>>269800108
>Problem I'm facing is how to create a system where players rely on each other but not too much. For example, peasants relying on nobles, nobles relying on the monarch, and the monarch relying on everyone else in general.
Ok joh, I have three suggested solutions to your problem:
1. Rock paper scissors.  Design each class such that it benefits from working with one other class, and is antagonistic to another class.
For example: monarch can take wealth from large groups of players (hurting the peasants) and spoil a smaller group of cronies (benefitting the nobility).  The nobility, in turn, can really punish one player at a time (the monarch) but struggle to hurt a large group like the peasants.  Finally, the peasants would have the tools to retaliate against the nobles (peasant revolt working against just the nobility)  and to appease the monarch (single target gold generation).
The monarch, then, is incentivized to keep the nobles happy, lest they hurt him in retaliation.  In turn, the nobles would have to appease the peasants, so they don’t rise up against them.  The peasants have to king happy or he hurts them.  If you like, you can switch up the order of the circle or add more classes to the rotation, just so long as the basic idea remains.
2. Add a daily tax of 1 (or more) gold.  Failure to play causes a player to lose.  Make it so that playing completely selfishly, or even working just within your group (class selfishness) simply does not generate enough gold to survive the daily tax.  This will force players to work together as a community and to punish troublemakers, as opposed to racking up personal wealth.  As general wealth rises to within striking distance of victory, it becomes advantageous to switch to selfishness/class selfishness.