A Political Game

[swdevlin]

If this person in power is a PC don't count on the player in power to do this on his own account. He will try to watch his own back and thus not trust some one he knows has an agenda of his/her own. This I have learned from bitter experience.

Of the three players, two I know well. One guy I have only met a couple of times (he is a friend of the other two). The two guys always 'play nice' with each other, so I am not concerned about them. The 'new' guy seems to create characters that are at odds with the group but always plays as if he gets along. The other two players recently killed his latest character. If I can pull the game off, I will make sure that the 'new' guy is not the individual in charge. Hate to have the underlings kill the lord only a session or two into the game. :-)

[swdevlin]

I also encourage considering the possibility that characters may not work together, but at cross-purposes - and that this can be mighty fun and wonderful role-playing.

That is a quite different game than what I was imagining. The group I was recently GMing enjoys games like that. But I needed a break, hence a new group and a new game.

Guess I am looking for a 'feel good-all for one' game this time around. :-)

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'd like to emphasize that I am talking about a feel-good all-around game. The question is whether you and the other people can actually do that - play characters who have severe conflicts of interest, but the real people's interest is in having the best time possible with one another, without damaging others' enjoyment.

I'm going out on a limb here, but it sounds to me, so far, as though the newer player is capable of doing this but that the two other players have trouble with it. Or maybe I have it backwards and the new guy is disruptive, and the others are not. I'm not sure.

What matters is to look at the characters' interests and actions differently from the players' enjoyment and mutual encouragement. It's quite an assumption - and not often a valid or fruitful one - to think that players are helping and enjoying one another's efforts only when the characters all get along and want the same things.

Best,
Ron

[swdevlin]

I'd like to emphasize that I am talking about a feel-good all-around game. The question is whether you and the other people can actually do that - play characters who have severe conflicts of interest, but the real people's interest is in having the best time possible with one another, without damaging others' enjoyment.

[snip]

What matters is to look at the characters' interests and actions differently from the players' enjoyment and mutual encouragement. It's quite an assumption - and not often a valid or fruitful one - to think that players are helping and enjoying one another's efforts only when the characters all get along and want the same things.

Yes, I understand the difference. And so do the players. My previous group plays that way. They enjoy having an internal conflict as well as an external one. We all had a blast in that game; there was some tremendous (sp?) role-playing.

But, as a GM, I need a break from that style of gaming. It's been five or six years in that style of game, and I want something different. Hence I am looking for a 'all-for-one, one-for-all' game. No doubt there will be some internal conflict. Everyone role-plays quite well and that tends to cause friction between the characters (since the players are playing their character and not the game). But I don't want that to be a key focus of the game.

[Loki]

Here's a thought on how to make social coups and failures important to the players: make the price of social failures social damage. At first, these failures result in reducing social stats/traits/etc, but after a certain point (or when a character with an overwhelming advantage defeats a social weakling) the damage becomes death, disgrace, bankruptcy, exile, imprisonment, etc.

A PC is removed from play whenever he takes enough damage to remove him from the social milleu of the game, whether that's from a disgrace that makes him non-grata at any of the social functions, being imprisoned for a crime, or the victim of an assassination.

The way I would do this would be to make a set of social stats, traits (or whatever your nomenclature is) that each protect a PC from a specific fate/damage.

E.g.
Wealth: damage here results in bankruptcy
Wit: damage here results in disgrace
Influence: damage here results in imprisonment
Reputation: damage here results in loss of retainers (& leaves PC vulnerable to assassination)

States like bankruptcy, disgrace, imprisonment are conditions that reduce the PCs stats and abilities. There are naturally in-game ways of removing the condition--bribery (reduce wealth score to remove influence damage), whispering campaigns (reduce influence to quell a recent humiliation from being spread), etc.

Obviously this is very simplistic (and probably Gamist) in presentation--I'm just trying to communicate the concept. To encourage players to use social contests to solve their problems, make them personally very weak (ie low combat or other personal skills), and include social penalties for failure with personal tests (ie caught breaking into a rival's home: lose reputation, disturbing the King's peace: lose influence at court, etc).

Other wrinkles include being able to substitute a social contest for any personal contest: someone is trying to duel you--use your influence to have them imprisoned, have them disgraced with a slanderous play, or try to have them assassinated before the appointed hour.

[swdevlin]

I justed wanted to say thanks for all the advice on my 'political game' post. I gave the PCs (well, 2 of the 3, the third player wanted to be an outsider) some political clout and things have worked out great. They bought into the whole premise and are struggling with the kinds of problems I was hoping they would take seriously.

Yours humbly,

Shawn