\nInternational”, issue #13 and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian
\nWalker, the former GI editor)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n
DESIGNER’S NOTES<\/span><\/h3>\nBirth of a dynasty<\/h1>\n
Derek Carver<\/b> explains the design of his game of competing
\ndynasties, published by Games Workshop as Blood Royale<\/b>.<\/p>\n
![\"Blood](\"https:\/\/www.westpark-gamers.de\/Ressourcen\/GI_bloodroyal1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Ideas for new games present themselves in a variety of ways. Sometimes, though rarely,
\nas complete games, sometimes as a system devised, perhaps, with playing cards or
\ncounters, around which a theme is subsequently developed, and sometimes as a scenario
\nwhich has the potential of being made the subject of a good game.<\/p>\n
If Blood Royal<\/b> (in common with many people, I prefer to drop that final
\nmysterious ‘E’) came into any of the categories it was the third one.<\/p>\n
In my earlier game – Warrior Knights<\/b> -I was enthusiastic about the idea of
\ngames during the course of which the players ‘assembled’ and used their skills to
\nvote on issues which would greatly affect subsequent play. Although such an idea had
\ngreat appeal for me it wasn’t sufficient for a game in itself and a much wider game
\nhad to be developed around this core concept. Much the same thing happened in Blood
\nRoyal<\/b>.<\/p>\n
Unlike many gamers, I would not call myself a history buff, but I do enjoy reading
\nhistory, and I had also been an avid watcher of the TV series The Plantagenets<\/i>,
\nhaving visited many of the locations as a result of my fascination with this period. The
\nhistory of the Middle Ages illustrates that not everything was achieved purely by
\nconquest (although military might was a great bargaining factor in one’s favour).
\nProlonged campaigning was not easy. There was considerable diplomacy, often sealed by a
\nmarriage contract. Here, I felt, was the substance for a game. I wanted to make a game
\nwhere each player was a monarch who would produce children, marry them off to the
\nfamily’s advantage, secure trade routes and wage war. Each player was Henry II, if
\nyou like.<\/p>\nSURVIVAL CHANCES<\/h4>\n
From the start I decided the only realistic way forward would be to include an element
\nof role-playing in the game. I therefore gave each ‘character’ a character sheet
\nin the true role-playing tradition. The die-rolls recorded on this sheet determined 1)
\nhow healthy the character was, 2) how strong in battle or diplomatic cunning, and 3) how
\nattractive to the populace. The first was an indication of survival chances – especially
\nimportant to the women who, it was hoped, would produce a number of children, hopefully
\nsome strong males. The second is self explanatory, women being able to confer their
\nqualities on their husbands. The third quality reflected the character’s general
\npopularity. A popular king could roam Europe with less fear of rebellion breaking out at
\nhome and an attractive princess was always to be hope for.<\/p>\n
This all meant that the characters in the game also had to die from time to time so
\ninstead of being only Henry n, the English player, for example, would have to represent
\nthe more abstract concept of the entire dynasty, and this gave the game its original name
\n– Dynasties. Thus, the game differed from normal role-playing in that instead of players
\nbeing<\/i> their character they would in this game control many<\/i> characters, all
\ndifferent.<\/p>\n
Each player starts the game with a king, a queen, and two children, all of specified
\nage. Dice rolls are made to determine the sex of each child and rolls are also made to
\ndetermine the three characteristics of each member of the family. Each is given a
\ncharacter sheet recording year of birth and so on, and the players also have to choose
\ntheir dynastic name and names for each of the characters. This meant that from the start
\nthe game was peopled by seemingly real and quite different characters
\n(‘different’ because of their individual qualities). The only unreal thing about
\nit is that at the start each player controls families all of the same age, but this
\nsituation doesn’t last for long.<\/p>\n
FEWER CHILDREN<\/h4>\n
Play is in five year segments, starting with 1300. A survival die roll has to be made
\nfor each character every five years. Their survival chances vary, of course, according to
\nage, childbirth, and fitness (the original die roll 1) mentioned above).<\/p>\n
One of the many changes that took place during the early days was the reduction in the
\nnumber of small children that were around. Originally more children were born, but quite
\na few died before they reached the age of 15, which is the age they are of any interest
\nto us in terms of the game. So in order not to make die rolls and fill out character
\nsheets for children that didn’t survive to 15 the system was adjusted. Fewer children
\nwere born, but those that were born were guaranteed to survive to 15. We ended up with
\nthe same number of young adults but saved a lot of time and paper in the process.<\/p>\n
So this was the core idea. The early problem was what to do with the idea. We
\ncouldn’t sit around the entire evening manipulating these royal families; we had to
\ndo something with them.<\/p>\n
The first problem was that history did not have a four to six player game in mind,
\neach with more or less equal chances. While England hasn’t changed much
\ngeographically speaking, the rest of Europe has, and there was no Germany and no Italy as
\nsuch. Unlike Warrior Knights<\/b> where I felt the correct answer was to create a
\nfictitious country, with Blood Royal<\/b> I knew I could only maintain the historical
\n‘feel’ I was aiming for if I set my game firmly in medieval Europe, so I had to
\ncreate Kingdoms of Germany and Italy, and also give each country in the game the same
\nnumber of provinces. This doesn’t seem to have bothered people as much as I thought
\nit would (although I don’t know what German and Italian players think about it!). But
\neven with my cavalier attitude to history and geography there was no way in which I could
\neasily bring in a sixth power, so I restricted the game to a maximum of five.<\/p>\n
So – I had already departed from history, but the general feeling in the game was all
\nright.<\/p>\n
THRASH AND BASH<\/h4>\n
What next? I didn’t want it to be a thrash and bash wargame. I decided I wanted it
\nto be centred on the securing of trade and trade routes plus income from taxes. The
\nlatter was pretty simple – I allowed players to collect taxes from each province they
\nowned with the option of double taxing. The latter increased the chances of the highly
\ntaxed provinces going into rebellion – a calculated risk, in other words, which is a
\nconcept that always appeals to me and about which more anon.<\/p>\n
For the trading I hit upon an idea which I must confess to being rather pleased with
\nand which could, in itself, have been the core idea for another game. Wanting it kept
\nsimple, I devised a system of three basic commodities (what they are called is
\nunimportant – let’s call them A B and C). Each country had to acquire these
\ncommodities and transport them to their capital to be ‘cashed in’. But they could
\ncash them in only in sets of three (ABC). In the full five player game there are only
\nthree of each type around the board, which means there are not enough for each player to
\nhave a set each time. Also no single country produces one of each (they might produce two
\nAs and a C, for example). This means that in order to secure the missing item(s) players
\nhad either to trade, secure them by contract (about which more later), or capture the
\nprovince in which a desired ‘missing’ item is produced.<\/p>\n
Additionally there are around the board two somewhat more luxurious commodities – two
\nDs and one E. If, instead of trading in a set of just ABC, you can acquire ABC and<\/i>
\nD you get much more for them, and if to this you add the true luxury item E you get
\nconsiderably more. On their own the Ds and the E are worth nothing; they have to
\nsupplement the basic set. These commodities are placed on the board in their producing
\nprovince at the beginning of each five year period unless there is a specific occurrence
\nthat prevents this.<\/p>\nROYAL FAMILY<\/h4>\n
This trading aspect of the game hasn’t changed since the early days. It worked
\nwell and provided the framework I needed. We now had a royal family that had to ensure
\nits own continuation and it needed to obtain commodities. It also needed income. If it
\nhad some strong royal males plus a strong army it could go out and capture the producing
\nprovinces by force. In the same way it could wage combat in order to secure its trade
\nroutes. If necessary a country could build a string of castles. A castle means it
\ndoesn’t matter what happens to the province in which it is located: goods can still
\nbe transported through that otherwise enemy province, the castle ensuring safe passage
\nfor troops and trade goods. But warfare was an uncertain business. Kings especially could
\nnot normally safely leave their capital to indulge in prolonged foreign wars. If they
\nwere generally popular and were doing well it was easier but if they were not too high in
\nthe popularity stakes and also weren’t being too successful in their campaigning
\nthere was always the possibility of domestic unrest looming over them. And if they
\ndon’t at once rush back to quell it rebellion had a nasty habit of spreading.<\/p>\n
So securing what they want by other means became important and here another major
\naspect of the game comes into play – the royal marriage. For each player it is essential
\nto ensure the continuation of his dynasty. If he doesn’t do so control could go to
\nanother player who can trace his monarch’s ancestry back.<\/p>\n
Also an unmarried king cannot produce princes to lead his armies. So wives are in
\ndemand – especially beautiful and healthy ones. (Even so, there are a lot of desperate
\nmarriages between pretty nasty boys and somewhat sickly girls, I might add!) Most
\nmarriages also seal a ‘Marriage Contract’ and if, for example, you are seeking a
\ngirl to marry the King’s eldest son you can put your demands pretty high, because the
\nplayer controlling the potential future queen’s family stands to gain quite a bit
\nfinancially when she ascends the throne. These all-important contracts can concern
\nnon-aggression, military support, money, trade rights, trade routes, land, or a mixture
\nof the lot. They have to be carefully worded because their terms become binding for as
\nlong as both parties to the marriage survive. Players are not allowed to break the terms
\nof a marriage contract: they would have to arrange the death of one of the parties
\nfirst.<\/p>\n
QUILL TO PARCHMENT<\/h4>\n
So crucial is the clever negotiation of these contracts that they presented one of the
\nearly problems in the game. A new player could be totally at the mercy of an old hand who
\neasily tied him up into a contract that he subsequently came to realise he could well
\nhave done without. (France is always best played by such a persuasive player.) This is
\nwhy a change was made so that at the start of the game the children are too young to be
\nmarried at once. This at least gives an inexperienced player time to see what it’s
\nall about before he puts quill to parchment.<\/p>\n
One of the features of the game is that during each five year turn each player has to
\nannounce to the rest of the players what has happened to his dynasty – who has died, who
\nhas been born and the description of a child, and so on. The death of a king or queen is,
\nof course, a major event and the records are searched to establish the next in line in
\nthose rare cases where it is not immediately obvious. It is even possible for a
\nplayer’s kingdom to pass to another player who has the only direct heir, but this is
\nrare. Legitimate claimants to the throne can be passed over, but from then on they
\nprovide a nuisance factor in the game that other players can exploit.<\/p>\n
There were a few other aspects that were slowly modified during the early days (or
\nyears) but that was the game in essence.<\/p>\n
As it stood it presented one important problem as I saw it, although it wasn’t one
\nthat seemed to worry many of the groups that came to know it and made copies. To obtain
\nthe full feeling of this continuing and developing dynasty it was essentially an ongoing
\ngame. During the course of a three hour game the most one could expect is that the king
\nor queen (or both) might die and the next in line ascend the throne but it wouldn’t
\ngo much farther than that. The true essence of the game, though, was the continuation of
\nthe family and its ramifications as it married into other dynasties and produced
\nchildren. This meant that it either had to be played for a long time or it was best
\nplayed as an ongoing game by the same group (the winner each session being the player who
\nhad best improved on his starting position). This is the way it was often played.
\nChronicles were kept and huge family trees maintained. It has been turned into a play by
\nmail game in Austria and there they publish the appropriate dynastic announcements with
\nproper obituaries on the death of an important Royal Personage. This is what the whole
\nthing is about.<\/p>\n
HISTORICAL EVENTS<\/h4>\n
![\"Blood](\"https:\/\/www.westpark-gamers.de\/Ressourcen\/GI_bloodroyal2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
So this was how the game stood when Games Workshop came on the scene. They had
\nrecently done an excellent job with my Warrior Knights<\/b> and I was happy to let them
\nhave Dynasties as it was then called. They knew the game and were attracted to the idea
\nof incorporating role-playing features into a traditional boardgame.<\/p>\n
The first thing they decided to change was the name. They were rather frightened to
\nuse Dynasties because of the popular TV series. At the first meeting I tossed in Blood
\nRoyal<\/b> as an alternative title, which was finally adopted but with an additional
\n‘E’. I have noticed that continental players, obviously disliking the mixture of
\nlanguages, refuse to acknowledge this final E.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately we then started to run into a bit of trouble and our good relations took
\na temporary downturn. Warrior Knights<\/b> had been published precisely as I invented
\nit. Well, that is not 100% correct – a few changes were made to assist production but not
\nonly were they all made by me or with my approval, but I also felt they were
\nimprovements. The GW developer for Warrior Knights<\/b> was Albie Fiore, who had also
\nworked on my Dr Who<\/b> (one of GW’s first boardgames) and he subsequently worked
\non my Whirlwind<\/b> (FASA). By this time he had left Games Workshop and the in house
\ndeveloper of Blood Royal<\/b> was somebody different, and he wanted to expand the game
\nand introduce more historical events. Although my contract allowed me to veto any changes
\nto the original I had respect for the enthusiasm and undoubted abilities of the
\ndeveloper, even though I feared the additions would lengthen an already long game. But
\nthe big problem was that in the main the proposed additions (and they were all
\n‘additions’ as opposed to changes) were not the sort of rules I would have
\ninvented. Not that they were bad in themselves, they simply reflected the sort of game
\nthe developer would have invented and not the sort of game I like.<\/p>\n
Let me give an example to illustrate the different approaches. Games Workshop wanted
\nto introduce a series of historical events in the form of chance cards. These were to be
\nevents that often affected (usually adversely) one player. Of course, they were not as
\ncrude as ‘Go to Jail’, but you know what I mean. They also mirrored historical
\nevents. While I was not totally against the idea of these events I wanted them to have
\nconsiderably more interest and add to the fun of the game. I also wanted them to be
\ndifferent from the sort of thing people are used to. My feelings are that historical
\nevents happen because a certain regime either takes a certain action (one out of a number
\nof possibilities) at a certain time, or decides to take no action at all. If at a
\nparticular moment a contrary decision had been made the course of history would have been
\nchanged in some way. What we see as history, therefore, is the result of one decision out
\nof a number of possible decisions taken at the time and in my game we were living in
\nthe time<\/i>.<\/p>\nINTELLIGENCE REPORT<\/h4>\n
So, to get back to the game, I suggested that firstly, we should try to restrict
\nevents so that they affect all<\/i> players, and secondly, that the event should be in
\nthe form of an intelligence report listing what could happen in, say, two to three turns:
\ni) if no action was taken, ii) the chances of averting this occurrence if more money was
\ndirected into the area (money that might be in short supply), iii) the chances of
\nsuppressing the event by stationing troops in the area, and so on. The ‘chances’
\nwould be expressed in terms of die roll odds. After all, these are the sort of questions
\na ruler would have to ask at the time and he would decide on the action to take in the
\nlight of the replies, the odds of success, and the effect on his exchequer, stability,
\nand so on. So in game terms it would mean that the player would do what he thought most
\nexpedient and possible and he would have to await the outcome. At the same time other
\nplayers who have no love for him (and no contract preventing intervention) could,
\npossibly, lessen his chances of success by taking certain actions themselves.<\/p>\n
The developer saw my point but sadly our minds didn’t run along the same lines.
\nCertain modifications were made, but generally speaking I thought the event cards at the
\nend of the day didn’t really reflect the original thinking I was aiming for. I
\npreferred to offer the game as I invented it and leave it to enthusiasts to extend it as
\nthey wished as a result of play and the preferences of their own group.<\/p>\n
As it was clear that we were thinking quite differently and time was being consumed it
\nwas finally agreed to publish the game in my basic form with the new rules being included
\nas ‘Optionals’ to be used or discarded by the purchaser as he or she wished. In
\nthis way I was able to give Game Workshop carte blanche<\/i> with these additions,
\nwithout further reference back to me. It is pertinent to add at this stage that it is
\nrare for publishers to agree to allow an inventor to veto any changes. He normally has no
\ncontrol whatsoever over the product that finally arrives on the shelves, which might be
\nquite unlike his original. An amazing situation when you come to think about it.<\/p>\nFOREIGN PRINCES<\/h4>\n
The solution reached was quite satisfactory. As far as the production was concerned
\nthey made a truly superb job of it. I must admit that I took exception to the box cover,
\nwhich didn’t reflect the feel of the game at all, and it was rather sad that GW
\nscored an own goal by deciding to suggest names for foreign princes and princesses –
\npresumably for the benefit of players whose knowledge was limited in this regard- and
\ngetting them wrong! But these are peripherals. No inventor could be anything but
\ndelighted with the quality of the product offered, right down to such often overlooked
\ndetails as the magnificent presentation of the rules, which excellently carried through
\nthe historical feel of the game. These are the qualities that show Games Workshop at
\ntheir best, and they deserve every compliment.<\/p>\n
In its basic form Blood Royal<\/b> presents a system that is ideal for building on
\nand I know a number of groups have developed additional rules bringing in the power of
\nthe Church, rules that have qualities that appeal to their particular group and have
\nstood the test of playing over a period, being slowly refined in the process. This is
\nexcellent and what I hoped would happen.<\/p>\n
While one must be pleased in one respect, it is also a pity that Blood Royal<\/b>
\nappeared just before GW made the decision to turn exclusively to the fantasy games with
\nwhich they are normally associated and which (as a result of their White Dwarf<\/i>
\nreadership) had been far more profitable for them than their ventures into non-fantasy
\nand comic strip themes. Having made this decision it reflects greatly to their credit
\nthat they pushed ahead with Blood Royal<\/b> in the quality that they did, it being no
\nsmall investment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
(This article was originally published in “Games International”, issue #13 and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian Walker, the former GI editor) DESIGNER’S NOTES Birth of a dynasty Derek Carver explains the design of his game of competing dynasties, published by Games Workshop as Blood Royale. Ideas for new games present themselves … Birth of a dynasty<\/span> weiterlesen
\ndynasties, published by Games Workshop as Blood Royale<\/b>.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n\nas complete games, sometimes as a system devised, perhaps, with playing cards or
\ncounters, around which a theme is subsequently developed, and sometimes as a scenario
\nwhich has the potential of being made the subject of a good game.<\/p>\n
\nmysterious ‘E’) came into any of the categories it was the third one.<\/p>\n
\ngames during the course of which the players ‘assembled’ and used their skills to
\nvote on issues which would greatly affect subsequent play. Although such an idea had
\ngreat appeal for me it wasn’t sufficient for a game in itself and a much wider game
\nhad to be developed around this core concept. Much the same thing happened in Blood
\nRoyal<\/b>.<\/p>\n
\nhistory, and I had also been an avid watcher of the TV series The Plantagenets<\/i>,
\nhaving visited many of the locations as a result of my fascination with this period. The
\nhistory of the Middle Ages illustrates that not everything was achieved purely by
\nconquest (although military might was a great bargaining factor in one’s favour).
\nProlonged campaigning was not easy. There was considerable diplomacy, often sealed by a
\nmarriage contract. Here, I felt, was the substance for a game. I wanted to make a game
\nwhere each player was a monarch who would produce children, marry them off to the
\nfamily’s advantage, secure trade routes and wage war. Each player was Henry II, if
\nyou like.<\/p>\n
SURVIVAL CHANCES<\/h4>\n
\nof role-playing in the game. I therefore gave each ‘character’ a character sheet
\nin the true role-playing tradition. The die-rolls recorded on this sheet determined 1)
\nhow healthy the character was, 2) how strong in battle or diplomatic cunning, and 3) how
\nattractive to the populace. The first was an indication of survival chances – especially
\nimportant to the women who, it was hoped, would produce a number of children, hopefully
\nsome strong males. The second is self explanatory, women being able to confer their
\nqualities on their husbands. The third quality reflected the character’s general
\npopularity. A popular king could roam Europe with less fear of rebellion breaking out at
\nhome and an attractive princess was always to be hope for.<\/p>\n
\ninstead of being only Henry n, the English player, for example, would have to represent
\nthe more abstract concept of the entire dynasty, and this gave the game its original name
\n– Dynasties. Thus, the game differed from normal role-playing in that instead of players
\nbeing<\/i> their character they would in this game control many<\/i> characters, all
\ndifferent.<\/p>\n
\nage. Dice rolls are made to determine the sex of each child and rolls are also made to
\ndetermine the three characteristics of each member of the family. Each is given a
\ncharacter sheet recording year of birth and so on, and the players also have to choose
\ntheir dynastic name and names for each of the characters. This meant that from the start
\nthe game was peopled by seemingly real and quite different characters
\n(‘different’ because of their individual qualities). The only unreal thing about
\nit is that at the start each player controls families all of the same age, but this
\nsituation doesn’t last for long.<\/p>\n
\nfor each character every five years. Their survival chances vary, of course, according to
\nage, childbirth, and fitness (the original die roll 1) mentioned above).<\/p>\n
\nnumber of small children that were around. Originally more children were born, but quite
\na few died before they reached the age of 15, which is the age they are of any interest
\nto us in terms of the game. So in order not to make die rolls and fill out character
\nsheets for children that didn’t survive to 15 the system was adjusted. Fewer children
\nwere born, but those that were born were guaranteed to survive to 15. We ended up with
\nthe same number of young adults but saved a lot of time and paper in the process.<\/p>\n
\ncouldn’t sit around the entire evening manipulating these royal families; we had to
\ndo something with them.<\/p>\n
\neach with more or less equal chances. While England hasn’t changed much
\ngeographically speaking, the rest of Europe has, and there was no Germany and no Italy as
\nsuch. Unlike Warrior Knights<\/b> where I felt the correct answer was to create a
\nfictitious country, with Blood Royal<\/b> I knew I could only maintain the historical
\n‘feel’ I was aiming for if I set my game firmly in medieval Europe, so I had to
\ncreate Kingdoms of Germany and Italy, and also give each country in the game the same
\nnumber of provinces. This doesn’t seem to have bothered people as much as I thought
\nit would (although I don’t know what German and Italian players think about it!). But
\neven with my cavalier attitude to history and geography there was no way in which I could
\neasily bring in a sixth power, so I restricted the game to a maximum of five.<\/p>\n
\nright.<\/p>\n
\nto be centred on the securing of trade and trade routes plus income from taxes. The
\nlatter was pretty simple – I allowed players to collect taxes from each province they
\nowned with the option of double taxing. The latter increased the chances of the highly
\ntaxed provinces going into rebellion – a calculated risk, in other words, which is a
\nconcept that always appeals to me and about which more anon.<\/p>\n
\nand which could, in itself, have been the core idea for another game. Wanting it kept
\nsimple, I devised a system of three basic commodities (what they are called is
\nunimportant – let’s call them A B and C). Each country had to acquire these
\ncommodities and transport them to their capital to be ‘cashed in’. But they could
\ncash them in only in sets of three (ABC). In the full five player game there are only
\nthree of each type around the board, which means there are not enough for each player to
\nhave a set each time. Also no single country produces one of each (they might produce two
\nAs and a C, for example). This means that in order to secure the missing item(s) players
\nhad either to trade, secure them by contract (about which more later), or capture the
\nprovince in which a desired ‘missing’ item is produced.<\/p>\n
\nDs and one E. If, instead of trading in a set of just ABC, you can acquire ABC and<\/i>
\nD you get much more for them, and if to this you add the true luxury item E you get
\nconsiderably more. On their own the Ds and the E are worth nothing; they have to
\nsupplement the basic set. These commodities are placed on the board in their producing
\nprovince at the beginning of each five year period unless there is a specific occurrence
\nthat prevents this.<\/p>\n
ROYAL FAMILY<\/h4>\n
\nwell and provided the framework I needed. We now had a royal family that had to ensure
\nits own continuation and it needed to obtain commodities. It also needed income. If it
\nhad some strong royal males plus a strong army it could go out and capture the producing
\nprovinces by force. In the same way it could wage combat in order to secure its trade
\nroutes. If necessary a country could build a string of castles. A castle means it
\ndoesn’t matter what happens to the province in which it is located: goods can still
\nbe transported through that otherwise enemy province, the castle ensuring safe passage
\nfor troops and trade goods. But warfare was an uncertain business. Kings especially could
\nnot normally safely leave their capital to indulge in prolonged foreign wars. If they
\nwere generally popular and were doing well it was easier but if they were not too high in
\nthe popularity stakes and also weren’t being too successful in their campaigning
\nthere was always the possibility of domestic unrest looming over them. And if they
\ndon’t at once rush back to quell it rebellion had a nasty habit of spreading.<\/p>\n
\naspect of the game comes into play – the royal marriage. For each player it is essential
\nto ensure the continuation of his dynasty. If he doesn’t do so control could go to
\nanother player who can trace his monarch’s ancestry back.<\/p>\n
\ndemand – especially beautiful and healthy ones. (Even so, there are a lot of desperate
\nmarriages between pretty nasty boys and somewhat sickly girls, I might add!) Most
\nmarriages also seal a ‘Marriage Contract’ and if, for example, you are seeking a
\ngirl to marry the King’s eldest son you can put your demands pretty high, because the
\nplayer controlling the potential future queen’s family stands to gain quite a bit
\nfinancially when she ascends the throne. These all-important contracts can concern
\nnon-aggression, military support, money, trade rights, trade routes, land, or a mixture
\nof the lot. They have to be carefully worded because their terms become binding for as
\nlong as both parties to the marriage survive. Players are not allowed to break the terms
\nof a marriage contract: they would have to arrange the death of one of the parties
\nfirst.<\/p>\n
\nearly problems in the game. A new player could be totally at the mercy of an old hand who
\neasily tied him up into a contract that he subsequently came to realise he could well
\nhave done without. (France is always best played by such a persuasive player.) This is
\nwhy a change was made so that at the start of the game the children are too young to be
\nmarried at once. This at least gives an inexperienced player time to see what it’s
\nall about before he puts quill to parchment.<\/p>\n
\nannounce to the rest of the players what has happened to his dynasty – who has died, who
\nhas been born and the description of a child, and so on. The death of a king or queen is,
\nof course, a major event and the records are searched to establish the next in line in
\nthose rare cases where it is not immediately obvious. It is even possible for a
\nplayer’s kingdom to pass to another player who has the only direct heir, but this is
\nrare. Legitimate claimants to the throne can be passed over, but from then on they
\nprovide a nuisance factor in the game that other players can exploit.<\/p>\n
\nyears) but that was the game in essence.<\/p>\n
\nthat seemed to worry many of the groups that came to know it and made copies. To obtain
\nthe full feeling of this continuing and developing dynasty it was essentially an ongoing
\ngame. During the course of a three hour game the most one could expect is that the king
\nor queen (or both) might die and the next in line ascend the throne but it wouldn’t
\ngo much farther than that. The true essence of the game, though, was the continuation of
\nthe family and its ramifications as it married into other dynasties and produced
\nchildren. This meant that it either had to be played for a long time or it was best
\nplayed as an ongoing game by the same group (the winner each session being the player who
\nhad best improved on his starting position). This is the way it was often played.
\nChronicles were kept and huge family trees maintained. It has been turned into a play by
\nmail game in Austria and there they publish the appropriate dynastic announcements with
\nproper obituaries on the death of an important Royal Personage. This is what the whole
\nthing is about.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n\nrecently done an excellent job with my Warrior Knights<\/b> and I was happy to let them
\nhave Dynasties as it was then called. They knew the game and were attracted to the idea
\nof incorporating role-playing features into a traditional boardgame.<\/p>\n
\nuse Dynasties because of the popular TV series. At the first meeting I tossed in Blood
\nRoyal<\/b> as an alternative title, which was finally adopted but with an additional
\n‘E’. I have noticed that continental players, obviously disliking the mixture of
\nlanguages, refuse to acknowledge this final E.<\/p>\n
\na temporary downturn. Warrior Knights<\/b> had been published precisely as I invented
\nit. Well, that is not 100% correct – a few changes were made to assist production but not
\nonly were they all made by me or with my approval, but I also felt they were
\nimprovements. The GW developer for Warrior Knights<\/b> was Albie Fiore, who had also
\nworked on my Dr Who<\/b> (one of GW’s first boardgames) and he subsequently worked
\non my Whirlwind<\/b> (FASA). By this time he had left Games Workshop and the in house
\ndeveloper of Blood Royal<\/b> was somebody different, and he wanted to expand the game
\nand introduce more historical events. Although my contract allowed me to veto any changes
\nto the original I had respect for the enthusiasm and undoubted abilities of the
\ndeveloper, even though I feared the additions would lengthen an already long game. But
\nthe big problem was that in the main the proposed additions (and they were all
\n‘additions’ as opposed to changes) were not the sort of rules I would have
\ninvented. Not that they were bad in themselves, they simply reflected the sort of game
\nthe developer would have invented and not the sort of game I like.<\/p>\n
\nto introduce a series of historical events in the form of chance cards. These were to be
\nevents that often affected (usually adversely) one player. Of course, they were not as
\ncrude as ‘Go to Jail’, but you know what I mean. They also mirrored historical
\nevents. While I was not totally against the idea of these events I wanted them to have
\nconsiderably more interest and add to the fun of the game. I also wanted them to be
\ndifferent from the sort of thing people are used to. My feelings are that historical
\nevents happen because a certain regime either takes a certain action (one out of a number
\nof possibilities) at a certain time, or decides to take no action at all. If at a
\nparticular moment a contrary decision had been made the course of history would have been
\nchanged in some way. What we see as history, therefore, is the result of one decision out
\nof a number of possible decisions taken at the time and in my game we were living in
\nthe time<\/i>.<\/p>\n
INTELLIGENCE REPORT<\/h4>\n
\nevents so that they affect all<\/i> players, and secondly, that the event should be in
\nthe form of an intelligence report listing what could happen in, say, two to three turns:
\ni) if no action was taken, ii) the chances of averting this occurrence if more money was
\ndirected into the area (money that might be in short supply), iii) the chances of
\nsuppressing the event by stationing troops in the area, and so on. The ‘chances’
\nwould be expressed in terms of die roll odds. After all, these are the sort of questions
\na ruler would have to ask at the time and he would decide on the action to take in the
\nlight of the replies, the odds of success, and the effect on his exchequer, stability,
\nand so on. So in game terms it would mean that the player would do what he thought most
\nexpedient and possible and he would have to await the outcome. At the same time other
\nplayers who have no love for him (and no contract preventing intervention) could,
\npossibly, lessen his chances of success by taking certain actions themselves.<\/p>\n
\nCertain modifications were made, but generally speaking I thought the event cards at the
\nend of the day didn’t really reflect the original thinking I was aiming for. I
\npreferred to offer the game as I invented it and leave it to enthusiasts to extend it as
\nthey wished as a result of play and the preferences of their own group.<\/p>\n
\nwas finally agreed to publish the game in my basic form with the new rules being included
\nas ‘Optionals’ to be used or discarded by the purchaser as he or she wished. In
\nthis way I was able to give Game Workshop carte blanche<\/i> with these additions,
\nwithout further reference back to me. It is pertinent to add at this stage that it is
\nrare for publishers to agree to allow an inventor to veto any changes. He normally has no
\ncontrol whatsoever over the product that finally arrives on the shelves, which might be
\nquite unlike his original. An amazing situation when you come to think about it.<\/p>\n
FOREIGN PRINCES<\/h4>\n
\nthey made a truly superb job of it. I must admit that I took exception to the box cover,
\nwhich didn’t reflect the feel of the game at all, and it was rather sad that GW
\nscored an own goal by deciding to suggest names for foreign princes and princesses –
\npresumably for the benefit of players whose knowledge was limited in this regard- and
\ngetting them wrong! But these are peripherals. No inventor could be anything but
\ndelighted with the quality of the product offered, right down to such often overlooked
\ndetails as the magnificent presentation of the rules, which excellently carried through
\nthe historical feel of the game. These are the qualities that show Games Workshop at
\ntheir best, and they deserve every compliment.<\/p>\n
\nand I know a number of groups have developed additional rules bringing in the power of
\nthe Church, rules that have qualities that appeal to their particular group and have
\nstood the test of playing over a period, being slowly refined in the process. This is
\nexcellent and what I hoped would happen.<\/p>\n
\nappeared just before GW made the decision to turn exclusively to the fantasy games with
\nwhich they are normally associated and which (as a result of their White Dwarf<\/i>
\nreadership) had been far more profitable for them than their ventures into non-fantasy
\nand comic strip themes. Having made this decision it reflects greatly to their credit
\nthat they pushed ahead with Blood Royal<\/b> in the quality that they did, it being no
\nsmall investment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"