PDA

View Full Version : all politics and no play



AoiRorentsu
2007-02-08, 02:07 AM
I wanted to get people's opinions on a campaign concept I am just starting to develop. Basically, the idea is a (nearly) entirely city-based campaign, where the PCs would be drawn into local political intrigues. The occasional fight with criminal gangster-types aside, combat would play a distinctly secondary role.

I guess I was wondering if players tend to enjoy these kinds of games, or if anyone could offer me advice as I set out in the design process to help me avoid or at least be aware of any pitfalls you all have experienced.

My sense is that intrigues tend to be uber-heavy on the roleplaying, and rather complicated (imagine the half-dozen or so groups vying for political control, a few significant criminal organizations, and the like). I think they can be fun, but then I saw the recent "Curse of the Golden Flower," and realized that politics and no play (and by play, I mean combat) can make you a dull boy if you're expecting a typical "adventure," or if you're of a fighter-type class.

Any advice would be much appreciated. I realize I may not have provided much specific info as to the plot I'm going for- I guess I was looking for general tips on designing and running a political intrigue-heavy campaign.

Thanks!

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-08, 02:16 AM
Depends entirely on the player. I love them, but there are a lot of players that simply don't. This is probably something you should talk over with your group first. Not the specifics, but to find out if they want to do this kind of thing at all.

Behold_the_Void
2007-02-08, 02:21 AM
Seconded. Know your players and what they like before using a setting like that. Really, same applies for all hack-'n-slash.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-08, 02:24 AM
Ahhhh makes sense, for sure.

I'm sorry I forgot to mention this before, but I don't (yet) have a group to play this campaign. So, I meant like assuming players were generally okay with the idea of a politics-heavy campaign, are there any pitfalls I should know to avoid in the design process?

thanks again!

Green Bean
2007-02-08, 02:30 AM
Depends entirely on the player. I love them, but there are a lot of players that simply don't. This is probably something you should talk over with your group first. Not the specifics, but to find out if they want to do this kind of thing at all.

Agreed. Always talk it over with the players first.

Another thing you should check is experience. Have your players ever played in a politics game? There's quite a few difference in play style, and inexperienced players can easily get confused.

That said, if they haven't played this before, you can still run a politics game. A couple good things to do if you want to get your players used to this sort of things are:
1. Be willing to do recaps for your players. If you only have a session every week, they might not remember the who's who of every faction
2. Give them a combat every now and then. Nothing too big, but assassination is pretty big in politics games
3. Early on, give them someone to work for or with. For the first few sessions, give them a patron who won't betray them (until later on), so they can learn about the system without the risk of immediate screwup because of their lack of knowledge about the way local politics goes

cupkeyk
2007-02-08, 02:36 AM
That being said, DnD was never much an intrigue based game but has evolved into one after the popularity of such games like Vampire: The Masquerade. If you will be playing with people who have also played V: tM then you will all be in your element.

It wouldn't hurt if you told them that they will be playing in a political game too, so they can Meta-build their characters. You will be surprised by the number of Rogues, Bards and Diviners you will get. LOLz

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-08, 02:59 AM
This (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=3127) is my character in the current intrigue/mystery based campaign that I'm playing in. The character is the leader of a kind of counter-thieves' guild operating in Westgate in the Forgotten Realms setting; he's attempting to root out the Night Masks. It's been a looooong uphill slog, and we're not even halfway there yet.

oriong
2007-02-08, 03:22 AM
Goals are your friend.

Political and social focused games can be highly player driven, but this also means they can be massively unfocused. This is often a bad thing.

If the PCs (or just a few of them) don't have a specific goal in mind, and your particular game doesn't provide one theb they could easily sit around doing nothing until the next thing happens that forces their hand, or maybe just making endless 'aid another' checks while one of the more goal oriented PCs does his thing.

If the PCs are too goal-oriented it can be a problem too. If each PC has their own agenda and no middle ground to meet on then there's trouble. You'll either have the group splinter whenever they are not simply forced together, leaving you doing an insane juggling act, or even worse they might have competing goals, or it might end up a situation where one or two more focused and persausive (or bullying) PCs manages to take over the game, forcing everyone their way.

So, it's best to give the PCs something that binds them together and hopefully provides them something to work towards. Perhaps they're all a part of the same political faction, so that even if they disagree on the how they're all working towards the same end. Or even make an arrangement where the players 'take turns' working towards a given agenda of each PC (okay, after we're done dealing with the theive's guild spy in the treasury we'll tackle the problems of overlogging in the Ash Forest). This may be an in-game or metagame agreement but your goal should be to preserve some semblance of party unity and game direction.

Dreads
2007-02-08, 04:32 AM
Prepare and print information for the players before the game begins. A breakdown of the major players in the city (the ones they know anyway), A brief description of the city districts and what can/might be found there, notes on places of pc importance (relevant temples/bars/guilds etc.), A summary of the military/legal situation, traditions and local habits (can they carry swords, how the locals feel about magic).

Essentially a brief player’s guide, this will let them begin to take the initiative from the very beginning and not have to keep asking you about things their characters should know.

I try to find pictures for the npcs when I do this and include them. Pictures of actors ran through an art program to make them look like drawings are useful here. If paper/ink is not an issue then use one page for each npc and leave the blank space under the picture for the players to keep notes on encounters with that npc.

Lastly, download one of the many lists of fantasy games found on the net for random merchants, guards, ladies of the night etc. the npcs run into.

In politics games, notes rule!

daggaz
2007-02-08, 05:30 AM
yeah i was gonna say more or less what Oriong said, but as well point out the difficulties the DM has, running all the different NPC personalities. In a typical adventure, you have your various badguys/factions, and they have more or less simple goals to act as seeds to their behaviour. But in this game, the whole thing is gonna revolve around the NPC political factions and how your players interact.. So each NPC will/should have extremely detailed morals/desires/goals/quirks/personalities etc... It could get pretty hard to do, but hey, still its a pretty cool idea!

Dreads
2007-02-08, 06:02 AM
You could watch some soap operas; many of them have ridiculous convoluted plots and schemes which you could draw upon. Many involve large families (perfect for infighting noble families) which just need fantasized with more appropriate names.

Perhaps J.R. from Dallas could become Jor the Fallen and Cliff Barnes Cibar the wretched!

Most players will never see you schemes. I ran a fairly successful fantasy game which was based around Neighbours (Aussie soap opera) and the players were clueless.

hewhosaysfish
2007-02-08, 06:40 AM
Goals are your friend.

Political and social focused games can be highly player driven, but this also means they can be massively unfocused. This is often a bad thing.

If the PCs (or just a few of them) don't have a specific goal in mind, and your particular game doesn't provide one theb they could easily sit around doing nothing until the next thing happens that forces their hand, or maybe just making endless 'aid another' checks while one of the more goal oriented PCs does his thing.

If the PCs are too goal-oriented it can be a problem too. If each PC has their own agenda and no middle ground to meet on then there's trouble. You'll either have the group splinter whenever they are not simply forced together, leaving you doing an insane juggling act, or even worse they might have competing goals, or it might end up a situation where one or two more focused and persausive (or bullying) PCs manages to take over the game, forcing everyone their way.

So, it's best to give the PCs something that binds them together and hopefully provides them something to work towards. Perhaps they're all a part of the same political faction, so that even if they disagree on the how they're all working towards the same end. Or even make an arrangement where the players 'take turns' working towards a given agenda of each PC (okay, after we're done dealing with the theive's guild spy in the treasury we'll tackle the problems of overlogging in the Ash Forest). This may be an in-game or metagame agreement but your goal should be to preserve some semblance of party unity and game direction.

QFT

If you want a roleplay-heavy game then you need a reason for the party to be a party. In a dungeon-crawl you can get away with "you all meet up in a tavern and all become best of friends".
They need either a joint goal they have to ally to achieve (or interconnected goals that it will be easiest to all complete together) or some sort of emotional/social/financial reasons to help each other out.
When they're fleshing out character concepts, you might want to look for elements in their backstory that can be used to connect them (if the backstories don't connect them already): some person two character might both know who could ask them for a favour, some place they might both both conceivably when an Earth Shattering Event (tm) requires a temporary alliance (that becomes more permanent), some common enemy they can team up to kill/get fired/bankrupt/otherwise annoy.
That last one is an easy one because even if there isn't such an enemy in their backstory, you just pick something from that a charcter holds dear and have your candidate nemesis stomp on it. Even if this prefab badguy doesn't turn out to be a minion of Machiavellian sociopath plotting to usurp the king/emperor/president/high priest, then by the time they've hit plot, they should have develop the necessary relationships with the other characters to stop them for half an hour during the game trying to think of an in-character reason why they would ever speak to to the rest of the party ever again.

Mind you this is just my 2 cp (or 3cp from the length of it...) from the player perspective, so I don't necessarily know how it pans out form the GM's perspective.

Telonius
2007-02-08, 10:40 AM
I would suggest that you make sure to award RP experience points. If there are going to be very few opportunities to fight, there will be few opportunities to gain in wealth and power in the usual D&D way ("Kill the dude and take his stuff!"). A social encounter can still be an "Encounter," and should be rewarded as such.

Gamebird
2007-02-08, 11:00 AM
I ran role play heavy Vampire games for over a decade and one thing I found that inevitably occured was the effect of gaining xp and levels on how PCs role played. When they were weak compared to the average antagonist, they would negotiate, role play, talk to NPCs and try to befriend various powerful NPCs who would help them against the antagonist. The game was good.

When they became clearly more powerful than the average antagonist and powerful enough that mere surprise would give them the edge against antagonists of their own power level and a bit above, then things changed. While some of the players would still try to negotiate, most of them would make only a token attempt and when they ran into an uncooperative NPC they'd quickly resort to the powers and abilities gained with xp. Why bother to talk to someone and allow them the possibility of lying when you can merely read their thoughts or compel them to tell the truth? Why threaten someone when you can just beat them up and force them to do what you want?

By then too, they were locked into working with certain powerful NPCs. They only rarely talked to others because they didn't want to court the illusion of disloyalty to their main patrons. Besides, anyone not already on their patron's side was against them, at least somewhat.

It changed the dynamics.

You have to be careful not to create plots where the solution is to remove (ie, kill) a troublesome NPC. Otherwise, the PCs will seek that solution. The rules support it, in D&D and in V:tM. There are lots of rules to hurt people and kill them. And whenever winning them over is codified, like Charm Person, Entrancement, blood bond, etc. - then you lose a lot of the role play aspect of it. "Oh, so he's not going to do what we want? Fine. We abduct him and blood bond him, then have him explain to his friends that he got the stomach flu real bad and had to stay home for a few days." Where's the role play? It's simply gone. Once players have the stats and abilities to reliably manhandle NPCs and force them to do what the players want them to do, then they will. Not to do so is sort of dumb, even if it might be more ethical.

You also have to work out how (and if) you will deliver treasure to the PCs. Role play heavy games have lots of mechanisms available, but they lack the simple "boot 'n loot" treasure dispersion of combat games. You also have to worry about people investing their money and working for a living. This is a problem because few games adequately cover economics or how they relate to PC abilities. And with a lot of money, PCs will circumvent a lot of plots.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-08, 12:13 PM
Mechanically, it's kind of tough to get this to work.

If the party is built so that all of the players can participate and contribute equally in roleplay (having the CHA, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Gather Information, appropriate feats to improve their social abilties, etc.) to do so well, they're going to be that much less capable in other areas. If you toss those skills and rely solely on the ability to roleplay, you're lookng at a ton of preparation and talent needed to simulate the complex machinations, varied motivations, psychological quirks, verbal and non-verbal cues and other things of many NPCs needed to convey a complex and realistic political atmosphere.

When the focus of the game is on heroic activities, wonky, trite or poorly played out motivations or characterizations are a minor irritant. When the focus is on the motivations and characterizations, every one that isn't quality really detracts.

It is easier to create quality action than quality social interaction in DND because the action mechanics of DND are much stronger and more diverse than the social mechanics.

You can dominate people with spells, wipe their memory, sneak in and steal documants and such which is a kind of extension beyond pure politics into an espionage sort of theme. But, you have to watch that it doesn't become a game of win-button casting. Go through and nerf or remove spells that would otherwise completely destroy your plots and scenarios.

clarkvalentine
2007-02-08, 12:30 PM
I'm running such a game quite successfully at the moment.

I think the key is not to have any particular plot planned ahead of time. Instead, set up conflicts but do NOT have any particular solution to them in mind. Let the players come up with the solutions, and just run them through the resulting mayhem.

Of course, you control NPC reactions to the players' actions - use these reactions to drive additional conflict - no action is without consequence. Again, leave it up to the players to come up with solutions.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-08, 01:02 PM
Wow! Thanks for all the great advice, and so quickly! Definitely helpful, and keep it coming!

I'll have to start brewin' and see what pops out. Maybe instead of a standard adventure format, have kind of a timeline in my mind for what would happen if the PCs didn't do anything at all, and then have backup plans for each of the actors. Sort of a matrix-type adventure using a kind of "tree and branches" plot.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-08, 01:09 PM
I find that people have more fun in intrigue games, since (a) their results are more tangible; and (b) they get to roleplay more than "HULK SMASH".

But then again, I game with actors.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-08, 01:52 PM
I ran role play heavy Vampire games for over a decade and one thing I found that inevitably occured was the effect of gaining xp and levels on how PCs role played. When they were weak compared to the average antagonist, they would negotiate, role play, talk to NPCs and try to befriend various powerful NPCs who would help them against the antagonist. The game was good.

When they became clearly more powerful than the average antagonist and powerful enough that mere surprise would give them the edge against antagonists of their own power level and a bit above, then things changed. While some of the players would still try to negotiate, most of them would make only a token attempt and when they ran into an uncooperative NPC they'd quickly resort to the powers and abilities gained with xp. Why bother to talk to someone and allow them the possibility of lying when you can merely read their thoughts or compel them to tell the truth? Why threaten someone when you can just beat them up and force them to do what you want?

By then too, they were locked into working with certain powerful NPCs. They only rarely talked to others because they didn't want to court the illusion of disloyalty to their main patrons. Besides, anyone not already on their patron's side was against them, at least somewhat.

It changed the dynamics.

You have to be careful not to create plots where the solution is to remove (ie, kill) a troublesome NPC. Otherwise, the PCs will seek that solution. The rules support it, in D&D and in V:tM. There are lots of rules to hurt people and kill them. And whenever winning them over is codified, like Charm Person, Entrancement, blood bond, etc. - then you lose a lot of the role play aspect of it. "Oh, so he's not going to do what we want? Fine. We abduct him and blood bond him, then have him explain to his friends that he got the stomach flu real bad and had to stay home for a few days." Where's the role play? It's simply gone. Once players have the stats and abilities to reliably manhandle NPCs and force them to do what the players want them to do, then they will. Not to do so is sort of dumb, even if it might be more ethical.

You also have to work out how (and if) you will deliver treasure to the PCs. Role play heavy games have lots of mechanisms available, but they lack the simple "boot 'n loot" treasure dispersion of combat games. You also have to worry about people investing their money and working for a living. This is a problem because few games adequately cover economics or how they relate to PC abilities. And with a lot of money, PCs will circumvent a lot of plots.
It seems you forgot what is possibly the DM's most important tool: There is always, always, always a bigger fish. That's a (small) part of why I run Forgotten Realms; if the players get out of line, well, they can have an encounter with one of the big-name NPCs if they think they're so tough. I've never had to actually do that, but it's there. There's no such thing as becoming so powerful that you needn't use caution.

Quietus
2007-02-08, 02:23 PM
Wow! Thanks for all the great advice, and so quickly! Definitely helpful, and keep it coming!

I'll have to start brewin' and see what pops out. Maybe instead of a standard adventure format, have kind of a timeline in my mind for what would happen if the PCs didn't do anything at all, and then have backup plans for each of the actors. Sort of a matrix-type adventure using a kind of "tree and branches" plot.

That works out quite nicely; I've got an adventure set up on an IRC chat that I'm running that's pretty much going along those same lines. The first day we played, they ran into some Unseelie butterflies I custom-carved for this campaign, and the sorceror has proven trigger-happy... he wanted to rest well before dusk. The party Kender just kept going.

Later that day, the Kender ran into some of the larval form of these things... didn't bother mentioning it to the party, however. The day after, there was a great number more butterflies, and the rest of the party encountered some of the larval forms. They've also encountered some Unseelie directly.

What the players don't know, is that there's a link to the Unseelie Courts inside the city that's slowly leaking beasties onto the material plane. As things get worse, it'll be things other than just critters... if the players continue ignoring anything that isn't currently spitting acid at them, it won't be much longer before the city starts being taken over by plant life. The longer they wait, the harder the situation will be to deal with.

Beleriphon
2007-02-08, 03:46 PM
I would suggest that you make sure to award RP experience points. If there are going to be very few opportunities to fight, there will be few opportunities to gain in wealth and power in the usual D&D way ("Kill the dude and take his stuff!"). A social encounter can still be an "Encounter," and should be rewarded as such.

Actually the best way to do this is to build NPCs as usual at their normal CR, and treat them as such. Their skills checks then replace the combat stats for the purposes of your encounter. It works pretty well, although only up to a point since a 20th level bard with maxed diplomacy and a charisma in the mid to high 20s is no longer credibly threatened in a social situation by a scheme noble fifteen levels lower then the bard.

Gamebird
2007-02-08, 04:44 PM
It seems you forgot what is possibly the DM's most important tool: There is always, always, always a bigger fish. That's a (small) part of why I run Forgotten Realms; if the players get out of line, well, they can have an encounter with one of the big-name NPCs if they think they're so tough. I've never had to actually do that, but it's there. There's no such thing as becoming so powerful that you needn't use caution.

No, I didn't forget that. The thing is, D&D, Vampire and most systems assume there are a lot of low level folks and fewer high level folks. Thus, when the PCs aren't powerful, they're on a par with most people they'll run into. Yes, they'll be overawed by the prince or mayor or what-have-you, but even the random policeman/town guard is a challenge.

Fast forward three years of playing. Now they're as powerful as the prince, mayor, grizzled old adventurer mentor, etc. unless the GM has advanced the NPCs at the same rate as the PCs (and if you do that, the howling about unfairness will never end, as gaining xp won't really change their ability to impact the game world). And now the random policeman is easy to control. In fact, nearly everyone is. Sure, there's bigger fish out there. There's always tougher and greater NPCs. However, unless you've changed the game world along with the PCs, there's still a vast majority of the game world that the PCs can pwn easily.

Where you could once get entertaining role play out of mundane encounters, now an encounter has to be with an important, earth-shaking individual for it to be anything other than the PC dictating the entire thing. You run a really serious risk of the player saying, "Okay, listen, my character has a bajillion ranks in Diplomacy/[insert social skill here] and I don't. How about we reduce this to a roll?" Which is a very reasonable thing for the player to do, but it ends the role play (and at high levels, it ends the encounter because the PC will almost certainly win).

Campaigns oriented around social abilities and role playing will inevitably have the PCs advance in their ability to manipulate people socially. Now, the DM can toss ever-more-difficult-to-manipulate people in their way (DM: "Oh, this guard is immune to Charm Person!" DM: "This diplomat is secretly an undead using a Hat of Disguise, so your Dominate Person fails." DM: "The beggar is really a ragamuffin..."), but this will quickly strain credibility. The players wonder why everyone in the city suddenly seems resistant to their abilities, when 10 levels ago they weren't.

You can introduce new NPCs, but this causes its own difficulties. The PCs have no track record with the newcomers and are likely to view them as enemies. Fine, if you want it that way, but enemies of powerful PCs have a tendency to go missing.

Most games give huge advantages to whoever strikes first. If the DM does this to the players, it's often seen as foul play. If the PCs do it to their foes, in a high level game, then it's over. No roll, end of encounter, bad guys die. It's like teleport-bombing. There are few, non-contrived ways to challenge high level characters. This is even more of a problem in a role play oriented game than in a combat game.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Talyn
2007-02-08, 04:57 PM
I find that people have more fun in intrigue games, since (a) their results are more tangible; and (b) they get to roleplay more than "HULK SMASH".

But then again, I game with actors.

*gives a look of EXTREME jealousy*

I game with engineers and math majors... :smallyuk: Getting them to RP beyond "hulk smash" or flirting (dubiously in-character) with players of the opposite gender is like PULLING TEETH.

Sometimes I feel like I should give it up and just to back to playing Warhammer...

Ravyn
2007-02-08, 05:24 PM
As long as you know you've got a group that's into the RP aspects, there's a lot that can be worked out. I can't emphasize enough the importance of concrete goals, preferably shared, and foreknowledge. (My group recently got plunked into politics, and I realized two sessions in that I really should've exposited at them first. Plan on fixing that tomorrow.)

Big thing to remember is to know your NPCs and make them interesting--that'll encourage the players to talk more. And make sure you can advise your PCs on what NOT to do--otherwise, one person who doesn't know how to handle intrigue can ruin everyone else's day.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-08, 08:48 PM
No, I didn't forget that. The thing is, D&D, Vampire and most systems assume there are a lot of low level folks and fewer high level folks. Thus, when the PCs aren't powerful, they're on a par with most people they'll run into. Yes, they'll be overawed by the prince or mayor or what-have-you, but even the random policeman/town guard is a challenge.

Fast forward three years of playing. Now they're as powerful as the prince, mayor, grizzled old adventurer mentor, etc. unless the GM has advanced the NPCs at the same rate as the PCs (and if you do that, the howling about unfairness will never end, as gaining xp won't really change their ability to impact the game world). And now the random policeman is easy to control. In fact, nearly everyone is. Sure, there's bigger fish out there. There's always tougher and greater NPCs. However, unless you've changed the game world along with the PCs, there's still a vast majority of the game world that the PCs can pwn easily.

Where you could once get entertaining role play out of mundane encounters, now an encounter has to be with an important, earth-shaking individual for it to be anything other than the PC dictating the entire thing. You run a really serious risk of the player saying, "Okay, listen, my character has a bajillion ranks in Diplomacy/[insert social skill here] and I don't. How about we reduce this to a roll?" Which is a very reasonable thing for the player to do, but it ends the role play (and at high levels, it ends the encounter because the PC will almost certainly win).

Campaigns oriented around social abilities and role playing will inevitably have the PCs advance in their ability to manipulate people socially. Now, the DM can toss ever-more-difficult-to-manipulate people in their way (DM: "Oh, this guard is immune to Charm Person!" DM: "This diplomat is secretly an undead using a Hat of Disguise, so your Dominate Person fails." DM: "The beggar is really a ragamuffin..."), but this will quickly strain credibility. The players wonder why everyone in the city suddenly seems resistant to their abilities, when 10 levels ago they weren't.

You can introduce new NPCs, but this causes its own difficulties. The PCs have no track record with the newcomers and are likely to view them as enemies. Fine, if you want it that way, but enemies of powerful PCs have a tendency to go missing.

Most games give huge advantages to whoever strikes first. If the DM does this to the players, it's often seen as foul play. If the PCs do it to their foes, in a high level game, then it's over. No roll, end of encounter, bad guys die. It's like teleport-bombing. There are few, non-contrived ways to challenge high level characters. This is even more of a problem in a role play oriented game than in a combat game.

That's all I'm trying to say.
Sure, striking first is a tactical advantage, but an intrigue-based game is a strategic one, even more so than a war campaign. If the PCs' enemies just start disappearing, it will attract attention... including that of some of the aforementioned bigger fish.

lordmarcoos
2007-02-08, 11:34 PM
I think something people have missed here is that the bigger fish should ALWAYS be there, from the start. Sure, they may never even see the king, or the wizards council, but they should sure as hell know that they exist. Maybe they start in a decent-sized town, fiddling around with various noblemen, and just when they think they got the hang of it, and the town wrapped around their fingers, BAM! something happens, they are forced/told to/need to for some reason go to the capital city. Suddenly, they know very few people, but they do know some... maybe one of the guilds they worked with in the town has a chapter in the capital, with many high-ranking members often going back and forth, but the important thing is, have a few pre-planned moves, where each time they realize again that even though they think they're hot ****, they quickly find out again that they're very small fish in a very big pond.

And that doesn't just mean making the NPC's get continuously more powerful. Some of them should, as they interact with more powerful people. Certainly the capital city's captain of the guard is going to be a bit higher level than the sheriff of crapland, but encounters change. Early on, finding out where a certain person IS is a huge challenge, and the PCs should spend a while doing that. At high levels, they SHOULD be able to divine, or rough up a few minions, and give them the information they want. This allows the PCs to feel the tangible effects of their power, while still not being able to just derail everything. And keep in mind, that perhaps in the capital city, detect type spells may well be outlawed, and you better bet the king's got a whole armament of crowns/necklaces/rings/robes/scepters of "no you can't check my alignment, you jerk. Guards!"

Thomas
2007-02-08, 11:57 PM
I wanted to get people's opinions on a campaign concept I am just starting to develop. Basically, the idea is a (nearly) entirely city-based campaign, where the PCs would be drawn into local political intrigues. The occasional fight with criminal gangster-types aside, combat would play a distinctly secondary role.

I guess I was wondering if players tend to enjoy these kinds of games, or if anyone could offer me advice as I set out in the design process to help me avoid or at least be aware of any pitfalls you all have experienced.

Not all players will enjoy it; some will enjoy it immensely. All-social MU*s certainly draw plenty of players interested in intrigue and politics (such as the one linked in my sig).

I love it, myself. I just had some plans that have been laid out over the last year (i.e. 12+ months) start drawing to fruition, and it's immensely gratifying. Feeling like an evil genius is a real high... :smallredface:


Goals are your friend.

This is so true (as it the rest of oriong's post). Players who do not have goals for their characters become lost, frustrated, and annoyed. The GM can be a big help here; you have to provide goals at the outset:

At character creation, work with the players to connect their PCs to your world and city; a bunch of strangers would have no reason to stick it out and stay for the duration, so to say, but characters with families, property, land, businesses, inheritance, tenure, etc. in the city will. Make sure they're connected to each other somehow, too.
Give each player several (2-4) goals at the start, privately. They can discuss these among each others or keep them secret, but must work toward them.
The biggest pitfall of intrigue-based games, though, is that it requires a lot of thought and some smarts. It's not for casual players who don't put a lot of thought or effort into the game.


Dreads' suggestion of print-outs is great, too. The players will need to have a LOT of information about the city and the world, and some information about important people and locations and events. It has to be readily available and referenceable, so a print-out is great. (Some old RuneQuest adventures used to come with booklets of "Player Information," which did all of this very well.)

This ties in to another important thing: you need to have a lot of things written up in case the PCs come into contact with it, indirectly or directly. Guilds and their prominent members, religious groups and priests, rulers, criminal organizations and bosses, important craftsmen, influential land-owners, and so on and so on. You have to be prepared for as many situations and player decisions as you possibly can.



I think the key is not to have any particular plot planned ahead of time. Instead, set up conflicts but do NOT have any particular solution to them in mind. Let the players come up with the solutions, and just run them through the resulting mayhem.

Of course, you control NPC reactions to the players' actions - use these reactions to drive additional conflict - no action is without consequence. Again, leave it up to the players to come up with solutions.

Yes. You should know what happens in the world independent of the PCs - events, timelines, and so on - but you shouldn't craft plots where you need the PCs to do X. You just push the events out there, and see what happens to them. PCs act, NPCs react, NPCs act, PCs react, PCs act... it should all be self-sufficient and self-generating. Remember: there is always a reaction, and that reaction will (must!) invariably create more RP and activity.


Unlike Gamebird, I feel coercion and force are viable options in RP focusing on intrigue and politics - but you should make sure a lot of powerful NPCs are beyond them (after all, if they could be killed, charmed, controlled, or removed so easily, they would already have been). They don't have to be personally powerful, but if they're still around, they are obviously somehow capable of dealing with people like the PCs.

However, I feel "you do X, which is quite cunning, so Y happens, no dice rolls involved" is a lot more viable in this sort of game, where the focus isn't on skills and chance, but on decisions. Making right decisions and cunning plans should almost invariably lead to success, without a chance for die rolls to screw things up. (Although mixing things up with random misfortune now and then is also a good idea.) It shouldn't be about your Bluff against his Sense Motive - it should be about finding out what the best thing to say is, and the other person reacting as he must react to what you say...

This sort of game is where real powergaming really comes to its own; the true powergamer crafts elaborate and meticulous plans that entrap opponents in the desired outcome - the very essense of intrigue! Oh yeah.


You can do this in D&D because the mechanics shouldn't come into play that much, but frankly, you'd be better of running this sort of game in another system - one that actively supports intrigue and social RP (D&D actually actively hinders both, in some small ways).

Beleriphon
2007-02-09, 12:07 AM
The concept of the bigger fish always bugged me. Why can't my character, after working very hard, become the biggest damn fish there is? Eberron actually encourages this by not having any leaders be above 12th level, unless they are also set up as a primary campaign villains, even some of the primary villains aren't that powerful in a stand up fight.

This makes things more fun for an intrigue style game. Sure your group of 25th level epic cheese wads can kill all the rulers of all of the kingdoms, but you have a more significant problem when all of those countries fall into civil war. Yay, for civil war!

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-09, 02:21 AM
You can do this in D&D because the mechanics shouldn't come into play that much, but frankly, you'd be better of running this sort of game in another system - one that actively supports intrigue and social RP (D&D actually actively hinders both, in some small ways).


A good point - I agree that D&D was clearly not built for RP with a lot of dice-rolling. I think the combat mechanic is more thoroughly laid out because a lot fewer people understand how combat works and there is a lot more that could potentially be outright unfair without a structured combat system. Hell, I've been doing various martial arts for nearly a decade and I still don't know how it works.:smallsmile:

I wonder though, what are you referencing when you say D&D actively hinders intrigue and social RP? Are there any house rules (like the Giant's IMHO quite excellent variant Diplomacy skill) that you would recommend? Alternatively, assuming I can both find the right books or whatever, are there any other systems you would recommend?

thanks to all! Everyone's advice continues to be really really helpful, and has made me think about issues I would have totally never predicted before! Again, anything more anyone could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Quietus
2007-02-09, 02:32 AM
It doesn't really support roleplay that well where dice are concerned. Sure, you can roll in, make a couple Diplomacy checks, and make the city love you, making the excuse that "my character is better at smooth talking than I am". But that's hardly exciting roleplay, is it?

Conversely, you might have a political intrigue adventure. This time, there's much LESS dice-rolling; You do most of the important things through roleplay directly, with perhaps a single Diplomacy check, modified by how well you roleplayed an encounter. Maybe a couple Bluffs/Intimidates here and there, or a quick Diplomacy to smooth accidentally ruffled feathers. This will involve a lot less die-rolling, and more roleplay on the part of the players. You don't really *need* to have dice rolling to do a social interaction scene at all.

That said - I wouldn't say that D&D actively hinders anything. It simply doesn't have as robust a system for supporting roleplay/intrigue as it does for combat. In all honesty, I think that's a good thing - roleplay is roleplay, dice-throwing is dice-throwing. They're not meant to be treated the same.

oriong
2007-02-09, 03:00 AM
The major problem that happens with D+D social skills is that it is very different from stuff like combat.

In combat it's often a series of hit, counterattack, hit again, repeat, with the use of various strategies, feats and magic to add complexity. Wearing down the enemy while suffering the possibility of defeat yourself.

Social interaction on the other hand has about the same complexity as climbing a tree: You have a DC, you roll the dice, you make it or you don't.

The simplicity of the social interaction system is often it's downfall for two reasons: First, it's predictable and reliable. It's very easy to say 'okay, with X in my Social Interaction Skill of Choice I will be able to do Y' and focus just on getting that skill to that level, or even just 'with X in SISC I can do Y against anyone of Z level or less due to the probably maximum skill ranks'. This predictability makes breaking the system a lot easier because once you've reached the goal there is little risk left.

The second problem is that of level. Many D+D skills are unnopposed and solely DC based, meaning that an opponent's level doesn't factor into things: you can use diplomacy on the Epic Level Martin Braveheart and his 1st level brother just as easily to turn them into fanatical servants. This, while realistic, is unbalanced since it gives the social PC a vastly different scale of tools, especially since it's, legally, just as easy to persuade the king to be your best friend as it is a guy down at the bar.

Some things, like the giant's diplomacy system, modify this and take level into account but that brings up more problems. While level can be a balance issue there isn't, logically, any reason why a 20th level fighter with wisdom 6 should be harder to trick than the one at 1st level. It also brings up a problem of balance, by making someone difficult to persuade they have to also be high level, you can't have a stubborn accountant who isn't a 10th level X, meaning everyone in the beauracracy ends up with massive abilities simply to make it tougher for the PCs to just charm them into doing what they want.

The fact that one opposed roll usually ends mechanical social interaction one way or the other is also not a good thing.

You might look at abstracting social interaction in the vien of something like Exalted's Social Combat system.

Gamebird
2007-02-09, 01:21 PM
Unlike Gamebird, I feel coercion and force are viable options in RP focusing on intrigue and politics - but you should make sure a lot of powerful NPCs are beyond them (after all, if they could be killed, charmed, controlled, or removed so easily, they would already have been). They don't have to be personally powerful, but if they're still around, they are obviously somehow capable of dealing with people like the PCs.

Yes, of course. Force and coercion are viable options. I don't think I'm communicating my point very well. As characters get more powerful, they get more options as to how to respond to a situation. In combat this is fairly easy to see and clear cut - as the characters get more levels and spells and powers, they can do different things. In a role play based game, you might (or at least I was) misled to believe that because PCs refrain from wanton killing or harming at one point, that they might refrain from it later on. What was interesting was how much of a PC's morals and morality was dependent on their ability to kill and get away with it.

I know that hundreds of psychological studies have confirmed the same thing and I don't have the most rosy view of people. But it was still surprising to me. That a character would choose to use a 3rd level spell to enhance his chance of success is expected. There's no moral choice there. A powerful character in a role playing game will use violent means to enhance his chances of success as well - violent means that are usually viewed as evil and wrong to use on other people whose sole "crime" is to resist the PC's will, holding a viewpoint or a loyalty that places them counter to the PC's aims.

It's something I always had difficulty dealing with. I saw it to differing degrees in the players. Some had no compunctions about using every tool at their disposal to achieve their goals. Others had limits only crossed in times of urgency or great frustration. I can't remember anyone though who ever said anything like, "My character won't do that. He'd rather die." You run into that sort of thing a bit more often in a combat game than you do in a role play game (or at least that's been my experience).


I wonder though, what are you referencing when you say D&D actively hinders intrigue and social RP?

What oriong says here:
The major problem that happens with D+D social skills is that it is very different from stuff like combat.
...
The fact that one opposed roll usually ends mechanical social interaction one way or the other is also not a good thing.

D&D incorporates spells and skills that end or eliminate role playing. You can role play a conversation for an hour, with the PCs trying to determine if their contact is telling the truth and is trustworthy, or they can roll a single die each (Sense Motive) and metagame/out of game discuss the odds and decide what to do.

D&D gives very little benefit to fluff and tactics that don't involve character build. Some of the mechanics discourage anything but a straight-forward assault (Spot/Listen vs. Hide/Move Silently - a good sneak has to make *every* roll, whereas a guard need only make one to foil them; PCs are usually easily identified as not-monsters and thus have trouble infiltrating the "standard" dungeon; short duration on many spells) and certainly the game is explicitly geared towards such fights (four encounters a day which the PCs will have limited knowledge of beforehand, can't rest between them, etc.)

These things work against a role playing game. When your players spend all their time discussing how to optimize their build or research a better spell, then they're not role playing. When they talk about moving to a particular battlefield square for the extra +2 flanking bonus, they're not role playing.

Role playing involves talking in character, making decisions based on what the character knows about the game world, talking to NPCs to learn more (rather than reading the game book). D&D is so mechanical that it makes a very poor vehicle for role playing. And I'm not even going to get into how the alignment system impacts this.

oriong
2007-02-09, 01:54 PM
I'd disagree gamebird, the mechanics don't interfere with roleplaying at all. The game's mechanics are built for a certain specific type of game, and therefore it works best, roleplaying and mechanics-wise, when played that way.

D+D doesn't discourage role-playing at all, it simply limits the types of suitable roles. For example, the alignment system isn't at all prohibitive unless you're looking to play a particularly morally complex character. And like I said it's social interaction rules are extremely limited, thus making it more difficult to handle games that focus on these situations.

D+D was a game made to handle certain types of play, that's all. The problem comes with the fact that many people attempt to try and make it something it isn't and end up frustrated. It's not role-playing prohibitive.

Why should moving to flank prohibit roleplaying? Mechanical motivations only conflict with roleplaying when your character ends up doing something he normally wouldn't simply because it's more beneficial mechanically. This is a problem with the PC, not the system.

clarkvalentine
2007-02-09, 02:01 PM
In combat it's often a series of hit, counterattack, hit again, repeat, with the use of various strategies, feats and magic to add complexity. Wearing down the enemy while suffering the possibility of defeat yourself. Social interaction on the other hand has about the same complexity as climbing a tree: You have a DC, you roll the dice, you make it or you don't.


This is an excellent observation. To get around it, I tend to call for many rolls during a social conflict or important conversation. With each back and forth between a PC and NPC, I'll often call for some sort of roll. Sometimes a single conversation, if it's particularly vital, can involve a dozen Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive rolls. Sometimes other skills factor in as well.

It makes the give and take of social conflict a lot more like combat.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-09, 03:32 PM
The concept of the bigger fish always bugged me. Why can't my character, after working very hard, become the biggest damn fish there is?
He can. You just have to work very hard. And then there are the gods. :smallamused:

Person_Man
2007-02-09, 03:51 PM
If you need any ideas, just read any Chicago newspaper on a regular basis. They have some crazy ward politics that regularly involve bribes, gambling, prostitution, murder, racial tensions, theft, racketeering, arson, gun sales, gang warfare, etc. And since everyone is a Democrat, its almost entirely based around personality and power-mongering rather then ideology.

I could easily see a campaign where the PC's are coming of age and get recruited by a local crime family, or street gang, or rich/important noble. They send the PC's on a series of roleplaying and Skill heavy quests to expand their influence, moving up the ladder of the organization as they go. Once they reach mid-levels, their patron is killed, and they have to fend for their own (ie, take over the family, or run for public office, or work for law enforcement to take down criminals, etc).

Detective novels also make for excellent city based roleplaying fluff. Give the PC's a mystery and some clues, then let them interview witnesses and investigate the crime.

Gamebird
2007-02-09, 04:51 PM
The Sopranos HBO show is good for that sort of stuff too.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-10, 05:09 AM
These things work against a role playing game. When your players spend all their time discussing how to optimize their build or research a better spell, then they're not role playing. When they talk about moving to a particular battlefield square for the extra +2 flanking bonus, they're not role playing.

Role playing involves talking in character, making decisions based on what the character knows about the game world, talking to NPCs to learn more (rather than reading the game book). D&D is so mechanical that it makes a very poor vehicle for role playing. And I'm not even going to get into how the alignment system impacts this.

While I think you're right that the kind of metagaming, min-maxing thing is a little unrealistic and people don't think like that, I would point out that people do look for ways to get ahead, and sometimes that means (either intentionally or unintentionally) building certain skills, whether that means slaving over a physics book, conning someone into doing your work for you, or spending time at the gym working on your left hook. While they don't use the language "I think I'm going to take Improved Unarmed Strike," they could easily say "I want to be able to defend myself better" or the like, and Improved Unarmed Strike might be the abstract D&D representation of that. It doesn’t mean it’s not roleplaying – it’s kinda like speaking a different language.

Similarly, combat is, I think, one of the best arenas for role-playing available. People who have some combination of training and experience in combat simply behave differently on the field of battle, whether that means keeping your head/face guarded (which a lot of beginning martial artists forget to do) or preventing an opposing group from capturing your flank. At the same time, people who are experienced combatants, particularly experienced with each other, will almost naturally work out that they can help each other out (translation: flanking). While certainly a 1st level cleric probably doesn't know that, even a 1st-level fighter almost certainly has enough knowledge to make things as easy for themselves as possible. In game, we might use a language of pluses and numbers and what-not (I try to limit OOC conversation as much as feasible), but it is in fact a representation of things that could easily be in-character.

Of course, telling PCs that everything they do is now in character is another option, though it’s hard to say "I'm going to try to do XXX" and still be in character. Also, I think mandating training for feats and new skills might help “nudge” players towards more role-playing. Also, being extremely precise about material components for spellcasters, meaning they have to find some way to procure some very obscure items.


To get around it, I tend to call for many rolls during a social conflict or important conversation. With each back and forth between a PC and NPC, I'll often call for some sort of roll. Sometimes a single conversation, if it's particularly vital, can involve a dozen Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive rolls. Sometimes other skills factor in as well.

I really like that model, as well. To make this easier, you can use a dice roller to print out a page of d20 rolls (that's like easily over a thousand numbers), keep it secret from the players, and just refer to it as you go along, doing the various characters' modifiers in your head. With practice, you can get good enough at this that it doesn't even look like you're breaking from the conversation to do a skill check.

It helps also to break down the list of "sub-convincings" that would need to be successful for the larger persuasion roll to take place. Eg, it's not just convincing the king that an assassin is plotting to kill them- you have to convince god knows how many people, including the king, that you are both not as assassin yourself and that you're trustworthy, that there is an assassin plotting, and that the king is in imminent danger. When the traitorous adviser tries to convince the king otherwise, you have to out-convince them. Each of those could, itself, have several "sub-convincings," all requiring skill checks. Again, the sheet of d20 rolls is crucial to keep the conversation flowing, and plotting out exactly what the king thinks, and everything that would be required before the king would consider the threat credible, is a must. A lot of work, but its really fun work.

---
The other thing that is definitely an issue is how a low-mid-level NPC-class-dude could possibly have enough ranks in diplomacy/bluff/sense motive to establish a business empire (sorry I couldn't find the exact wording). I would point out that, in a world of opposed diplomacy and bluff/sense motive checks, it doesn't matter what your absolute skill check is in whatever skill. What matters is how good you are relative to other people. Considering that, in all probability, most business elite people are probably still mid-level NPC classes, relative to each other they’re all still rivals. What makes the PCs heroes is that between their renown, experience, etc, they have achieved a level of power where most people are inclined to believe what they say. Not to go StarTrek on you, but it’s like the PCs are becoming the Borg- why bother laying a complicated web of deception when you could just beat the crap out of anyone who said no? Knowing that the PCs are so powerful, NPCs should be inclined to follow their lead, if only for self-preservation.

Futhermore, one might say that said NPCs could have profession skills that give synergy to bluff, sense motive and/or diplomacy checks in a specific situation (ie, business negotiation, management, court, etc).

Besides which, diplomacy/bluff/intimidate != mind control. Even if people believe your lie, they’re still going to do what’s in their best interest, and they’ll still take proper precautions if they’re smart.

I realize this is a huge freaking post, but what do you all think of these ideas?

Thomas
2007-02-10, 06:43 AM
I wonder though, what are you referencing when you say D&D actively hinders intrigue and social RP? Are there any house rules (like the Giant's IMHO quite excellent variant Diplomacy skill) that you would recommend? Alternatively, assuming I can both find the right books or whatever, are there any other systems you would recommend?

The Diplomacy mechanic, for a start.

I'd just houserule interfering mechanics away, and replace them with simple opposed tests (Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy, Diplomacy vs. Bluff, etc.) and ad hoc DCs. (Maybe with some general guidelines for DC modifiers.) I'd also do away with the Unfriendly / Helpful / etc. dispositions.

Then I'd hardly use those skills at all. If you suspect someone's lying, you can decide to roll Sense Motive (preferrably the DM makes the roll), and the DM tells you what's up. Swaying crowds, getting someone's vote at a council meeting, and so on... it should all be about what you decide - i.e. what you decide to say. I'm not expecting people to be eloquent - I'm fine with "My character tells them that..." - but I'd want players in an intrigue-centered game to put enough effort in to figure out the right things to say. If they say them, success is sure. If they don't, they blew it.

A good political game wouldn't require skill rolls at all, really. There'll be the occasional situation where everything hangs at the balance - like a PC and a NPC making equally persuasive arguments to an audience - where you'd want a roll as a fair tie-breaker, but that's about it.

This also happens to nicely get around level issues; the skill modifiers don't matter. The successful people manufacture situations where others must take certain actions. That's what intrigue is about. My evil manipulator characters wouldn't get very far if they had to convince people, face to face, through sheer glibness or charisma, to act as they wish (Bluff or Diplomacy); creating a situation where the other person will inevitably decide to act in a certain way is the smart thing to do. (Of course, this assumes people act rational and smart; it doesn't account for random flashes of staggering idiocy or emotion... but those just spice things up. It'd be boring if everything always went the way you plan.)


Many systems don't get in the way of social RP (anything with simple fail/succeed skill mechanics and an opposed skill system). Games like Fading Suns (and 7th Sea, Rokugan, etc.), World of Darkness (Vampire, etc.), and so on are actually geared toward social RP. In HeroQuest, combat and debate use the exact same resolution mechanics (and appropriate traits and abilities can augment your skills, directly affecting your success).

The experience and EL systems, as presented in the books (i.e. the systems that hint at what's supposed to happen in a game), are completely centered around combat-based gaming. Games with skill-based advancement (old RuneQuest) put the focus on skill use, and games with abstract experience systems (i.e. awarding X experience points which are used to increase skills and buy advantages) let the focus shift any which way. Just the fact that D&D is level-based brings a ton of problems along with it (oriong pointed several out in relation to Diplomacy).

The spell system is hugely focused on combat and dungeoneering. Comparing the spells to, say, Fading Suns' theurgic rituals and psychic abilities... the focus of those powers is to make a more exciting and dynamic story.


Yes, of course. Force and coercion are viable options. I don't think I'm communicating my point very well. As characters get more powerful, they get more options as to how to respond to a situation. In combat this is fairly easy to see and clear cut - as the characters get more levels and spells and powers, they can do different things. In a role play based game, you might (or at least I was) misled to believe that because PCs refrain from wanton killing or harming at one point, that they might refrain from it later on. What was interesting was how much of a PC's morals and morality was dependent on their ability to kill and get away with it.

I know that hundreds of psychological studies have confirmed the same thing and I don't have the most rosy view of people. But it was still surprising to me. That a character would choose to use a 3rd level spell to enhance his chance of success is expected. There's no moral choice there. A powerful character in a role playing game will use violent means to enhance his chances of success as well - violent means that are usually viewed as evil and wrong to use on other people whose sole "crime" is to resist the PC's will, holding a viewpoint or a loyalty that places them counter to the PC's aims.

It's something I always had difficulty dealing with. I saw it to differing degrees in the players. Some had no compunctions about using every tool at their disposal to achieve their goals. Others had limits only crossed in times of urgency or great frustration. I can't remember anyone though who ever said anything like, "My character won't do that. He'd rather die." You run into that sort of thing a bit more often in a combat game than you do in a role play game (or at least that's been my experience).

Here's where expecting powergaming is a definite advantage. :smallwink: I expect my players to use every spell, ability, power, angle, piece of information, and tactical advantage to the fullest, exploiting, manipulating, and blackmailing others to get what they want. If it's an intrigue-centered game, then that's all par for the course, even.

clarkvalentine
2007-02-10, 11:33 AM
A good political game wouldn't require skill rolls at all, really.

My experience tends to be exactly the opposite. Like I've said several times, in the political game I'm running, I prefer to have game mechanics - including rolling on social skills - supporting the roleplaying.

RP it out, say what you want to say (equivalent to "I swing at him with my sword") - then make a roll to see how well you say it (equivalent to "Does it hit?").

Thomas
2007-02-10, 05:05 PM
RP it out, say what you want to say (equivalent to "I swing at him with my sword") - then make a roll to see how well you say it (equivalent to "Does it hit?").

I just don't see very many situations where that should be necessary.

"I remind him that I've got a witness that'd put him on trial for treason, and that it's in his best interest to comply."
"Roll Diplomacy."
"... what? If I don't sound persuasive, he'll elect to go on trial for treason?"

"I smirk and ask if he thinks he can find another supplier for the ore in this town - knowing I've eliminated all competition already."
"Roll Diplomacy."
"What, to see if he decides he'd rather go out of business?"

There's going to be some situations where it's up to chance, but not very many; and even those could be better handled by dramatic imperative (what solution is the most fun?).


Edit: On the level of gaming principles, dice rolls are for when the DM doesn't know what would happen. When you're dealing with people - detailed NPCs - the DM mostly does know what would or should happen. If you say X to this person, he'll do Y. If A happens, this guy will do B.

oriong
2007-02-10, 05:09 PM
I think the problem there is that assumes a whole lot on the scheming ability of the player. If the player is an expert manipulator and (more importantly) has the power to pull of his plans then yeah, you can create no-win scenarios where your victims have little choice in the matter.

However, if neither of those apply then you've got a situation where you probably do need some dice to roll to help out. The game is after all designed to be played by most anyone, not just those who are masterful planners (even if they aren't and their character is).

It seems that it's assuming too much of both their players and their opposition. In both the examples you give there are plenty of opportunities for dice rolling other than just 'roll diplomacy to see if he does what you want'. First and foremost might be some gather information checks to find this witness, intimidate or diplomacy to force him to testify (since it's quite possible the person you're putting pressure on is dangerous), and of course actually convincing the guy that A) you're not bluffing and B) he can't get out of the trial. Both are good possibilities for dice rolling (not to mention the 'opponent' could push his weight around to make sure the trail never happens). That's a whole lot more complexity than what you're representing.

In the second case I seriously doubt that every single source of competition was eliminated without the need for at least an intimidation roll.

Thomas
2007-02-10, 05:12 PM
If the players can't scheme, it's not an intrigue game at all. It's a regular game with some challenges based on overcoming DC X with your Diplomacy skill.

If the players are not interested in intrigue and willing to put in the thought (that's all it takes; you don't need to read Sun Tzu or Machiavelli, you don't need to be smart, you don't need to understand economics or politics or sociology...), then there's no point in playing an intrigue-based game.

oriong
2007-02-10, 05:14 PM
I just think you're exaggerating how 'effortless' it is (see some edits in my above post)

clarkvalentine
2007-02-10, 06:35 PM
"... what? If I don't sound persuasive, he'll elect to go on trial for treason?"

Does he believe you?


"What, to see if he decides he'd rather go out of business?"Does he find the threat credible?


If you say X to this person, he'll do Y. If A happens, this guy will do B.Personal interaction is almost never that simple. Some people are simply better at scheming than others; there is a skill to it. It's not just coming up with the right thing to say, it's selling it - you can plan on saying exactly the right thing, and choke at the wrong moment, leading your opponent to react in a way you did not expect. The smooth talking bard with a ton of Diplomacy ranks is going to be better at that than the fighter with the social skills of a doornail.

Gamebird
2007-02-12, 10:54 AM
...people do look for ways to get ahead, and sometimes that means (either intentionally or unintentionally) building certain skills, whether that means slaving over a physics book, conning someone into doing your work for you, or spending time at the gym working on your left hook. While they don't use the language "I think I'm going to take Improved Unarmed Strike," they could easily say "I want to be able to defend myself better" or the like

That's no more role playing than working on a car's engine constitutes driving it. Role playing means playing a role. It can include describing combat manuevers, but if you think combat is one of the best arenas for role-playing, then I think we're using totally different paradigms.


...it’s hard to say "I'm going to try to do XXX" and still be in character. Also, I think mandating training for feats and new skills might help “nudge” players towards more role-playing. Also, being extremely precise about material components for spellcasters, meaning they have to find some way to procure some very obscure items.

That isn't role playing either. Role playing involves making choices that reflect the sort of character you're playing. Like... if your character hates creepy-crawlies, you'd refuse to learn or cast Spider Climb because of the component - a live spider. Having a list of material components, or working out the locations where your character would find them isn't role playing. It's just a bit of character-related accounting.


why bother laying a complicated web of deception when you could just beat the crap out of anyone who said no?

Thank you! You have said, in so few words, exactly what I started off trying to say. The DM of an intrigue/politics game must beware of laying out a carefully interconnected web of intrigue, because a sufficiently powerful PC will find it easier to beat the crap out of anyone who thwarts them, than to unravel the intrigue.


On the level of gaming principles, dice rolls are for when the DM doesn't know what would happen. When you're dealing with people - detailed NPCs - the DM mostly does know what would or should happen. If you say X to this person, he'll do Y. If A happens, this guy will do B.

I agree. That's how I always do it. Most NPCs make decisions based on the situation as they know it, not based off some dice roll a PC makes. The very fact that PCs don't have to make their decisions based off NPC's Bluff checks should make it clear what's going on here.


I think the problem there is that assumes a whole lot on the scheming ability of the player. If the player is an expert manipulator and (more importantly) has the power to pull of his plans then yeah, you can create no-win scenarios where your victims have little choice in the matter.

However, if neither of those apply then you've got a situation where you probably do need some dice to roll to help out. The game is after all designed to be played by most anyone, not just those who are masterful planners (even if they aren't and their character is).


Personal interaction is almost never that simple. Some people are simply better at scheming than others; there is a skill to it. It's not just coming up with the right thing to say, it's selling it - you can plan on saying exactly the right thing, and choke at the wrong moment, leading your opponent to react in a way you did not expect. The smooth talking bard with a ton of Diplomacy ranks is going to be better at that than the fighter with the social skills of a doornail.

Both of these replies boil down to the same quandary. How much do you want to play the game based on dice rolls, rather than decisions and choices by players?

More later.

Gamebird
2007-02-12, 11:32 AM
Okay, continuing (dang work, keeps interrupting my posting!)...

Sitting around rolling d20s is kind of fun. You roll, you see what you get, compare it to your friend, and so on. It's like making characters. That's pretty fun too. Or playing cards, shooting dice, or playing Chutes and Ladders, Chess, Scrabble, etc. They rely mostly on chance, but some have elements of strategy as well. Such a game can be indisputably fun, as shown by the ageless attraction of casting lots.

I have a 7 year old son. He's getting to be a decent Sorry player. He's mastered the rules of Chutes and Ladders. He's passable at Go Fish and Connect Four. If you'll notice though, the earliest games don't have much strategy involved in them. They're just chance for the most part.

Playing D&D in such a way that it's a dice game of Bluff vs. Sense Motive, Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy can be fun. There's nothing wrong with playing it that way.

However, it's not the only way to play it. And if you're running a game of intrigue, role play and political manuevering, then you probably don't want to run it that way, anymore than you want to play out combats on a chess board.

3.X has worked really, really hard to eliminate random variables from combat. The DMG discourages DMs from using rough terrain too much, or having dungeons be dark, or using monsters the PCs know nothing about (though that's the PHB that discourages that last one, by including Knowledge checks to thwart any attempt by the DM to "surprise" the players). This reduces combat to a series of dice rolls. Strategy is still very important - good use of your abilities, the terrain, fortifications, cover, magic and so on can turn the tide of battle.

There is another way of playing though. Gaming doesn't have to be a tabletop computer game, with limited options and no point in role play. A D&D game that has this other dimension can see entire battles avoided or won or lost without a single attack roll being made. You could talk your foes into surrendering. You could recruit help to go along and overpower your enemies so much that there's no point to fighting it out. You could buy a scroll of a spell that nullifies all your foes. 3.X also discourages these sorts of solutions, by considering it not challenging and awarding very little or no xp.

Non-combat interactions can be set up the same way. Sure, your players might not be smart enough, or advanced enough to handle it. I've sure had more than my share of those. And for those, a more dice-related, straight-foward sort of game is more appropriate and enjoyable for all involved. But if your players can handle intrigue and like a game that challenges them more than trying to remember when to rage or smite or how to get into flank without provoking an AoO - then there is another way to play the game.

It takes a very canny DM to pull off, though.

valadil
2007-02-12, 11:42 AM
Admittedly I haven't read all the posts here. That said, here's my two cents. I generally run games similar to this. Maybe with a bit more combat. The characters are allowed to resort to combat if that's what they want to do, but it isn't usually the focus of a situation.

My games are not for everyone. I always make this clear when I start a new game. I send out invitations to potential players and tell them that my games are about interactive storytelling. If they're joining the game to try out some new build, then they won't be satisfied playing in a game I run and I won't enjoy having them at the table, so they shouldn't sign up for the game.

So far, the players have been happy with things for the most part because I laid all that information out ahead of time.

The challenge for me in writing a political game is writing it. It is exceedingly difficult to write politics in an engaging way. I feel that it takes a lot more creativity than a combat encounter, even an interesting one. Writing combat is very mechanical for me. You just sit down and do it. On the other hand, writing story and politics tends to involve a bit more writers' block. If I can't come up with good story for a session, I fill it with combat instead.

One thing to look out for in a political struggle is compromise. 95% of the time I've seen is really just group a wanting this and group b wanting that, so the PCs act as mediators to the compromise. Boring! Well, I guess it's okay if you do that once or twice as the political segment in a normal game. But if every session is about mediating a compromise, both you and your players will get bored. Make the issues into things that can't be compromised. Make sure that the people arguing come from different enough backgrounds that they don't share the same common ground. Most importantly, make sure that one issue leads to another. You can't just settle on something and be done with it. One side won't be happy about it, so they'll strike back. Or the new solution will have unforeseen consequences. You need to make new issues arise from the old ones. Even better if you can have several issues active at any given time, especially if they all interact. To use an example from modern politics (and please don't start debating the actual politics here - it's just an example), look at gay marriage and evolution vs creationism. The issues aren't related, but the religious right has firm views on both and this affects politics regarding both. I'll stop commentating now for fear of sparking a flamewar on this topic.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-12, 11:55 AM
You (EDIT: Gamebird) make a whole slew of really good points, and I'm going to try to address a couple of them in a couple minutes. Yay whirlwind posting!

What I meant by encouraging role-playing would mean getting PCs to make decisions- not what they would choose feat or skill-wise (though I would argue that having Power Attack vs. having Combat Expertise vs. having Dodge could be a reflection of the character's personality, and thus the use of the feat in combat could be a very limited form of roleplay- ie, PA guy is aggressive in social situations, Combat Expertise guy is exceedingly patient, Dodge guy avoid social confrontations as much as possible). Rather, more like getting them to try to find a teacher, then negotiate training costs, then what if _____ happens to the teacher. This could be the source of some decisionmaking, which means that sufficiently advanced enough players could use it as a space in which to roleplay.

that balance of dice-rolls v RP is tricky - on one hand, you want to reward PCs who jack up their social skills as much as PCs who jack up their combat ability, but on the other hand you do want to encourage RP.

Assuming sufficiently advanced players who could roleplay, how do you encourage roleplaying while still rewarding PCs who have social skills? Does it have to be a trade-off?

Gamebird
2007-02-12, 12:01 PM
Something else to keep in mind for the political/intrigue game is that from time to time (say, every 5 or 10 encounters/situations), someone is motivated by something irrational or coincidental.

True story:
A few of my husband's redneck friends got drunk in college and drove around at night in their pickup. They saw a freshly dead armadillo in the road. Being rednecks, and quite drunk, they got the brilliant idea of tying a rope to the critter and dragging it along behind them. And so they drove around a bit. Eventually the comedy paled and they decided to go home. Not wanting to take a dead armadillo with them, they pulled into the next parking lot and detached it. Then they had another flash of alcohol-inspired genius. They'd have one last laugh out of the roadkill - they'd tie it to the eave of the business they were stopped in front of, which happened to be a bar or nightclub that none of them knew anything about, having never gone to it.

They tied it up and went home, then slept it off. Next day they drive by the bar and see it still swarming with cops. Day after that, big headlines about the "Death threat to gays" and "Gay bar receives death threat" and "Gay leaders speak out against homophobia and hate crimes". Within a week, the bar shut down and the owners moved away. The cops never did figure it out, but the incident was mentioned several times over the next couple of years as an example of small town hate.

But... really, they were just drunk.

Gamebird
2007-02-12, 12:08 PM
Assuming sufficiently advanced players who could roleplay, how do you encourage roleplaying while still rewarding PCs who have social skills? Does it have to be a trade-off?

Do you mean: Assuming sufficiently advanced players who could roleplay, how do you encourage roleplaying while still rewarding PCs who have no social skills?

First, you have to have a GM able and willing to run a complicated story. Assuming you have one, then you have choices:
1. Run an intrigue-based game. Realize that some players just aren't going to keep up. The GM can then give those players hints and tips from time to time, or encourage them to have a mentor or cohort that will allow the GM to more actively suggest things to them.

2. Don't run an intrigue-based game. Even if some of your players, and the GM, are up for it, you can always dumb things down (no offense intended). For example, I like running games with a lot of moral ambiguity. I had several players, at the start of the campaign, say they wanted a game with moral clarity. So that's what I'm running. If I ran a game with a lot of moral ambiguity, me and maybe half my players would enjoy it, but half would hate it. One with moral clarity, everyone's having a good time, though admittedly a few would enjoy things a little more grey.

3. Attract players for the kind of game you're going to run. As valadil said, not all games are for all people.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-12, 12:32 PM
Actually, I meant how do you reward players who put their skill points/feats into more socially-oriented skills (eg Diplomacy, Sense Motive, the feats from PHBII) instead of all combat-only stuff, while still encouraging RP?

Thanks again to everyone for all their advice!

oriong
2007-02-12, 01:08 PM
I don't think skill points and dice are superfluous to intrigue oriented gaming. I do think gamebird brings up a few good points, I disagree with some but they're not terribly relevant to this subject anyway so no point in going into them.

But the purpose of the dice in a social/intrigue style game is not simply to insert randomness (after all, it's rare that there are as many 'chance' incidents in a discussion as there are in a frenzied melee). I'd say their primary purpose is a way to divorce both the Player and the DM from the situation and to ensure a sort of 'fairness' to a situation.

In many situations they aren't necessary. If a player comes up with a mutually beneficial idea that is superior to any obvious alternative should he have to make a diplomacy check to have someone accept it (assuming the other person is intelligent and informed enough to see the benefits and not hostile)? Probably not. Should a PC have to make a bluff roll to tell someone he's never met his name is Tim instead of Tom? Again, probably not.

However, it often falls to the DM to rule on much harder situations. Let's say the PC wants to pull out a big con. The DM clearly knows it's a lie, so how can he, in fairness, determine if the NPC buys it or not? Especially if the NPC has reason to doubt the PC ("Yeah I know there was some bad business last time, but trust me that wasn't my fault."). The dice are a fair way to settle this. The same is especially true for things like intimidation, or opposed arguements, say two lawyers arguing a case.

My suggestion on how to better integrate the dice as a story element rather than a pure randomness factor ("the king flips a coin and you lose") is have the dice roll represent unknown elements rather than random elements: a way to construct an NPC as you go along. For instance if a PC is attempting to use Bluff to con Mayor Tim into giving him a grant of cash rather than giving it to St. Cuthbert's School for Criminally Wayward Young Ladies, the PC is just 1 point off on his roll. Don't make it that the PC just stutters randomly or starts getting an insane nervous tic in one eye, maybe say that the Mayor's daughter attends the school and the grant would go towards the music wing, towards which she has a passion. You now know a bit more about Tim, have fleshed out the world a bit, and also provided possible reasons why Tim might accept or refuse other offers.

Gamebird
2007-02-12, 01:32 PM
Actually, I meant how do you reward players who put their skill points/feats into more socially-oriented skills (eg Diplomacy, Sense Motive, the feats from PHBII) instead of all combat-only stuff, while still encouraging RP?

I don't give xp for combat. In fact, I don't give it for role play. I give a fairly set amount of xp per game, which varies depending on how much the PCs actually accomplish in a game. If they go to a new place, learn lots of new stuff, have long conversations, or even just argue with each other over the ethics of reading an evil book - they get a higher than normal amount. If they have a hard fight against a new opponent, are really challenged, use tactics effectively - they get a higher than normal amount. If they don't have any meaningful encounters, argue without any character development, get engrossed in trivial details, bog down the plot or insist on playing out combats no different than any other combats they've ever had - then they get less than the normal amount.

I tell people up front that no skill can change an NPC's attitude. Diplomacy will let you haggle. It will also inform you about proper manners within your society. It will also tell you about what sort of thing someone is likely want in a given situation - an idea about the standard bribe, how much higher than the settling price a merchant will start, when its possible to haggle with the Wizard's Guild, the going rate on mercenaries, that fey will be offended by an offer of cash, but a dragon will be offended if you don't offer them something of tangible, fungible value.

That hasn't discouraged PCs from social skills. My most engaged PCs are heavy on social skills. I use the skills to give the PCs information (Knowledges are big in my game as well), not as a mechanism for them to succeed or fail. It tells them things about the situation and then the PC tells me how they use the information.

clarkvalentine
2007-02-12, 01:39 PM
Playing D&D in such a way that it's a dice game of Bluff vs. Sense Motive, Diplomacy vs. Diplomacy can be fun. There's nothing wrong with playing it that way.

However, it's not the only way to play it. And if you're running a game of intrigue, role play and political manuevering, then you probably don't want to run it that way...


There's something in between playing it that way and ignoring the character sheet altogether. The intrigue game I've been running for over a year now is extremely successful, and we make social skill rolls all the time - as a complement to roleplaying, not a replacement for it.

Thomas
2007-02-12, 02:10 PM
Gamebird - you word my own sentiments about the "importance" and role of dice and dice rolls so much more eloquently than I did. Brava!

(But then, don't I recall you often referring to V:tM games you've played/run? No wonder, then...)


Something else to keep in mind for the political/intrigue game is that from time to time (say, every 5 or 10 encounters/situations), someone is motivated by something irrational or coincidental.

The bane of every plotter.

Classic manipulation (just like detective novels) relies on everyone acting very rationally on the information you have. It doesn't account for people doing something stupid or random...

clarkvalentine
2007-02-12, 02:22 PM
Classic manipulation (just like detective novels) relies on everyone acting very rationally on the information you have. It doesn't account for people doing something stupid or random...


Which is why George RR Martin's world is so damn interesting... :smallbiggrin:

Josh Inno
2007-02-12, 06:39 PM
My biggest advice is that balancing a murder mystery is hard to balance between to hard, to easy, and often requires you to make sure you know both your players and their characters mental capacities quite well.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-12, 07:52 PM
Something else to keep in mind for the political/intrigue game is that from time to time (say, every 5 or 10 encounters/situations), someone is motivated by something irrational or coincidental.

True story:
A few of my husband's redneck friends got drunk in college and drove around at night in their pickup. They saw a freshly dead armadillo in the road. Being rednecks, and quite drunk, they got the brilliant idea of tying a rope to the critter and dragging it along behind them. And so they drove around a bit. Eventually the comedy paled and they decided to go home. Not wanting to take a dead armadillo with them, they pulled into the next parking lot and detached it. Then they had another flash of alcohol-inspired genius. They'd have one last laugh out of the roadkill - they'd tie it to the eave of the business they were stopped in front of, which happened to be a bar or nightclub that none of them knew anything about, having never gone to it.

They tied it up and went home, then slept it off. Next day they drive by the bar and see it still swarming with cops. Day after that, big headlines about the "Death threat to gays" and "Gay bar receives death threat" and "Gay leaders speak out against homophobia and hate crimes". Within a week, the bar shut down and the owners moved away. The cops never did figure it out, but the incident was mentioned several times over the next couple of years as an example of small town hate.

But... really, they were just drunk.

I just want to say I'm ... I'm shocked.

Back to the thread, my 2 cents is from a player's perspective. I played in an email detective game, and I have to confess that I got totally lost and the DM had to throw me a bone. Or several. Eventually he said I should have known something because of a game we did in person. But that game was months beforehand played around midnight.

Quietus
2007-02-12, 08:34 PM
That's part of the problem with getting a bit TOO freehanded as a DM. I've found that it's a very, VERY thin line, and one that's none too easy to walk.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-12, 08:57 PM
Clarkvalentine, could you provide an example of the balance you strike between straight dice rolling and ignoring the sheet? Or have you already and I need to read back a few posts? It's a very interesting idea and I for one would like to hear/read more!

Case Studies in responding to various people:
While yes, people don’t need someone to tell them what their interest is and if the PCs are the only way they are going to get what they want, a Diplomacy check isn’t necessary. But let’s say A) the PCs are competing for a project or B) the interest is not very clear.

Here’s the situation (it’s a repeat of sorts): word spreads through the adventuring/underworld community that assassins are plotting to kill the king. The PCs decide to offer their services to the king.

A) So, let’s say the PCs and another party are both vying for the job of organizing the king’s defenses. They are of equal level, etc etc, but on the way to the castle, the PCs get ambushed by enemies intent on keeping the king’s defenses weak. Due to DM sadism (the bane of all players), nearly all of the party is disabled, leaving only one of the PCs able to go to the castle to convince the king to hire the party. When he gets there, he finds that another group of adventurers is already there trying to “woo” the king into hiring their services. Now, whether the PC is able to secure the job for his group is going to be contingent on how good an argument he makes, yes, but also how he makes it- and 10th-level half-elven bards with maxed out Cha and Diplomacy are going to be better at this task than a first level half-orc Barbarian.

Think "My Liege, I humbly ask that you allow your most-impeccable court to be sullied with my presence so that I might convince you to pay the smallest of sums to hire your humble servant and his comrades to end the assassination threat on your most Royal Highness by way of describing in as much detail as your Highness desires the experience of our company, and, if your liege desires, our defense plan" or whatever versus "Me and friends hit good. We want hit bad guys good for you. One time, we bust heads of goblins. Blood go splat. We make bad guys' heads go splat." Honestly, who is the King more likely to listen to?

And their character sheets will pretty much guaranteed reflect this difference in style- how good the character is role-played shouldn't really supercede this- the party should prefer to have the bard doing the propositioning there every time because it's his training to be persuasive. This is why you can't give too much lee-way based on good role-playing

B) alternative situation: the PCs hear the rumor, but the King hasn't received intelligence indicating a threat to him. Again, the kinds of intonations and words used might be important, because you're appealing to both the King's logic (hiring more elite bodyguards for a one-shot price of a few hundred gp is probably not that big of a deal) and his emotional fear (oh god assassins are going to kill me!). Assuming you have a half-elf bard as before, how he says something (ie, all the flattery, etc) may need to take a backseat to exactly what he says. Eg, if the bard says, "My liege, we wish to inform you of an assassin's plot against you and we wish to assist in your Royal defense," is probably a lot better than "My liege, i fear you will die tonight." The latter could be interpreted as a threat. I would rule that the Diplomacy check, and all the awesome bonuses the bard would get with it, would determine how threatened the King feels, not what the king views the source of the threat is- instead, the substance of what the character says should be very important. Thus, sometimes the dice are not as important as the RP.

Do people agree with my interpretations of these two different cases?

clarkvalentine
2007-02-12, 11:31 PM
Clarkvalentine, could you provide an example of the balance you strike between straight dice rolling and ignoring the sheet? Or have you already and I need to read back a few posts? It's a very interesting idea and I for one would like to hear/read more!

I can't recall if I talked about this on this thread or another...

I tend to play RPGs with a bunch of frustrated actors and fiction writers, so it's never crossed any of our group's minds to simply substitute a social skill check for meaningful roleplaying. I was taken aback when I read here that was how some people played.

That being said, we still want to incorporate mechanical differences between the PCs in social situations. As has been observed, the experienced diplomat is going to be better at convincing people to see things his way than the low-charisma fighter. We also want to allow shy players, or naturally introverted players, or players who have simply had a long, tiring day at work and can't quite fully engage their brains that night to play against type.

Accidental insults, misinterpreted allusions, nonviolent political intimidation, bluffs, etc. etc. I like it when a political back-and-forth has a ton of rolls in it, each roll not meaning a whole lot in and of itself but adding up to the whole discussion - much like combat. Each individual roll doesn't generally affect the NPC's mechanical attitude (although that happens when appropriate) so much as affect the tone and course of the conversation.

Example, from my own game (sort of):

PC is the eldest son of a noble lord. He's arriving at the castle of another noble lord; his mission is to convince the other noble lord to pledge to support his family and lands in the event of an attack from reaving ironborn ships (the setting is A Game Of Thrones).

GM: "There are dozens of people in the castle courtyard. The dignified but practically-dressed man descending the steps of the keep as you dismount can only be Lord Jason Mallister. Give me a roll to see if you recognize any of the others with him. Knowledge (nobility and royalty).

Player: "Uh..." *rolls* "24."

GM: "OK, that's enough to get a few of them. You recognize " (list a few of the important nobility, but he missed the DC - 25 - I had in mind to recognize one of the guys he needs to be seriously careful of...) "Lord Mallister extends a hand. 'Young Lord Ashford. I received your raven only this morning, so I am somewhat unprepared for your visit.' Give me a Sense Motive."

Player: *rolls* "27."

GM: "He's lying. The raven got here a lot earlier than this morning. He's trying to put you off balance."

Player: "Really. Hm. I respond: 'Lord Mallister, I am pleased that you have agreed to see me. My father sends his regards.'"

GM: "Oh, mention your dad. Nice touch. Give me a Diplomacy roll." (Here, mentioning his dad is an interesting move. The roll is to see how tactfully he pulled it off - there is some history that the PC isn't aware of there. Failure doesn't mean Mallister will throw him out of the castle, but it could mean that Mallister interprets it as name-dropping rather than genuine greetings. )

Player: *rolls* "Crap, only a 12."

GM: "Mallister raises an eyebrow. 'Yes, I'm sure he does. Anyway, your note spoke of urgency, shall we retire to my personal chamber to begin discussions?"

Player: "'Of course.' Hey, is there anyone offering me bread and salt?"

GM: "Nope." (The PC is of noble birth, I just assume he knows the rules of hospitality in this culture - these include offering bread and salt to visitors. No roll necessary.)

Player: "Damn. As we go in, I'll inquire about it."

GM: "How do you want to do that? That's a pretty blunt thing to just bring up."

Player: "I know, but I want it anyway. The only thing I trust him to do without a legal contract is to cut my throat in my sleep. 'Lord Mallister, before we begin, may I have something to eat?'" *rolls* "That's a 16 Diplomacy."

GM: "Mallister pauses in his step, turns around, and glares at you. 'Lord Ashford, I hope you do not feel... unsafe.'"

Player: *rolls* "That's a 24 Sense Motive. Did I insult him?"

GM: "Oh, heck yeah. He knows you're asking for bread and salt."

Player: "Crap. Time for a joke. 'Of course I do, my Lord, but I'm simply surprised that... I was told your castle was made from bread and salt, being here on the sea.'" *rolls* "That's a 23 Bluff. And a terrible joke."

GM: *rolls* "But your roll was good, though, so you actually come up with something wittier than that. He laughs at the joke and motions for a servant to bring you food and drink, including bread and salt."

etc. etc. You get the idea.

Two of my favorite skills for social situations, aside from the usual social skills, are Appraise (Is the deal he's offering a fair one, or am I getting fleeced?) and Knowledge (useful for all sorts of things, not the least of which is synergy bonuses for making bluffs or sensing them about particular topics).

Hope this helps,

- Clark

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-13, 01:00 AM
:smallbiggrin: can't spend too long on this response, but dude that's totally awesome.

Thomas
2007-02-13, 01:09 AM
Back to the thread, my 2 cents is from a player's perspective. I played in an email detective game, and I have to confess that I got totally lost and the DM had to throw me a bone. Or several. Eventually he said I should have known something because of a game we did in person. But that game was months beforehand played around midnight.

No notes, huh?

Mystery games are a whole different kettle of fish, requiring immense work from the GM. If they fail, frankly, it's always the GM's fault. The e-book GURPS Mysteries is an incredible resource for that sort of game.

Gamebird
2007-02-13, 10:19 AM
Do people agree with my interpretations of these two different cases?

Eh. Could go either way. For the first example, it depends on the king. Now of course if I have nothing worked out on the king (which isn't the case, even though I have no intention of the PCs ever meeting him), I might use a roll as a guide. But I'm more likely to roll to determine his alignment, deity, background (or at least which social strata he most identifies with), and a few others things.

Some people, when approached with flattery and honeyed words, become wary and unsettled, finding it to be suspicious. An honest "Og smash" approach might make more headway. You never know - and neither would an experienced bard. Actually an experienced bard would know that before he commits himself to an approach, he needs to find out what kind of man the king is and what he values. You don't go in there blind, any more than a lawyer asks questions in court he doesn't know the answers to.

That's why it's a series of back-and-forth checks. My games tend to run more like what clarkvalentine describes, but with fewer checks. I wouldn't have rolled to see if Mallister was insulted or a check for bringing up the father's name. If there was a Bluff check at the end, that would be at the player's request (not mine) and it wouldn't mean the NPC would forget about the barb - just that he recognized the PC was trying to soften it.

(I recall a time when a PC tried to Bluff his way out of having been caught pick-pocketing someone. He failed the first time and then insisted that he be allowed a retry. I told him bluntly that no - he'd gotten one attempt to excuse his hand being where it shouldn't be and his explanation had been really poor, in addition to rolling very badly against the NPC's natural 20 on Sense Motive. He could try to Bluff the guards or the jailer or the judge later - all of whom were long-accustomed to people trying to Bluff them. His character ended up as an indentured servant and he had to make a new one.)

Matthew
2007-02-13, 06:09 PM
I usually look at Social Skills, apply a 'take 10' attitude and then roleplay the situation out with the scores as one of the directional indicators.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-28, 01:04 PM
I realize this thread hasn't had much in the way of readers/posters for a while, but if anyone is still interested in the topic, I just found a book by Penumbra Games called "Dynasties and Demagogues" which is unfortunately 3.0, but still AMAZING for political campaigns, with a mechanic for everything from debates to elections, with lots of advice on how to run political-intrigue oriented games. Even cool PrCs, feats, etc.

If you can, you should check it out for no other reason than inspiration...

clarkvalentine
2007-02-28, 05:33 PM
I'll second AoiRorentsu's recommendation. I've used it extensively in the past, and it's fantastic.

- Clark

Sardia
2007-03-01, 03:00 AM
One helpful thing to throw in (or at least track) in a political game is access-- whose ears can a given character drop a word in should the occasion arise. Being a cleric might not make you the most socially-adept player in the game, but if that character garners a post as court physician, he's got the king's ear every time the king gets a cold or a clyster. A fighter's similarly bad at chatting up the court, but if he's the duelling instructor to a noble he's got a chance to hear gossip and influence regularly.

Just something to do to avoid getting up to your ears in Bards and Rogues.