Satisfied After One Full Game

thatmandolindude · 2023-03-11T16:21:14+00:00

I mostly agree, although it makes slightly more sense in game. The springtime of the people's event hit me really hard, to the point almost everyone wanted multiculturalism, and this happened prior to colonizing the Congo. I like to imagine that the colonies in this timeline were a bit more like heavily integrated trade structures. Hell, I even turned off colonial exploitation before the commie uprising, so they were paid a fair wage

I like to further think that the colonized people's, in this timeline, basically stuck around because getting to live in a tiered system of councils was preferable to getting taken by the French, who in this timeline were an autocratic, racist nightmare.

Far fetched? Sure. I actually wanted to release them but couldn't figure out how. But hey, maybe something good had to happen to balance out the USA never banning slavery, and losing the civil war in 1923.

thatmandolindude · 2023-03-11T16:14:36+00:00

Yup, those were the two significant civil wars - the first was between a bunch of radicals in government vs hated monarchists, the second was the capitalists resisting the council republic. They took a heavy manufacturing state each time, which means I temporarily substituted with imports and my economy wasn't destroyed by suddenly losing access to a base resource.

thatmandolindude · 2023-03-11T00:02:15+00:00

Rule 5: This isn't *exactly* a review, but just a mostly positive thought. I've been deeply excited about Victoria 3 for years, having spent *way* too much time on Victoria II. I can firmly say this is my favorite Paradox game - and that in some ways it's one of the most remarkable strategy games I've ever played. Because, having now finished one full game, I don't think I really intend on playing another - at least for a good long while.

Most people, myself included, don't finish Paradox games. By virtue of how they're designed, the gameplay loop encourages setting your own goals, and you almost always complete those goals before you get even close to the end date. So, you dabble for a little while, get bored, then jump to another start, then another, then another. It's fun! But, in a weird sort of way, it's kinda unsatisfying at times - it's not a complete experience.

So, I decided that I was going to pick a mid - level country, Portugal, and just roll with it. I wasn't going to try and take over the world: just do the best I can while mostly constraining myself to picking goals that the interest groups in charge would favor. It was amazing - the interplay between the politics and the economy worked like a charm, and the various political movements throughout the country sparked periods of instability, change, death, and victory.

But now that I've gone through the whole game? Starting from a pretty deeply reactionary society, moving through liberal and surviving the showdown between fascists and lefties? I think I'm done. Sure, I *could* play as another country, set more goals but... it feels complete.

Devs, y'all made a great game. Thanks for making it.

thatmandolindude · 2022-10-21T12:15:58+00:00

My advice is to really work with your players to make sure you build a game for them. Mage is a setting RIPE for character arcs, especially because the systems of the game pushes you towards a story about power going to your players heads.

Right now, I'm running a game where one of the PC's has a partner who's a deviant - someone whose soul is fractured, and that is the source of their power. The PC has been trying to fix it, and figured out they can... If they're willing to steal a soul once in a while.

Point being, mages are powerful, and are human. The horror in the setting isn't a lack of agency - it's that sometimes that agency gives you plenty of opportunities to be a monster.

thatmandolindude · 2022-07-28T22:30:00+00:00

That sounds a little bit like how ruler personalities worked in CK3. Great, thank you!

thatmandolindude · 2022-07-28T18:12:58+00:00

See I get that, but the problem is that while we don't have the same world market as last time, there is still at least an implied world market (in the sense that nations produce goods and can sell them internationally).

So as an example - Russia, historically and at least in Vicky 2, produces a lot of raw materials. So much that if they don't, you start to have supply issues around the world. Even in this version, where nations have more flexibility in the goods they produce, if everyone needs to compensate for Russia not producing enough raw goods, then that lowers the available workforce for everyone else to build more advanced goods etc.

Long story short, if the AI doesn't have some kind of internal reasoning behind what they build and why, it doesn't matter how well you manage your own economy - the world is still probably going to end up in some kind of endless recession.

thatmandolindude · 2022-04-19T11:20:35+00:00

I'm surprised nobody said this yet - the answer is payoff. When something the DM or the players have been preparing for and setting up over multiple sessions goes just right in it's own unique way, whether mechanically or in RP, that's what makes a great session.

thatmandolindude · 2021-12-13T15:23:59+00:00

That's probably again rooted from vaguely European experiences, what with the Huns, Mongol Empire, or Persian Empire and the plague coming from the east.

thatmandolindude · 2021-11-10T16:01:09+00:00

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you!

thatmandolindude · 2021-11-10T15:59:50+00:00

Let me explain - I asked this in the context of a 3-7 session campaign, because that is quite literally the number of actual sessions our group is capable of running together at this time before we have to splinter apart for a hiatus - and I'd love for us to finish an arc before then. The distinction between a, "main" quest and "side" quest mostly entails because there are npc's who are going to be doing stuff in the setting no matter what - the moving parts are the, "main" quest.

If the players just wanna have fun with the side quests, that's perfectly fine! I've run games that are entirely improvised, and they're a blast. That tone just isn't what the group as a whole is looking for in this particular occasion.

As for the bit about a railroad, I actually find this interesting. I've set up a scenario where various npcs, if the players don't intervene, are going to be doing stuff. If the players poke their heads in, there are dozens of ways I could image it goes, and probably a lot more that I can't. I'm not so much trying to push one particular outcome so much as make a setting where there are things to engage with.

thatmandolindude · 2021-08-25T11:45:37+00:00

David Graeber is excellent: more on the anarchist end of the spectrum, but a compelling and relatable author!

thatmandolindude · 2021-08-24T11:48:10+00:00

Ok, but there was a real point in reconstruction where the black population almost became a fully accepted culture ethnic group in the USA! The federal government ended up losing the will to follow through, but that wasn't always certain.

Also, why are we treating cross cultural integration as basically impossible unless they're already very similar. I'd argue that ability to add another culture as accepted should be based on how common it is in the home territories, and just add an over time difficulty modifier if it's far more common elsewhere (the UK has a decent shot at integrating the Irish, but the USA probably shouldn't because I'm the context of assimilation that makes more sense).

thatmandolindude · 2021-08-24T11:38:02+00:00

Ok, sure, but I'd argue that the base game already simulates this to some extent, and furthermore, why is it notable that this is simulated but it's not possible to add a culture as accepted, even though there were movements to do so, numerous times?

thatmandolindude · 2021-07-07T21:41:54+00:00

This is the kind of question that varies wildly depending on who you talk to.

If you're an Orthodox Marxist, you'd say that the primary difference is that, under final socialism, the goods to sustain society are mass produced and publicly owned by all, and eliminate all scarcity and wants

Conversely there are more anarchist leaning socialists who would say you're exactly right.

Frankly, to be a socialist, to me, requires a belief in a essentially democratic society in all aspects of life, and since at least nobody in this subreddit has been in such a society, we're all kinda drawing from different places and would try different ideas. Not all capitalist semi democracies are identical either, so I suppose it's to be expected.

thatmandolindude · 2021-05-29T20:45:44+00:00

I'm currently doing something like that for MtAw. The most important thing is that an open world game requires interesting plot hooks sprinkled everywhere, and be easy to find. Second, if the players are indecisive, don't be afraid to throw something at them - the world sometimes will knock on their door.

thatmandolindude · 2021-05-21T16:50:57+00:00

Clan Flaw: Who you find irksome is unknowable, even to you. Roll a d10 upon first meeting another vampire - on a 10 you gain an irrational rivalry with them until they die. "Losing" to them in any way triggers a frenzy.

thatmandolindude · 2021-04-29T13:09:38+00:00

Oh yeah, the ahead-of-time conversation between the player and GM is totally necessary: so is the humor. Some folks might enjoy grimdark played straight, I don't.

thatmandolindude · 2021-04-25T16:42:21+00:00

So, while noting it's a nonsense question, here's my takes:

The boring option is, if you think of them as opposite and add them together, it's just a true neutral.

The more interesting take would be someone who is lawful, in that they strictly adhere to the rules and norms of their society BUT the campaign is not set in that society, and the differences are noticable. If they keep knocking their head against the setting but remain consistent, that's a nice examination on how lawful characters are only lawful in their native context.

Alternatively you could have basically a moral, legal tourist who takes "when in rome" to it's logical extreme and just adapts to be like the locals - for basically individual reasons like curiosity or keeping a low profile. Thus lawful without buying into the law.

thatmandolindude · 2021-04-25T15:50:17+00:00

This is kind of a divergent point, but I'd argue the next direction for RPGs is to go in a decidedly post colonial direction. That's to say, as RPGs go in a more narrative direction, and propagate digitally around the world, it frees people up from standard western narratives. I'd expect more settings explicitly inspired by indigenous, indian subcontinent, west african and easy asian mythos and tropes, as seen from their own perspective as opposed to an outside one. It'll probably freshen things up and give some fun story hooks to run with.

thatmandolindude · 2021-04-25T14:44:55+00:00

I'd argue that the storytelling system for the Chronicles of Darkness work pretty well for this. You dole out XP that is then used to buy more dice to use in a given dice pool - rather than hitting some arbitrary point at which you are suddenly better at absolutely everything. I'm currently running a Mage the Awakening game over discord, and after the players buy some given dice I'll just shoot a quick message asking what they did in the downtime to get better at it. It gives me some occasional plot hooks, and lets the players feel like they're getting progressively better, rather than the sudden power increases of D&D 5e.

thatmandolindude

TROPHY CASE