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

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...

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!

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

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.

Jasper wrote:

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.

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.

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?

swdevlin wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote:

swdevlin wrote: ....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.

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

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.

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

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.

ks13 wrote: 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.

ks13 wrote: 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?

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

Negilent wrote: 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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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.

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