Favorite Types of Government in Tabletop Games?

[BrokenChord]

Assuming your game isn't post-something and thus lacking a government, what is your favorite form of NPC government to interact with? Many people enjoy the classic monarchy/dictatorship, while still a large amount of others prefer quasi-feudal system where the king is merely a figurehead and the local lords hold true power. In fact, I've even met people who like systems such as parliamentary democracies and Council of Mages-type governments.

I personally find governments like those found in The Elder Scrolls games, specifically Skyrim, to be the most enjoyable. You generally have a few important people in each Hold, and they can be simultaneously all unique (since there aren't many of them) and yet identifiable (once you know the few government positions there are, it's easy to track the characters of those positions in each town). But that's just my style, and I know many people dislike such governments in their tabletop games. Plus that really only works in fantasy settings and isn't really applicable to games like d20 Modern.

So what are your favorite government systems to interact with in your tabletop games?

[Rhynn]

Actual feudal monarchies, from knight to king, based on manorialism.

These are pretty rare in RPGs; HârnMaster is a striking exception. Pendragon too, obviously.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Whatever requires the fewest murders on my part to plunge into anarchy. Usually, this is monarchies in small countries, where killing the king causes the country to practically divide into eighths in civil war.

Plot derailed. Now to take over with my army of Vrocks and change the campaign's direction entirely.

[Sith_Happens]

Whatever requires the fewest murders on my part to plunge into anarchy. Usually, this is monarchies in small countries, where killing the king causes the country to practically divide into eighths in civil war.

Absolute or feudal monarchy? I'm pretty sure the latter is more likely to react with full-on civil war while the former would respond more with riots and general anarchy.

[Kimera757]

I personally find governments like those found in The Elder Scrolls games, specifically Skyrim, to be the most enjoyable. You generally have a few important people in each Hold, and they can be simultaneously all unique (since there aren't many of them) and yet identifiable (once you know the few government positions there are, it's easy to track the characters of those positions in each town).

This plus feudalism. This isn't actually incompatible. The local lord still has important subordinates, who in some case were actually elected in real life. (In fact, even emperors could be elected... by a small number of counts in the Holy Roman Empire, but still.)

I figure nobles stay in power partly because there's far more soldiers who owe loyalty to them than rival power factions such as spellcasters. Any smart noble needs a court mage and a confessor at minimum, so they're always vulnerable to influence by casters, one way or another.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd prefer something decentralized (or have a very weak/inept central authority) for dnd. It allows diversity among regions and settlements, for each to have its own unique set of quirks and problems, and allows for easy responses to questions like "why doesn't the police/army/god-emperor handle it?". Also, it means that the locals are more free to give out rewards, it's easier to quickly modify a game's tone/setting by moving to a new locality, and PCs can't simply blow up one building to plunge the realm into chaos.

I feel as though a strong/competent central government reduces the number of potential adventures somewhat, as those tend to keep things more or less under control. They do open up their own types of quests, but for most they also raise world-building questions like "why can't they just make the army clear out the bandits?".

Smaller authorities tend to be ill-equipped to handle their problems, and thus more likely to ask the PCs to do it. Additionally, it gives the GM a chance to let the PCs get away with crimes if they can simply run to an ill-policed/rival government to escape punishment.

[Vrock_Summoner]

I'd prefer something decentralized (or have a very weak/inept central authority) for dnd. It allows diversity among regions and settlements, for each to have its own unique set of quirks and problems, and allows for easy responses to questions like "why doesn't the police/army/god-emperor handle it?". Also, it means that the locals are more free to give out rewards, it's easier to quickly modify a game's tone/setting by moving to a new locality, and PCs can't simply blow up one building to plunge the realm into chaos.

I feel as though a strong/competent central government reduces the number of potential adventures somewhat, as those tend to keep things more or less under control. They do open up their own types of quests, but for most they also raise world-building questions like "why can't they just make the army clear out the bandits?".

Smaller authorities tend to be ill-equipped to handle their problems, and thus more likely to ask the PCs to do it. Additionally, it gives the GM a chance to let the PCs get away with crimes if they can simply run to an ill-policed/rival government to escape punishment.

I disagree, actually. Players *should* have trouble getting away with crimes, or it kind of ruins the feeling of actions having consequences in the world.

Also, at the "have the army do it" part; mobilizing an army is expensive. If you tried to use the military to deal with every bandit raid, the country would go bankrupt quickly. For things more important than bandits, the PCs can generally help even if the army is also being dispatched. And if those two don't apply, there are plenty of other ways to excuse military not getting involved.

I don't think a centralized government stops different areas from being quirky and having different problems. I'm all for inefficiency, but that's just because true efficient governing would break my immersion. As a whole, the government should function well enough that you can usually tell what country you're in. You're right on one thing though; both strong and weak governments have tons of available plot hooks.

[Zrak]

I've always been interested in the conflicts between early republicanism and monarchism, so I tend to set my campaigns in a system where that's a viable side plot or background conflict. The closest fictional analogue is probably the political system of early Cerebus.

That said, I use different systems in different campaigns; a noir-styled campaign I ran used a particularly cynical and corrupt oligarchy, for example.

[Slipperychicken]

I disagree, actually. Players *should* have trouble getting away with crimes, or it kind of ruins the feeling of actions having consequences in the world.

I agree with you, but I mention it because I've heard a lot about GMs who would rather give PCs a way out of it.

[Cikomyr]

My most recent game was set in Marienburgh, which is a Plutocracy/Merchant Republic ruled over by the Directorate, composed of the 8 most powerful and rich merchant houses of the City, as well as the main cult leaders and other notable members of the city (for example, the Watch's Commissionner)

Pretty fun all over, as the non-nobility features allowed for players to try to make a play for powers as themselves. The multitude of real players involved in this game allowed for layered political intrigues, backstabbing and dalliances.

Finally, since it was all about MERCHANT houses, there was actual agendas and assets involved in play, rather than abstract right to rule.

[Scow2]

Actual feudal monarchies, from knight to king, based on manorialism.

These are pretty rare in RPGs; HârnMaster is a striking exception. Pendragon too, obviously.And Ironclaw. Don't forget Ironclaw.



I disagree, actually. Players *should* have trouble getting away with crimes, or it kind of ruins the feeling of actions having consequences in the world.Last time I tried doing something like this, the nation trying to apprehend the players found itself completely collapsing trying to bring the party to justice. Every other nation in the world, after swooping in to pick up the pieces the players didn't take for themselves, took the hint.

Actions DO have consequences. Some of those are "Once I was a petty theif. Then I completely overhauled the entire socio-political landscape of the continent."