A Political Game

[swdevlin]

Hi,

I have been pondering running a 'political' fantasy game for a little while now; something feudal, or something clan/viking-esque. But I seem to have some sort of GM block. I can't quite figure out how to get this to go.

I have pondered having one, or more, of the players being a character caught up in the struggle; either a landed-knight or the head of a clan. I have also pondered having the players working for such a person. But, with either approach I hit the same wall: how do I capture the essence of a political game?

I realize that I need to have all the major and minor characters, their motivations, desires, and goals worked out. And, I think for the game to be 'realistic', I need to have time pass between 'scenes'. Not everything happens in a week, game time.

But, I still feel I am missing something. How do I get social cutting to affect my players? How do I bring political pressure on the players so they react to it? They are a good bunch of role-players, but I am unsure how to set the scene so they can do their bit.

Using role-playing (and skill checks for players whose characters are better at intrigue than they are), I can get the information about who is with or against who, and who wants what. But, again, I am unsure about how to deliver this information so the game has a 'political intrigue' feel.

I was hoping for some guidance from GMs that have run this sort of game.

Humbly yours,

Shawn

[pete_darby]

Before you get pointed off to a bunch of threads that deal with that very thing, can I recommend Peter Nordstrand & Chris Chinn's Well of Souls.

It's a very fine practical example of prep play for a personal, political story. Now, though there's very little system specific stuff in it, it does have the advantage of being written for HeroQuest, which uses the same rules for any conflict, physical, social or mystical. But that's just support for the most important thing, which is to make it matter to the players, and the only way to do that is to find what they'd find compelling.

I'm going through the same sort of process with my group in the thread here, and as you'll be able to see there, I'm feeling my way too.

Off to search those threads...

[pete_darby]

Okay as goes scene framing, I think this thread looks pretty good for starters... It's sure one I should have read before setting out my thread!

[Jasper]

How do I bring political pressure on the players so they react to it?

If you've defined their desires and motivations, the answer is easy: threaten their desires, hinder their goals.  Maybe throw something big at them, which by nature affects each of them in some significant way.  Maybe it gives them an opportunity, maybe it threatens them...whatever.

Using role-playing (and skill checks for players whose characters are better at intrigue than they are), I can get the information about who is with or against who, and who wants what. But, again, I am unsure about how to deliver this information so the game has a 'political intrigue' feel.

First, make them really work for it.  Just rolling a die and getting information is too simple and too easy.  Give them hints, make them follow leads, talk to different people, do research, send letters to far-off friends, etc.

Of course, to do this, you have to make them care.  So make the information obviously necessary -- again, it goes back to their motivations.  If one character has a grudge against the prince, give him a hint that the prince has a dark secret, and he has to pursue it.  Or, on the flip-side, someone is working against the character...but who is it?

Third, to avoid making the pursuit of information just a goose chase or a series of die rolls, you have to give failure some bite.  And by this I mean not just overall, as in the character fails to find the prince's dark secret -- though this is important too -- but rather, have consequences for each die roll.  If a character is poking his head into places heshouldn't be, and he fails, let him be found out.  Let him offend someone and lose a source fo information forever, or make a real enemy, or lose an ally.  Let the bad-guy focus his attentions against the character.   Make every die roll matter in some way, and not just be another step on the stair of "ask enough questions and the answer will come."  Don't let the players be sure that they will discover the clever plot...until it's too late.

To compare this with combat, which most people find easier to run, the reason it's exciting is that with each roll, there are decisions to be made, and consequences to be felt.  Follow that example.

[swdevlin]

How do I bring political pressure on the players so they react to it?

If you've defined their desires and motivations, the answer is easy: threaten their desires, hinder their goals.  Maybe throw something big at them, which by nature affects each of them in some significant way.  Maybe it gives them an opportunity, maybe it threatens them...whatever.

Ok. My problem is beginning to dawn on me. Well, at least the problem that spawned this thread.

In a combat, if the player makes a mistake her character becomes injured or even dies. This is a severe consequence to a bad decision because the player cares for her character.

In a politcal game, if the player screws up and his character is not invited to the King's ball, the player may not treat that as a failure of the same magnitude. But it is, because the character will be unable to continue to gain more knowledge. And, well, if you aren't invited to the ball, then you are a nobody and people in power will simply ignore you.

My concern is (nice to know it finally :-)) how do I get my players to understand the severity of these kinds of rebukes. And I don't think there is a simple answer. I suspect that either they will understand them or they won't. Perhaps I will need to run a few games in order for the players to understand the severity of the consequences of their actions.

Humbly yours,

Shawn

[Jasper]

Cool.  Glad I could inspire a little insight.

If the player screws up and his character is not invited to the King's ball, the player may not treat that as a failure of the same magnitude....how do I get my players to understand the severity of these kinds of rebukes.

Well one option is just to talk it over with the players and see where they're at.  Are they "into" the idea of the game, but just not getting how it works, or what?

Assuming they want to stick with it, it is true that telling them, "this rebuke is important!" may not have much effect by itself.  So you need to tie what the character wants to what the player wants.  Usually, players want their characters to (putting it simply) do stuff.  If a player decides not to go to the ball, you can't just say, "well...people don't like you as much now."  You have to make him feel it, by limiting his ability to do stuff.  This gets into all kinds of reward mechanic issues, and there have been plenty of good threads on that.

[MachMoth]

Sorry, I'm a bit slow getting to this topic, so my initial response planned isn't entirely relevent anymore.  None the less, I've done a couple campaigns (and one system, but it isn't really that political as of right now) in the political vein.  For starters, whether it be by mechanics, or story, political success has to matter to the character.  The average RPG character is a floating hobo.  They aren't really tied to the world they live in, except by plot hooks and the like.

My best example I can think of would be something I ran sometime back, D&D Remix: Generations.  It was a low level style of play, so prestige mattered (both in character, and in class).  There were plenty of examples, but I suppose the easiest mechanical example was prestige classes.  Levels came once per session (representing the time passed between sessions, these characters didn't just kill things and take their stuff day to day).  Acquiring a class level was decided based on your current occupation and other IC matters at the beginning of the session.  Earning prestige, wealth, and honor, you could go for difficult prestige classes, without meeting the mechanical requirements.  Now granted, D20 D&D wasn't the best system for this kind of play, but if it can pull it off, I know it's more than possible.

Perhaps you need some way to quantify the importance of going to the king's ball.  Perhaps, going to the ball will raise their Royal Affiliation.  Better yet, the things they do while there effect it.  In turn, Royal Affiliation can be used to further other events.  Maybe one can not become a member of the royal court without enough of it.  Maybe he wants to over throw the king, but needs to be trusted by him first.  Basically, if this is going to be the focus of the game, it needs to be tangible to the players.  If the reward is purely an in-character, roleplayable event, then where do the mechanics go?

[John Kim]

In a politcal game, if the player screws up and his character is not invited to the King's ball, the player may not treat that as a failure of the same magnitude. But it is, because the character will be unable to continue to gain more knowledge. And, well, if you aren't invited to the ball, then you are a nobody and people in power will simply ignore you.

My concern is (nice to know it finally :-)) how do I get my players to understand the severity of these kinds of rebukes. And I don't think there is a simple answer.  

I think there is a fairly simple answer, actually.  Give them political power.  Not just on-GM's-whim-when-it-suits-the-plot power, but actual change-the-country power which helps them get what they want.  Without having it, they won't viscerally understand what it means.  Once they have used power, though, they will be motivated to maintain it or try to get more.

[clehrich]

....My concern is (nice to know it finally :-)) how do I get my players to understand the severity of these kinds of rebukes. And I don't think there is a simple answer.  

I think there is a fairly simple answer, actually.  Give them political power.  Not just on-GM's-whim-when-it-suits-the-plot power, but actual change-the-country power which helps them get what they want.  Without having it, they won't viscerally understand what it means.  Once they have used power, though, they will be motivated to maintain it or try to get more.

I think you have to go one step further, actually.  You need to have other people be relatively minor players here and there, and go seeking power from the PC's.  That is to say, they come begging favors, not to manipulate the PC's really but because they see the PC's as actually powerful.  Once the players realize that this is what's happening, that they can dispense favors here and there as rewards for servitude, likeability, or money, then the sweet taste of power will hook them good and solid.

That's the trick, really: you don't so much need them to "understand the severity of these rebukes" as to want desperately never to be rebuked, and not so much that as to want desperately to be liked and have power.  If they're addicted to the joys of power, they won't want to lose it, and then if they get rebuked they'll really feel it.

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I agree with John Kim and Chris (clehrich) very strongly. Trying to make your players care about something so that they will invest in it is a fairly forlorn hope. Instead, invest in it yourself, and provide them with the explicit ability to do so, and then see if the caring happens.

Best,
Ron

[swdevlin]

So, instead of making the players sons, daughters, nieces and/or nephews of someone with power, make at least one of the PCs the person with power. Then having the desire to advance will make them pay attention to the social cutting and such.

Yeah. That seems about right. I tend to start games with the pcs as newbs. What I need to do is start the game at midrange, where the PCs have some power but are not in the upper eschelons.

And, I guess this would work as well if the PCs were just advisors/agents of the person in power if, again, they had the ability to pass along favours.

[ks13]

Hi Shawn,

Welcome to the Forge.

What immediately jumped to mind when thinking about this type of game, is that the players need to have a strong level of interest going into the game. Besides just wanting to play a "political game", they should have an investement in their characters, which in turn will make their success and failures meaningful. I would suggest that you allow the player to choose the level of power or social standing for their PC. On the one end have characters that are "upstarts", looking to make their way up the political ladder, and on the other end, the solidly entrenched and established who are looking to hold on to their power (and with all the possible levels in between). If you don't feel comfortable as having the top position being the supreme leader, make this position one notch below that of the king/emperor.

This then allows the player to choose to play out what they are most interested in. Holding onto and wielding power, climbing up the ranks, or some balance of the two.  Each tier has its advantages and disadvatages. Being the top dog gives you power, but also much less room for mistakes. The PC is high profile, under constant scrutiny, and with everyone gunning for them. The upstarts may not have much initial influence, but they can take bigger risks, be more aggressive since smaller mistakes will be easier to recover from (being forgettable has its advantages). Of course a range of powers means that the PCs are unlikely to interact very often in a group setting. This would be more about the connections and interactions through actions, events, and NPCs, than "all in the room" type of PC involvement. What kind of interactions were you invisioning for this game?

-Al

[Kaare Berg]

In addition to all of the above, it is wise to give all the players one common goal (although there may be different motivations dictating why they want to get there).

One of my group's current campaigns happen to be political, but it is flundering because of the lack of common goals. We have five different characters with five different agendas and only a flimsy exuse to work together (it didn't help that the only character with power, who happened to be the flimsy excuse, took a rapier through the throat recently).

My advice is to give all the players power, and one goal to make them pull in the same direction. Then use the advise above for all its considerable worth.

And, I guess this would work as well if the PCs were just advisors/agents of the person in power if, again, they had the ability to pass along favours.

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.

[swdevlin]

If you don't feel comfortable as having the top position being the supreme leader, make this position one notch below that of the king/emperor.

It is not a question of comfortable, per se. It is more a question of the flavour of the game. I would rather have the group struggling to achieve power as opposed to struggling to maintain power. Of course, there are always those beneith the group trying to claw their way up. But I would rather have the group looking ahead more than they are looking behind. If I make one of the PCs the supreme leader, and I want to run a looking forward game, then the game becomes a political contest between countries. And that is something I don't want to run at this time.

Of course a range of powers means that the PCs are unlikely to interact very often in a group setting. This would be more about the connections and interactions through actions, events, and NPCs, than "all in the room" type of PC involvement. What kind of interactions were you invisioning for this game?

It is likely that I will end up running the game via email, with a FTF session every 4 months or so. There are 3 players in the group. I would like to run the game so the players are a group - either husband/wife and a trusted right-hand man or one player with power and two right-hand men. I think the email format will give me more flexibility when the person in power charges his aide to go and do some task.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

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.

Contrary to many assumptions, such play does not have to mean that the players are working at cross-purposes. Nor does it mean that the GM continuously has to settle them down or mediate fights among the real people.

It also completely removes the need for the GM to have a central villain or conspiracy that pulls the characters away from their individual agendas and toward that central thing.

Best,
Ron