It has already RPG mechanics, but aren't very good or don't give much freedom to the player, what would you do to make it works?
How this game could be a proper good RPG?
It has already RPG mechanics, but aren't very good or don't give much freedom to the player, what would you do to make it works?
Rulers dont live long enough so you never care too much about one specific character, so make people live longer/slow down the game
Make relationships between characters more than just random events.
Add actual long questlines/event chains with more skill checks instead of mindless rng.
Elder Kings addresses some of these and setting is from an rpg
>be me playing with no mods and ironmode on
>my ruler lives for 7 decades
>same events/questlines, aka you die from literally boredom
>you can't do more
>REPEAT with his successor
With mods.
Name 3
I refuse. Stay gay.
And without mods? How would you create a CK4?
Name them!
Literally just copy Pendragon even harder.
Take inspiration from this tabletop one.
Based pendragonchad. The fact that there is no proper technicolour Prince Valiant arthurian mod for CK2 still fricks with me.
The game doesn’t do a good job of forcing you to do things, so you kind of have to roleplay by your own will, which is probably too much for the autists on this board. Eg: your character is wrathful vs your character vs forgiving, how would they react to their son plotting to murder them?
>how to make notrpg rpg?
make rpg in 1st place
How? Is possible with a mod?
Not only that, but your own vassals are morons that can't understand why you do something:
>me: guys we must declare war against this enemy because in the future he will be a powerful thread
>vassals: no and if you do it, we will hate you despite all the good things you did for us
I have vassals with possitive relationships supporting foreign kings to usurp my throne, despite those kings would execute them for not having the same culture/religion.
Also nothing that you do with one character has echos in the future,it's like your previous character never existed, I don't get what is the point of having a dynasty/character-based game, if works like there rest of Paradox games that are nation-based (I see more RPG in EU4, HOI4, Stellaris) than in CK2.
It can't be because it's player vs player (or rather player vs ai simulating a player) meaning its fundamentally not an rpg, and not in a meme way. You're conflating simulation with role playing.
Ai representing entities is different from ai representing players, most systems in the game completely break in multiplayer (Eg murder plots, wars, being liege over another player, idk how many more to list)
You have not played ck2 multiplayer
The trait system is too gamey for it to truly become an rpg.
not that it isnt a good idea its just too easy to play the game as a method of gathering the good traits instead of playing with what you have, and likewise discrminate against other undesirable npcs due to their traits. I feel similarly about npc dispositions, having a number that rates an npcs liking of you on a scale of -100 to 100 makes it too obvious you should not be omnisciently aware of who likes you and who doesnt, especially a king who everyone would be sucking up to.
A characters traits and skill levels should play more heavily into how a character functions imo, play a stronger role in awarding and denying specific choices to you in events.
Also paradox added on so many stupid broken systems that make it way too easy to never be at disadvantage. Way of life is terribly implemented, and things like owning a special sword should not automatically make you a better commander. characters in general should be more of an investment build wise and more strongly incentivized to play towards their skills rather than just becoming a guy who is good at everything.
There should also be more reward to playing a vassal than just trying to become king, being a courtier/council member or special title holder should actually provide you means to do things that effect the kingdom and convince the king to do things that effect you.
plot system is also super basic when it should be one of the main focuses of the game.
I totally agree with you, just today I uninstalled the Conclave DLC and man, it was less tedious to play, I feel bad for the people that pay for this DLC. One of the worst/moronic decisions was to remove the option to have a son or a daughter, because with this shitty DLC in the end you get 9 daughters and 1 son that dies while being a kid. Also the DLC appears as "recommend" to play, lol.
I will try to play without Way of Life, I don't know about your campaigns but I have the feeling that many cool events/questlines got removed with this DLCs just to be replaced for the same boring ones.
Example: playing vanilla, 0 DLCs, I have my king arguing with his commander on which way to choose to advanced the army, because apparently a rock was blocking one of the ways, in the end I have the reason and get some prestiges. I liked that simple event and since I got the DLCs I never see it again.
CK3 = better RP game, very watered down strategy game
CK2 = high variance, simulation focus, more chaos, less RP but more 'depth'.
>less RP but more 'depth'
Explain this.
>simulation focus
Stadistics =/= simulation.
>high variance
About what? Because I just see the same events/questlines over and over until the end of the campaign.
>more chaos
Yep, but not the cool chaos to reorganised the world, but the annoying one created by your moronic vassals/relatives.
Sounds like 3 is more my speed
Battles/wars fricking suck.
True but somehow a dev back in 2010 thought it was a cool idea.
very true, but not really a rpg issue