50 pairs of boots and he's nearly out of money.

What's tricky about this is that you have to be careful that, just like with hard science, you don't include things that are factual but not all that fun. I will definitely put work into making the economy change in response to supply and demand, although until you grow a large enough network this will probably seem like you're at the mercy of the universe at large.

Quote:

His poor sim children. Boot soup again...

LOL! :) Yeah, there's quite an immersion problem with the whole kill monster-get item-sell item cycle.

Quote:

There's a whole personality system behind NPCs, so I was thinking that if you put someone in charge who has lower skills, certain conflicts may arise.

Yes, I see how something like this would work, however there are people, for example, who excell in a skill but can't manage other people well. An example might be a very skilled artist. His skill may be unsurpassed, but he can't handle looking after other people.

On the opposite end, there are people who's only skill is their ability to manage others. I think we call these 'beurocrats'. So perhaps something in tandem with their ability in the field and their beurocratic ability.

Quote:

Do you think this is too much to ask an RPG player to consider?

I think it may be too much to *demand* a player to consider, but certainly not too much to allow a player to consider. The pool should be as deep as we want to swim, so to speak.

Quote:

If a character was a Fanatic personality type, for instance, highly loyal to you, and this happened, there'd be no problem. This would be the reward for getting them that loyal.

I think this is true to a point. Specifically, all personell resent having someone promoted above them, especially if that person used to work under them. However, the degree of resentment is determined by their loyalty personality type. So once you get that fanatic to truely love you, it would be near impossible to sway his loyalty. So even though his loyalty would drop slightly when you promote someone over him, his loyalty is so high it wouldn't hardly matter.

Quote:

Maybe you're beloved and walking through a station you've acquired, and someone comes up to you beseech you on behalf of their ill mother. If you're hated, there's a chance that the guy coming up to you could instead be an assassin who screams out "Freedom Now!" before opening fire.

I love this idea. It creates a whole new level of emersion within the game world, because if nothing else, it creates the illusion that you matter to someone. Perhaps if you're good, and you do good things to the people under your control (ie: on the station, like low 'taxes' and some sort of welfare system), you would have increased loyalty from the people, and if the station is captured, there is a greater chance of some kind of insurection giving the station back to you (assuming you can keep control of it).

If you're evil to the people on teh other hand, you can tax them heavily, and demand 'protection' money from them, etc. So you could gain greater revenue from the station, but there is an increased chance of rebellion, and perhaps some kind of underground resistance.

Obviously there are more shades than just good and evil. You could be in martial law, or have a socialist system, etc. And each attitude towards the people effects their effects on you in some way.

However, something like this could grow tiresome to some, so you should be able to give greater autonomy to the NPC 'governors' of the station, and let them run it according to the dictates of their own conscience. Perhaps you could set overall settings (squeeze them dry, promote loyalty) that would tell all your NPC's how to govern your assets.

Something like in MOO3, but more simplified. I'm not sure, just an idea. It may take emphasis away from other aspects of the game, and turn it more into an empire-builder than you want.

Quote:

There isn't really a mining sim going on, just the illusion.

Exactly, but there should be some options as to how to mine, even while the logistics are 'worked out' by the NPC (ie: the game doesn't deal with it). Perhaps strip mining, drive miners like slaves, etc. Each would effect the mine's output, worker loyalty, you're overall reputation, etc. Again, there could be a standard setting that lets the NPC do as he wished, so you don't have to deal with it.

Quote:

What's tricky about this is that you have to be careful that, just like with hard science, you don't include things that are factual but not all that fun. I will definitely put work into making the economy change in response to supply and demand, although until you grow a large enough network this will probably seem like you're at the mercy of the universe at large.

I think supply and demand was a poor example. I took an economics course just a few weeks ago to get enough credit for graduation. There are so many types of financial instruments that games never explore.

For example: futures contracts. If you're company Y and you produce Industrial Grade Bellybutton Lint, and you like the current market prices (ie: you can make a profit), and you wish to pursue risk aversion, you might offer a contract to sell a certain amount of lint at the current price a month in the future.

If you're company X, you build shirts from this lint, and you too can make a profit at the current price. You would buy this futures contract to be sure that you can find a supply at this price in the future.

Thus if the player is a large corporation, he can be sure to avoid fluctuations in the price of raw and sold materials, so his profits are known with reasonable assuredy for the foreseeable future. Thus he is less at risk financially than he was when he was at the mercy of the market.

There are other financial instruments. Loans, interest swaps, mortgages, stock calls and puts, labor contracts, etc. These may not be as important in a fantastic setting, where currency is a novel invention, but in a sci fi game esp., where humans are supposed to have colonized the stars, its ludicrous to think they haven't mastered a method of averting financial risk.

Admitedly, these instruments only arise in a stable political atmosphere, so if you're game is post-apocalyptic, where civilization has collapsed, you may not have these kinds of instruments arise. But if there is any kind of stable market system, these financial instruments will arise as a natural tendency of prudent capitalists.

The interesting thing about these instruments is that it's possible to invest in something without any tangible goods. Want to invest in the stock market? You can buy calls or puts, which will give you the same profit for a stock price increase or decrease even though you don't have any real stock. Thus a kind of 'banker' would arise within the game whose job it is to rate various investments, just as real banks do. A player with a weak character could imaginable become quite wealthy just from investment.

This is what I mean by having economic science within the game. Things like financial contracts (even the most basic kinds) should exist within game. Perhaps you could develop some kind of contract scripting language, allowing people to create custom contracts, allowing these kinds of instruments to arise naturally. Or at the most base level you could just hard code futures, calls and puts, etc. right in. It depends on how deep you want to delve into economics. Just keep in mind if a soceity can produce warp technology, it probably has equally complex economic technologies, so to speak.

I think something like this allows a new avenue of game play to develop, which creates complexity within the game, and just as in biology, complexity in a game indicates a healthy replayability. Well, as long as the complexity doesn't become an affront to the player. You'd have to weigh these kinds of instruments in gameplay. I can't think of a game that uses anything like this, so if you do choose to persue something like this, it would be more or less uncharted territory. I have no idea how it would affect the fun of the game.

Sorry for the rant, I realize it was a bit off topic. It's just one of my pet peeves... Frustrating if nothing else, since if you have a substantial amount of money that you know you won't be needing for a while (you're saving for a house in UO for example) it always irked me that it couldn't be invested, even when a kind of inflation was occuring (from unlimited spawning). That money sitting in your account was _depreciating_! Rubbed me the wrong way.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator It's All About The NPCs You can expand as much as you like, but everything depends on a limited pool of NPCs who follow you. They're responsible for whether your property / operation does well, what events you have to attend to, and how big you can grow.

Limited in what way? In that you can only have so many, or that there are only so many NPC's in the "universe"? If this is MMO (is it?) limiting the total number could be disastrous (or save you, perhaps if the population slowly increased as the player base increased? or just over time?) If limited in the number you can have, how do you grow beyond a certain point?

Quote:

As the network grows, you still are limited to your main followers, who in turn must be promoted to (behind the scenes) manage more followers. If you want more bases / ships, you have to promote the NPCs to a higher rank and group several assets under one NPC. If you promote an NPC above your own rank, however, you must pay them more and over time guard against them losing loyalty and trying to take over the operation. This is done to encourage you to get out and earn rank yourself, but allows an out if you want to sit back and empire build without exposing yourself to risk.

My appologies, but I realize this is not a self-contained thread and I have not read the other threads. How do you earn rank yourself? It sounded like you were describing a system where you earned rank through management and the number of people under you was a sort of measure of your rank. I'm obviously misunderstanding :)

Quote:

Most, however, call you up periodically with either opportunities or problems which create missions. A NPC might call about a syndicate that's pressing them and ask what you want to do; or tell you that if you buy a bunch of raw goods near you they can capitalize on a trade opportunity for a one time quick cash bonus. There would be a wide list of semi-random events, with urgencies and consequences relating directly to the NPC's experience.

Ha! For some reason I picture Bruce Almighty checking his "Yahweh" account ;) How much interaction do these events take? It almost sounds like you could just give a quick little decision. Or do you have to go discuss with representatives of the other syndicate? Or do you have to go to the actual site of operations and deal with things first hand? Or could you just tell the NPC "Use your judgement" when you either just don't feel like it or, perhaps, have another semi-random event that's more pressing? Or perhaps whichever you deem appropriate?

Quote:

If your focus was killing monsters, leveling up and doing missions, hopefully this would not be too much of a wild deviation from that. You could, for instance, establish a refueling and rearming base in the middle of hostile territory, or even a shop to buy and sell your goods so that you didn't have to travel back to civilization. You could import training centers, rec facilities for your crew, etc.

So, business man by day, Jack the Ripper by night? Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde? Can I tell my NPC underlings "Just make it work" and shoot stuff?

Quote:

Would you play this in an RPG, or would it feel too much like some other game?

Don't know what you're planning, but sounds like you're trying to make one gameplay work for all types by letting them manage various bits to the level that interests them. Would I be able to manage everything? What happens if I just put everything on auto-pilot?

Or maybe you're planning something else? Reading this post put in my head the idea of a MMO universe with several games interacting. You play whichever game interests you. If you like tycoon games, maybe you set up some sort of business selling something useful to other PCs (or even NPCs). If you like adventure, maybe you deliver the goods to dangerous locations. If you like action, maybe you play a bounty hunter collecting on adventurers who are on the run after a failed shipment, or an assassin out for the president of some company, or a marine fighting for your country. If you like empire building, maybe you're a political leader making/breaking alliances, commanding the army, setting taxes, and worried about which planets you control and to what extent. Each game has a different interface appropriate to that game, and they feed off each other (I think it would be "neat" to buy my equipment as a bounty hunter from some PC run business). Bah, it's late, probably been said before, and probably a bad idea.

Quote:

Original post by Numsgil Yes, I see how something like this would work, however there are people, for example, who excell in a skill but can't manage other people well. An example might be a very skilled artist. His skill may be unsurpassed, but he can't handle looking after other people. On the opposite end, there are people who's only skill is their ability to manage others. I think we call these 'beurocrats'. So perhaps something in tandem with their ability in the field and their beurocratic ability.

I do see what you mean, and it is true that there are "people skills" but I can't see a way of making a meaningful gameplay distinction here-- beyond what I'm already planning, which is to make management all about NPC skills and personality. Promoting the highly skilled Cold Fish personality type, for instance, is going to generate alot of negative events... and let's not even talk about the Sociopath... ;>

In this case, the leader's skill means something (respect with underlings, response to semi-random events); and then the personality means something.

For an NPC there's already about about 8 stats, 15+ skills with subspecializations, his / her personality which has percentage chance randomizers for good and bad events (situation dependent), morale, apparent loyalty, and faction alignment. If I did add management skills, I want to make sure that they aren't just a stumbling block or yet another skill to raise that does nothing by itself.

Quote:

I think it may be too much to *demand* a player to consider, but certainly not too much to allow a player to consider. The pool should be as deep as we want to swim, so to speak.

[cool] I like this philosophy.

Quote:

I think this is true to a point. Specifically, all personell resent having someone promoted above them, especially if that person used to work under them.

;> Not to belabor the point, but if a fanatic things your the avatar of god, whatever you do must be the god's will. But I understand what you mean. What I'm looking for, though, is to add plausible exceptions to the rule, because these become your NPC management strategies. You choose this character and personality type over that one because this will happen instead of that.

Quote:

It creates a whole new level of emersion within the game world, because if nothing else, it creates the illusion that you matter to someone.

Yes, this is an important point. Thanks for highlighting it, because it'll help me keep the focus there in these types of situations. Rather than just random events, it creates the feeling that you have affected people's lives and they respond.

Quote:

Perhaps if you're good, and you do good things to the people under your control (ie: on the station, like low 'taxes' and some sort of welfare system), you would have increased loyalty from the people, and if the station is captured, there is a greater chance of some kind of insurection giving the station back to you (assuming you can keep control of it).

Cool scenario. Just as you'd raise loyalty among your own NPCs, you'd raise it en masse for a station.

Quote:

If you're evil to the people on teh other hand, you can tax them heavily, and demand 'protection' money from them, etc. So you could gain greater revenue from the station, but there is an increased chance of rebellion, and perhaps some kind of underground resistance.

I also like the idea of foreign intervention. If you take over a property and treat it poorly, those in charge should begin to emulate you. This spreads corruption, increases piracy and crime, and causes underworld factions to sprout. You may even be invaded by some do gooder or opportunist empire claiming to be "liberating" your people.

Quote:

Obviously there are more shades than just good and evil. You could be in martial law, or have a socialist system, etc. And each attitude towards the people effects their effects on you in some way. However, something like this could grow tiresome to some, so you should be able to give greater autonomy to the NPC 'governors' of the station, and let them run it according to the dictates of their own conscience. Perhaps you could set overall settings (squeeze them dry, promote loyalty) that would tell all your NPC's how to govern your assets.

You'll be happy to know that I have two concepts exactly for this: Policies and Promises. Policies are basic settings that govern behavior on your ship, such as gambling or whether or not crew get to know the position of the ship in space. This scheme could easily apply to settlements if I broaden it, and can be modified by personality again. So, yes, these macro options would be something you'd be used to from the start of the game.

The promises aspect I'll relate below:

Quote:

I think something like this allows a new avenue of game play to develop, which creates complexity within the game, and just as in biology, complexity in a game indicates a healthy replayability. Well, as long as the complexity doesn't become an affront to the player. You'd have to weigh these kinds of instruments in gameplay. I can't think of a game that uses anything like this, so if you do choose to persue something like this, it would be more or less uncharted territory. I have no idea how it would affect the fun of the game.

Thanks for the great examples. I do have in mind VERY SIMPLE analogues:

• Some places have better economies than others; some have cashless economies, others have coinage, others are reduced to barter
  
• Banks offer simple interest, and are of varying stability (linked to the empire). I'm skipping compound interest because I think it'll get out of control
  
• Interest rates fluctuate with war, expansion and peace
  
• Loans are offered through a Promise system, which is simply the player setting a mission objective, a time limit, success and default conditions from lists.
  
• You can donate or loan money to characters, stations / bases, factions, and empires.
  
• I want to add varying companies that make equipment of varying qualities and brand names that you know and trust; maybe I can squeeze in a very simple stock market investment scheme which reflects these companies
  

Quote:

Sorry for the rant, I realize it was a bit off topic. It's just one of my pet peeves... Frustrating if nothing else, since if you have a substantial amount of money that you know you won't be needing for a while (you're saving for a house in UO for example) it always irked me that it couldn't be invested, even when a kind of inflation was occuring (from unlimited spawning). That money sitting in your account was _depreciating_! Rubbed me the wrong way.

No problem, you're righ this is an area most games steadfastly ignore, even heavy duty empire games! I see it as a fun way of gambling and taking risk. If it can be made fun without becoming overly complicated, I've got no problem with it!

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by Wavinator It's All About The NPCs You can expand as much as you like, but everything depends on a limited pool of NPCs who follow you. They're responsible for whether your property / operation does well, what events you have to attend to, and how big you can grow. Limited in what way? In that you can only have so many, or that there are only so many NPC's in the "universe"?

No, there's a ton of NPCs. However, only 3-25 of them ever appear to you as characters whose stats, loyalty, skills, morale and special abilities you care to manage. Beyond that number any characters you have are modifiers and points with attendant costs.

Quote:

If this is MMO (is it?) limiting the total number could be disastrous (or save you, perhaps if the population slowly increased as the player base increased? or just over time?)

No, this project is single-player or co-op multiplayer. I don't have the reserves to do a MMO nor the gaming experience to know what's good and bad about them.

Quote:

If limited in the number you can have, how do you grow beyond a certain point?

You promote them and allocate funds, then they in turn hire more to fulfill the duties you've assigned to the promoted NPC. So you could have 50 or 75 or heck even 10,000 NPCs, but you'd never interface with more than 25, each of which would control X thousand as points and modifiers.

Quote:

How do you earn rank yourself? It sounded like you were describing a system where you earned rank through management and the number of people under you was a sort of measure of your rank. I'm obviously misunderstanding :)

No worries, it is an off the wall concept to smoosh an RPG into an empire game...

The RPG convention that holds throughout the entire game is a reputation system which results from your deeds, specifically the missions you take in the game. This RPG doesn't have levels or experience, but instead has leveling with money (improving equipment, skills and personnel) and with fame (which affects contacts, alliances and semi-random events).

In this case, if you're nobody, the price for getting people to follow you will be steep, and they're less likely to hang around unless you pay them steadily. As you gain fame, however, it becomes easier to acquire and retain hirelings (provided we're talking legal means here... there's always shanghai'ing). The higher their skills are over yours, though (as a sum total), the more they may start trying to take over-- which is a risk of not leveling.

Quote:

How much interaction do these events take? It almost sounds like you could just give a quick little decision.

This depends on the personality, competence of the NPC and the venture. There'll be a strategy to match NPC with environment: Put mavericks in new territory to deal with threats and change, politician personalities in established empires, bezerkers next to pirates, etc., etc.

Quote:

Or do you have to go discuss with representatives of the other syndicate? Or do you have to go to the actual site of operations and deal with things first hand? Or could you just tell the NPC "Use your judgement" when you either just don't feel like it or, perhaps, have another semi-random event that's more pressing? Or perhaps whichever you deem appropriate?

Not to hint at a kitchen sink approach, but all of these are appropriate. You'd deal with reps yourself if the NPC wasn't diplomatic enough or semi-random events in the universe changed making him less powerful (an empire collapsing, for instance, or a war throughout his territory). Running things yourself would actually be responding to a string of needs that the operation has to keep afloat, and would likely be the result of NPC incompetence or poor budgeting or personnel placement on your part; finally, the "use your own judgement" approach would be something that you could always default to, damn the consequences.

Quote:

So, business man by day, Jack the Ripper by night? Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde? Can I tell my NPC underlings "Just make it work" and shoot stuff?

Choose an operation in safe territory or with massive defenses in this case, invest in renewable supply centers, and yes they'd be fire and forget (speaking of being in the midst of monster filled territory, that is)

Quote:

Don't know what you're planning, but sounds like you're trying to make one gameplay work for all types by letting them manage various bits to the level that interests them.

What I'm looking for more than anything else is a wide spectrum of enterprises and careers that, in terms of interface and learning curve, function exactly the same but in terms of gameplay offer different situational mutations.

Run a pirate operation, for instance, and the law is always on your back, you have to move your base frequently and may have to deal with alot of treachery from the NPCs you establish.

Run a rebellion and it may be a little like the pirate base idea, except that your attacks raise morale amongst the subjugated peoples and hiring crew is easier.

Quote:

Would I be able to manage everything?

No. There's no way around this. The game's focus is in RPG interaction with characters and leveling. Allowing you to manage everything in depth and make minute decisions would require adding detailed sims for every area, crushing the idea due to overhead.

What it instead is an attempt to do is give you the flavor, a taste of management with the situations that arise, and the freedom to still play a RPG, rather than an RPG that suddenly becomes a tycoon game.

Quote:

What happens if I just put everything on auto-pilot?

In the best case, you've set up operations that are either undetected, harmless, or well defended or in well defended territory; staffed them with competent NPCs; and given them enough seed money and supply so that when you come back, they will have made a slight profit.

In the moderate case, that same operation will have broke even or will be at a loss.

In the worst case, you will come back to find that depending on the NPC, the asset and the local events in the area, anything could have happened: It tanked and everybody left; it was appropriated by an enemy or rival; or its much worse off than when you left it.

Quote:

Or maybe you're planning something else? Reading this post put in my head the idea of a MMO universe with several games interacting.

Let me make it a bit more realistic so you know what I'm talking about: You'll have missions you can take take at different locations which are based on semi-random events and stats in the game world. You'll also have NPCs you interact with and negotiate with. Beyond this, there'll be self-contained gameplay in the form of piracy, exploring, treasure hunting, crew management, item creation, etc.

So what this really is is a system for leaving behind an NPC who "manages" property based on their makeup; and they generate missions from time to time, just as the BBS system does. The missions then require you to do the things that you would ALREADY be doing in freeform gameplay.

The difference is that they benefit your operation as a reward, rather than some NPC or faction in the game world. This gives you the ability to gain ground.

Now I do want it to have a sense of these wildly different operations you mentioned: Corporate operations may have more negotiation and trade missions; pirate ventures more combat and stealth; etc.

Whether you run a venture or not, this gameplay will be here anyway. This is just a way of giving it new meaning and letting you carve out a presence in the galaxy beyond your own small character.

Quote:

You play whichever game interests you. If you like tycoon games, maybe you set up some sort of business selling something useful to other PCs (or even NPCs). If you like adventure, maybe you deliver the goods to dangerous locations. If you like action, maybe you play a bounty hunter collecting on adventurers who are on the run after a failed shipment, or an assassin out for the president of some company, or a marine fighting for your country. If you like empire building, maybe you're a political leader making/breaking alliances, commanding the army, setting taxes, and worried about which planets you control and to what extent.

As long as these fit within the same interface and same dynamics, they're no problem. But let's take the tycoon aspect: There won't be the same detail as a full-blown tycoon game because that's impossible. Same for any political leader aspect: Compared to a full-on empire game, it would be lacking in options and strategies outside the normal scope of RPing that you started the game with.

Quote:

Each game has a different interface appropriate to that game, and they feed off each other (I think it would be "neat" to buy my equipment as a bounty hunter from some PC run business). Bah, it's late, probably been said before, and probably a bad idea.

Yeah, the real problem with a massive game that had detail and interlocking parts would be that it would be a meandering mastadon when it came to guaranteeing a good experience for the player. Plus it would take a million years to get anything done, as these games are at wildly different paces.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: How do you earn rank yourself? It sounded like you were describing a system where you earned rank through management and the number of people under you was a sort of measure of your rank. I'm obviously misunderstanding :) The RPG convention that holds throughout the entire game is a reputation system which results from your deeds, specifically the missions you take in the game. This RPG doesn't have levels or experience, but instead has leveling with money (improving equipment, skills and personnel) and with fame (which affects contacts, alliances and semi-random events).

Ah, I understand now :)

Quote:

This depends on the personality, competence of the NPC and the venture. There'll be a strategy to match NPC with environment: Put mavericks in new territory to deal with threats and change, politician personalities in established empires, bezerkers next to pirates, etc., etc.

Sounds almost like "Rock-Paper-Scissors". I suppose that'll be prevented somewhat by not always having the right NPC for the job, and perhaps by what your goal with the territory is? Or am I at too low a level and the question is less about choices of who'll manage your territory and more about why you chose the territory in the first place? (e.g. You have no bezerkers under you and you knew there were pirate about, so why in the world did you try to keep that territory?)

Quote:

Quote: Would I be able to manage everything? No. There's no way around this. The game's focus is in RPG interaction with characters and leveling. Allowing you to manage everything in depth and make minute decisions would require adding detailed sims for every area, crushing the idea due to overhead.

I wasn't thinking quite so grand with that statement. I was more curious about what is the minimum dependence on NPC's (which is why I paired it with a question about auto-pilot. I.e. what is the maximum dependence on NPC's). So, it sounds like if I'd rather blow stuff up, there'll be safe and stable choices with "enough" pay off to support my purchase of toys. If I prefer the tycoon aspect, I assume there'll be choices that take a bit more management to be successful, but have higher payoffs?

Quote:

by Way Walker (me) Or maybe you're planning something else? Reading this post put in my head the idea of a MMO universe with several games interacting.

Yeah... should probably ignore that bit. I shouldn't post when half asleep.

I need to stop posting as an AP... :/

The more I read about Wavinators design, the more I am loving it. Basically, it is turning into the game that I have always wanted to make or play. I really hope it's gonna make it off the paper.

I would make it so that you interface with all this by simply having conversations/meetings with the NPCs ... so they would tell you how it is going, and you would give them advice and or orders. I also think that would make it feel more RPGish.

Don't be afraid to blend genres. Specially not RPG and management ... they go so well together even though you get to see so little of it.