PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Including PC in setting Politics



Stryyke
2016-12-06, 08:07 PM
I have been working on a bigger project than I am use to running, and need some advice. The DM side will be heavily political, while the PC side will start small. I have all of the pieces in place, all the NPCs ready to go, basically I'm ready to start recruiting maybe next week. So while reviewing the progressions of events, I am having a bit of difficulty trying to figure out what to do if one, or more, of the players decide they want to get involved in the major plot-lines.

Specifically, I'm thinking of armies. What to do if one or two players want to join an army, and the others don't. Or if the group splits and joins opposing armies. I don't want to restrict them from doing so, but I am not a big fan of splitting sessions into 2 or 3 parts. That always leads to someone getting upset about how much time I spend with the other guy.

And even if they all join the same army, they will undoubtedly go to different specialties. They could literally never encounter each other again.
I need to figure out the best way to handle these eventualities. Because it's inevitable that they'll want to join one army or the other eventually. My preference is that they form an army of their own and support other armies with their force, but how do I gently nudge them in that direction without making my intent too obvious.

Any thoughts on the topic are welcome. Thanks.

MarkVIIIMarc
2016-12-06, 11:24 PM
Mercenaries have some say in what jobs they take on, who they work with and when. You could nudge them that way.

Winter_Wolf
2016-12-07, 12:59 AM
Have the PCs assigned to a special task force where they'll end up working together anyway even if they're all going to different specialties. Or maybe especially if they're doing that.

Probably goes without saying, but do whatever you can to discourage PCs from getting in opposing armies.

Stryyke
2016-12-07, 01:03 AM
Special task force. Yea. I think I can make that work. Good idea.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-07, 01:18 AM
I have been working on a bigger project than I am use to running, and need some advice. The DM side will be heavily political, while the PC side will start small. I have all of the pieces in place, all the NPCs ready to go, basically I'm ready to start recruiting maybe next week. So while reviewing the progressions of events, I am having a bit of difficulty trying to figure out what to do if one, or more, of the players decide they want to get involved in the major plot-lines.

Why wouldn't you be planning on that being a possibility when you set things up? The great game is always a draw for some people.


Specifically, I'm thinking of armies. What to do if one or two players want to join an army, and the others don't. Or if the group splits and joins opposing armies. I don't want to restrict them from doing so, but I am not a big fan of splitting sessions into 2 or 3 parts. That always leads to someone getting upset about how much time I spend with the other guy.

That's not really politics. Give it an out-of-game hard-line, "Look, I can't run a split like that. Either you all sign up or none of you do." Sometimes ya just gotta be direct. Which would be worse; having to bound their actions by your own limitations or letting them go beyond those limitations and letting the inevitable conflict get loose and damage the game?


And even if they all join the same army, they will undoubtedly go to different specialties. They could literally never encounter each other again.

Easy, when they're green you assign them to the same unit as auxiliaries and when they do something cool, promote them as a group and make them a special action team. Boom, done. When you're in the military, you don't get to choose where you go.


I need to figure out the best way to handle these eventualities. Because it's inevitable that they'll want to join one army or the other eventually. My preference is that they form an army of their own and support other armies with their force, but how do I gently nudge them in that direction without making my intent too obvious.

That requires initiative. Best you can do is plant the idea in their head by having an NPC with the dream of doing just that and put him in close to the PC's so they hear it with some decent frequency.

Stryyke
2016-12-07, 01:30 AM
That requires initiative. Best you can do is plant the idea in their head by having an NPC with the dream of doing just that and put him in close to the PC's so they hear it with some decent frequency.

Nice. Even better, perhaps would be having a similar group rise through the ranks of one army and become famous. Then the civilians of the world would be talking about them a lot. That could definitely work.

And I say politics, because, in the end, I anticipate one or all of them having a very high degree of influence in the political arena. They would undoubtedly get their start through martial might, but keeping them together so they don't end up at opposite ends of the political spectrum is what has me worried. Each individual is going to be drawn to one side or the other, and all the players in the groups I participate in are very RP centric. If they feel that their character would be drawn one direction or the other, they go that way. I'm like that too. If my character would do something I, the player, know is stupid; I do the stupid thing. So it's important to make sure there is ample IC reason for them to stay together. This world is pretty big, and I have 8 different political "sides." Very easy to get drawn in a way that is no good for unit cohesion.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-07, 02:31 AM
Nice. Even better, perhaps would be having a similar group rise through the ranks of one army and become famous. Then the civilians of the world would be talking about them a lot. That could definitely work.

Umm... Merc groups are typically founded by retirees in a medieval-ish setting. You don't get to retire when you're at war and doing so when you're just on the brink is something that would be -very- poorly recieved if it was allowed at all. It's your plot, though.


And I say politics, because, in the end, I anticipate one or all of them having a very high degree of influence in the political arena.

Do any of them have any political skill? Do you? Influence is one thing, the will and skill to use it is quite another. I'm willing to answer questions if you have any specific scenarios you want to run down but there's -so- much in politics to consider, even before you worry about international and war-time concerns.


They would undoubtedly get their start through martial might, but keeping them together so they don't end up at opposite ends of the political spectrum is what has me worried. Each individual is going to be drawn to one side or the other,

Could you elaborate? If they're all so ideologically different, why are they working together in the first place? Though I suspect that merely serving together -should- be enough to keep them together.


all the players in the groups I participate in are very RP centric. If they feel that their character would be drawn one direction or the other, they go that way. I'm like that too. If my character would do something I, the player, know is stupid; I do the stupid thing. So it's important to make sure there is ample IC reason for them to stay together. This world is pretty big, and I have 8 different political "sides." Very easy to get drawn in a way that is no good for unit cohesion.

Always remember, the players control the characters not the other way around. "It's what my character would do" is -not- adequate reason to cause problems on its own. Be honest with your players. Tell them that splitting the party is not something you can handle for this campaign. There's nothing wrong with trying to stick to the characters' motivations and traits but there's nothing wrong with putting reasonable limits on PC actions either.

Stryyke
2016-12-07, 02:59 AM
Umm... Merc groups are typically founded by retirees in a medieval-ish setting. You don't get to retire when you're at war and doing so when you're just on the brink is something that would be -very- poorly recieved if it was allowed at all. It's your plot, though.

Actually, that citation was in response to internal task forces, rather than mercs.




Do any of them have any political skill? Do you? Influence is one thing, the will and skill to use it is quite another. I'm willing to answer questions if you have any specific scenarios you want to run down but there's -so- much in politics to consider, even before you worry about international and war-time concerns.

The setting is something I'm very familiar with, so in terms of setting politics, I will be fine. I am going to start recruiting for this campaign next week, but most of the normal players don't have any specific capabilities when it comes to politics. In fact, I would consider them relatively politically ignorant. But I figure only the face of the group has to be politically suave, so I'll focus on that when recruiting.




Could you elaborate? If they're all so ideologically different, why are they working together in the first place? Though I suspect that merely serving together -should- be enough to keep them together.

I was running through a different game as a pc, and the face of the party goes up to the king, insults him and his family, and starts making random demands. This caused quite a rift in the party, and it makes me nervous. How would I deal with that situation in a game? The party wanted to stay in the city with the king, but the face of the party wanted to join the opposition because he felt "slighted" because the king threw him in prison.

Of course, ideally, players would behave themselves; but what if half the group had sided with the face, and the other half with the king? For instance, what if the face and his brother take one side because of family bond; while the group just thinks they're idiots? I am loathe to break the 4th wall.




Always remember, the players control the characters not the other way around. "It's what my character would do" is -not- adequate reason to cause problems on its own. Be honest with your players. Tell them that splitting the party is not something you can handle for this campaign. There's nothing wrong with trying to stick to the characters' motivations and traits but there's nothing wrong with putting reasonable limits on PC actions either.

No doubt. This is my first major campaign. I've done many one-offs and short quests as DM, but the intricacies of the major campaign are markedly different. I'm trying to determine the best balance between letting them go their own way, and everyone going off in different directions; and forcing the group to stay together. I know that in the end they will have more influence in events, and are much more likely to survive if they stay together; but they don't necessarily know that.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-07, 03:14 AM
I was running through a different game as a pc, and the face of the party goes up to the king, insults him and his family, and starts making random demands. This caused quite a rift in the party, and it makes me nervous. How would I deal with that situation in a game? The party wanted to stay in the city with the king, but the face of the party wanted to join the opposition because he felt "slighted" because the king threw him in prison.

Of course, ideally, players would behave themselves; but what if half the group had sided with the face, and the other half with the king? For instance, what if the face and his brother take one side because of family bond; while the group just thinks they're idiots? I am loathe to break the 4th wall.

I believe I have identified your problem. You're trying to account for somebody going full-retard. There's no accounting for that. You just reach accross the table and smack 'im one then tell 'em, "never go full-retard."

Seriously though, you really can't account for that sort of thing. Best you can do is tell your players up front that you want this to be a fairly serious game and that taking obviously insane actions will not be appreciated. CN does not mean you're as likely to jump off of a bridge as cross it.

Stryyke
2016-12-07, 03:22 AM
I guess you are right. I really want this to go well. I'm pretty excited about the possibilities, and I guess I'm worried someone will ruin it like that. If they ruin my plan legitimately, I've no problem with that. Happens all the time that plans are ruined because the PCs turn right instead of going left. But that's probably the best advice. Before I start, let them know that we will have fun, but serious fun. No . . . what did you call it . . . going full retard. lol I think I'll use that exact phrase. lol Thanks.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-07, 03:27 AM
Much as I'd like to take credit, it's a meme.

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/30080/images/fullretard.jpg

hymer
2016-12-07, 03:47 AM
When you're in the military, you don't get to choose where you go.

I believe the phrase is 'If you're wearing a green tuxedo, you dance where they tell ya.' :smallyuk: Colonel Potter said that once.
I agree with everything you said, though there's room for a little manoeuvring in the hardline about joining up. Like "Guys, you all gotta go together or not at all. If you two don't like the thought of joining an army for good, maybe you could all compromise and join as mercs?"

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-07, 10:12 AM
Much as I'd like to take credit, it's a meme.


Please keep in mind that using the word "retard" as a pejorative is not looked well upon by those with mental disabilities and their friends.

Might I suggest alternatives like fool, idiot, ass, numbnuts, moron, blockhead, guy with head stuck so far up his rear end he's crying into his colon, guy (or indeed gal as necessary) so thick they make molasses look like soup, uberdummy, person lacking in common sense, walking argument for the apocalypse, walking argument against democracy since they potentially could vote, utter waste of carbon, or simply "Player with poor judgement".

GungHo
2016-12-07, 11:17 AM
I enjoy politics stuff, but you have to be careful with it. You have to learn how to give people enough rope to feel like they have some agency without letting them be able to run away with the campaign and do things that make no sense politically by allowing them to assume authority (within the game world) that they don't actually have. It does put you into a space where you may feel like you are small "r" railroading and introducing obvious inefficiencies, but in the political arena, checks and balances and bureaucracies are specifically designed to implement inefficiencies in the system in order to both centralize and decentralize power in intended ways.

Beleriphon
2016-12-07, 03:19 PM
Much as I'd like to take credit, it's a meme.

And it's from the movie Tropic Thunder, with the specific point being that in movies the headliner never portrays mental disabilities with full accuracy, since it makes the character some how less endearing. The stuff like Forest Gump, I Am Sam, or other movies where the main character has a serious mental disability, and the actors that portray them as Oscar Bait.

Either way, the implication don't good full dumbass is apt. A little dumbass is okay, but not full dumbass.

Incidentally, that black guy is Robert Downey Jr.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-07, 04:27 PM
Please keep in mind that using the word "retard" as a pejorative is not looked well upon by those with mental disabilities and their friends.

Might I suggest alternatives like fool, idiot, ass, numbnuts, moron, blockhead, guy with head stuck so far up his rear end he's crying into his colon, guy (or indeed gal as necessary) so thick they make molasses look like soup, uberdummy, person lacking in common sense, walking argument for the apocalypse, walking argument against democracy since they potentially could vote, utter waste of carbon, or simply "Player with poor judgement".


And it's from the movie Tropic Thunder, with the specific point being that in movies the headliner never portrays mental disabilities with full accuracy, since it makes the character some how less endearing. The stuff like Forest Gump, I Am Sam, or other movies where the main character has a serious mental disability, and the actors that portray them as Oscar Bait.

Either way, the implication don't good full dumbass is apt. A little dumbass is okay, but not full dumbass.

Incidentally, that black guy is Robert Downey Jr.

I'll say this as plainly and politely as I can.


I don't care. If something I say offends you, buck up and move on. If I offend you in general, as opposed to doing so in a specific instance, use the forum's block function. Your feelings do not dictate to me how I speak in a public forum. Good day.

Mendicant
2016-12-07, 04:48 PM
I don't care. If something I say offends you, buck up and move on. If I offend you in general, as opposed to doing so in a specific instance, use the forum's block function.

OR! Do neither of those things and instead call you out for it because, as you noted, you're in a public forum. If you don't like that people react negatively to nasty things you say, just buck up and move on.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-07, 04:58 PM
OR! Do neither of those things and instead call you out for it because, as you noted, you're in a public forum. If you don't like that people react negatively to nasty things you say, just buck up and move on.

That's exactly what I intend to do. Let me ask you -one- thing though. If I don't care, what good is "calling me out" supposed to accomplish? It's nothing but a thread derail into, inevitably, political discourse; a forbidden subject for this forum.

Stryyke
2016-12-07, 07:06 PM
I enjoy politics stuff, but you have to be careful with it. You have to learn how to give people enough rope to feel like they have some agency without letting them be able to run away with the campaign and do things that make no sense politically by allowing them to assume authority (within the game world) that they don't actually have. It does put you into a space where you may feel like you are small "r" railroading and introducing obvious inefficiencies, but in the political arena, checks and balances and bureaucracies are specifically designed to implement inefficiencies in the system in order to both centralize and decentralize power in intended ways.

I see what you're saying, but can you clarify the checks & balances you refer to. Do you mean in setting checks and balances, or OOC checks and balances. I think I'm ok in game, but if there are ways to (small)railroad events from a meta-game perspective, I could use all the ideas I can get.

veti
2016-12-07, 07:23 PM
It seems to me that if you can just keep the group together, you'll avoid most of the nastier possibilities. So what you need is a compelling reason for them all to stick together as a group. That's a character- or party-origin story.

Possible answers I've seen used in the past:

They're all employed by $AGENCY and tasked with a vague but important objective, which just happens to draw them into this nonsense. What holds them together is their sense of responsibility to and/or fear of consequences from their employer.
Variant on this: they're all prisoners, convicted (rightly or not) of (fill in blank per character), and forced to do this job on pain of execution.
They're all related. Family ties are extremely important, and as far as public opinion is concerned, if any one of them goes off the rails they'll all be held pretty much equally responsible.
They're all on the run from a shadowy but powerful force that wants to kill them all. They need to stick together for protection, and finding another powerful patron would improve that, but anyone splitting from the party has a better-than-50% chance of being found dead in a ditch the next morning.

Enjoy.

Knaight
2016-12-07, 07:35 PM
That's exactly what I intend to do. Let me ask you -one- thing though. If I don't care, what good is "calling me out" supposed to accomplish? It's nothing but a thread derail into, inevitably, political discourse; a forbidden subject for this forum.

It establishes for the record that other people are not on board with your speech patterns, and thus third parties can be informed of that particular bit of forum culture. Now, people can know that if they throw around the term "full-retard" the reaction they get will be at least partially hostile.

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-07, 07:51 PM
I'll say this as plainly and politely as I can.


I don't care. If something I say offends you, buck up and move on. If I offend you in general, as opposed to doing so in a specific instance, use the forum's block function. Your feelings do not dictate to me how I speak in a public forum. Good day.

OR! Do neither of those things and instead call you out for it because, as you noted, you're in a public forum. If you don't like that people react negatively to nasty things you say, just buck up and move on.

I was trying ask as nicely as I could. I'm not about to dictate what someone can or cannot say in this public forum, that's what forum moderators are for. What I was trying to do was inform you that your statements may be hurtful to people in ways you did not necessarily realize.

If you are aware that it might (though not necessarily) make people with mental disabilities uncomfortable or dislike you, and you wish to do it anyway despite alternatives being readily available, then that is your decision. I was trying to give you a heads up.

I'm not about to argue about it when it's not my fight anyway. I'm not a member of those groups so I don't dictate what they are made uncomfortable by any more than you do.

Stryyke
2016-12-07, 07:57 PM
Well in the beginning, their home region is being invaded. It should be easy enough to keep them together until their region is liberated. Since their region is part of a larger nation, I was going to have the queen enlist their help to seal the "dimensional rifts" that are allowing the enemy to appear in very dangerous places. And that should do for the second stage. Sometime during stage 2, they will start building a small force, so that by stage 3 they will have to decide whether to stay with the mother nation, or break away into their own. In stage 4, 3 separate armies are rampaging accross the known world. And since there are 30+ dimensional rifts, it's unlikely that the group will have found them all and sealed them. My hope is that by stage 4, they will have been together long enough that they will stay together just because. But once I present 3 armies, they could be tempted to align themselves with those. But if they do align themselves with a different army, then their mother country will almost certainly send a force to contain or wipe out the group. As long as the group, and their army remains independent, they can continue to grow their influence to the point where their home country cannot deal with them easily. And with multiple other threats, they would be forced to sign a peace treaty with the region, so they don't spread their armies too thin. Stage 5 has another very powerful army descend upon the continent from "away." Now there are 2 extremely powerful armies vying for power, and a series of other armies just trying to protect borders. Just when the continent settles into a state of equilibrium, the original threat from stage 1 invades again, but in much much greater force. In stage 6 the various armies realize they cannot handle this new threat while they fight each other, so must unify against the new threat. Stage 7 will deal with the rank and file dealing with their inability to put their grievances aside, causing a great deal of instability within the armies of the continent. And stage 8 will conclude the campaign with a major battle.

The "problem" is that if the group and their armies decide to remain part of any other country, their influence in the over-all politics will be severely limited. They will still be able to participate in minor quests, and battles; but they won't have any direct influence. I would, of course prefer that they declare independence, and have direct influence in the myriad decisions that have to be made. I think it would be more fun for them. But the campaign can progress no matter what they decide. It's the difference between running errands for the entire campaign, and actually being able to sculpt events.

Stryyke
2016-12-07, 08:03 PM
And please drop the drama. No matter what anyone says, someone can take offense. This isn't the forum for that discussion. Just leave it be. Thanks.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-07, 08:47 PM
It establishes for the record that other people are not on board with your speech patterns, and thus third parties can be informed of that particular bit of forum culture. Now, people can know that if they throw around the term "full-retard" the reaction they get will be at least partially hostile.

That accomplishes nothing but more hostility. It can only devolve into flame-wars and politics. I'm offended by tone and word policing but, most of the time, I suck it up and get along as best I can. It's been getting out of hand everywhere people communicate of late which is why I spoke up just this once.


I was trying ask as nicely as I could. I'm not about to dictate what someone can or cannot say in this public forum, that's what forum moderators are for. What I was trying to do was inform you that your statements may be hurtful to people in ways you did not necessarily realize.

That's just patronizing. No one under the age of 30 grew up without the internet and this particular matter has been enormous in the media over the last year. No one is unaware of the "offense" that certain people take at the use of politically incorrect terms at this point.


If you are aware that it might (though not necessarily) make people with mental disabilities uncomfortable or dislike you, and you wish to do it anyway despite alternatives being readily available, then that is your decision. I was trying to give you a heads up.

I'm fine with being polite. I will never be PC. "Political correctness is fascism disguised as manners." - George Carlin.


I'm not about to argue about it when it's not my fight anyway. I'm not a member of those groups so I don't dictate what they are made uncomfortable by any more than you do.

I never asked anyone to not be offended, just to keep it to themselves as I very nearly always do. Histrionics accomplish nothing.

In deference to the OP's request, that's the last I'll say on the matter. Good day.

GungHo
2016-12-08, 10:43 AM
I see what you're saying, but can you clarify the checks & balances you refer to. Do you mean in setting checks and balances, or OOC checks and balances. I think I'm ok in game, but if there are ways to (small)railroad events from a meta-game perspective, I could use all the ideas I can get.

In setting. The PCs can't get away with murder (figuratively or literally) unless people are letting them do that, and people need to let them do that. There's no reason for a King, PM, High Priest, or whatever, let the PCs run roughshod everywhere simply because they're PCs. Once you enter factions and politics among factions as an actual feature of the game, you start running into logical consequences of the murderhobo lifestyle, and enforcing those consequences may be seen as some sort of railroading, but you need to be confident that it's not. The murder part is extreme, but even if it's simply pillaging the area they're liberating as part of their war or favoring one faction's goals over another, there may be unfavorable consequences. You are not obligated to ensure that they can't make things much worse (for themselves or everyone else) by their participation in the political system if they are foolish or offensive.

veti
2016-12-08, 04:10 PM
Well in the beginning, their home region is being invaded. It should be easy enough to keep them together until their region is liberated. Since their region is part of a larger nation, I was going to have the queen enlist their help to seal the "dimensional rifts" that are allowing the enemy to appear in very dangerous places. And that should do for the second stage.

The danger here is that one or more of them might decide (a) the invaders look cooler than their own side, wonder if they're hiring, or (b) hey, all this chaos looks like an Opportunity to me, why are we working for this loser "queen" when we could be setting up on our own? I would make sure to have some extremely compelling reasons why these options are not on the table, just in case.

Once they've actually accomplished - something, then you can move seamlessly into one of the standard enforcement mechanisms: the enemy has noticed them and sent one of their elite assassins after them. They'll never see this person, but people they talk to might occasionally mention "someone was asking about you guys" or something like that - you should be able to drop enough hints that he's not friendly - and the first time someone wanders away from the party, engineer an encounter to scare the pants off them.


The "problem" is that if the group and their armies decide to remain part of any other country, their influence in the over-all politics will be severely limited. They will still be able to participate in minor quests, and battles; but they won't have any direct influence. I would, of course prefer that they declare independence, and have direct influence in the myriad decisions that have to be made. I think it would be more fun for them. But the campaign can progress no matter what they decide. It's the difference between running errands for the entire campaign, and actually being able to sculpt events.

It should be easy enough to discourage them from wanting to remain as lackeys of one army. Each army will have some high-up leader who sees the PCs as a useful asset (their patrons), but each army also has its own internal politicking. If they become too attached, simply have their patrons get ousted by their own political enemies - who of course will see the PCs as a dangerous rogue element, and might even start sending their own assassins at them. (Or they might have done it already, in preparation for ousting their patron. The more you can make the players hate them, the better.)

Stryyke
2016-12-08, 07:52 PM
It should be easy enough to discourage them from wanting to remain as lackeys of one army. Each army will have some high-up leader who sees the PCs as a useful asset (their patrons), but each army also has its own internal politicking. If they become too attached, simply have their patrons get ousted by their own political enemies - who of course will see the PCs as a dangerous rogue element, and might even start sending their own assassins at them. (Or they might have done it already, in preparation for ousting their patron. The more you can make the players hate them, the better.)

Yes. That should work nicely in this setting. Not every army has this built in, but I can definitely integrate it in any force. My guess is that, if they are drawn toward an army, it will be because they feel it is mighty. All of those armies have internal flaws that will make politicking them out quite easy, in fact.

Stryyke
2016-12-08, 08:02 PM
The danger here is that one or more of them might decide (a) the invaders look cooler than their own side, wonder if they're hiring, or (b) hey, all this chaos looks like an Opportunity to me, why are we working for this loser "queen" when we could be setting up on our own? I would make sure to have some extremely compelling reasons why these options are not on the table, just in case.


I doubt that will be an issue. A) The characters don't know, at the beginning of the campaign, that they are sovereign of a larger country. It's been generations since anyone from the mother country came to the area for any reason. Even the tax men. While they know OF the mother country, they don't realize they are a part. But that country is also geographically closest to them, so it would be a natural reaction to go to them for help. B) The initial encounters, and the concluding encouters, are with monstrous beings. As the world is 99% human, I doubt that a bunch of humans would want to join a bunch of nightmare monsters who are slaughtering their friends and family.

Though, now that I think of it, that could be a really interesting "Evil aligned" campaign in this setting. Hmmmm.

Satinavian
2016-12-09, 06:36 AM
I doubt that will be an issue. A) The characters don't know, at the beginning of the campaign, that they are sovereign of a larger country. It's been generations since anyone from the mother country came to the area for any reason. Even the tax men. While they know OF the mother country, they don't realize they are a part. But that country is also geographically closest to them, so it would be a natural reaction to go to them for help.If there is so little interaction that they don't know they are part, they simply are not part of it. All that is left is a claim. If the motherland tries to impose a direct control again, it will be seen by your players as a conquest under a pretense rooted in ancient history. Don't do that. Something like having the larger country being just a suzerain would probably work better. There are many ways to be under foreign control while still doing pretty much everything seperate and on a local level.

Also, having nearly no relation or contact to your geographically closest neighbour is not a very sensible premise anyway. With whoom do you trade or can make your little county all good by itself from recources conveniently within its border ? What is actually behind your borders if not a neighbour to interact with ?


Political games, more than most others bare possibly criminal investigation games depend on the setting and the NPCs and their relations and their motivations to be well thought ot and to make sense on nearly all levels. That is because you need your players to come to the right logival conclusions about NPCs and you need them to be able to guess political outcomes of their actions.

Stryyke
2016-12-09, 07:35 AM
If there is so little interaction that they don't know they are part, they simply are not part of it. All that is left is a claim. If the motherland tries to impose a direct control again, it will be seen by your players as a conquest under a pretense rooted in ancient history. Don't do that. Something like having the larger country being just a souzerain would probably work better. There are many ways to be under foreign control while still doing pretty much everything seperate and on a local level.

Also, having nearly no relation or contact to your geographically closest neighbour is not a very sensible premise anyway. With whoom do you trade or can make your little county all good by itself from recources conveniently within its border ? What is actually behind your borders if not a neighbour to interact with ?


Political games, more than most others bare possibly criminal investigation games depend on the setting and the NPCs and their relations and their motivations to be well thought ot and to make sense on nearly all levels. That is because you need your players to come to the right logival conclusions about NPCs and you need them to be able to guess political outcomes of their actions.

Well for starters, the place where things begin is extremely remote and geographically isolated. They have a swampland between themselves and the motherland, a large river at the edge of a huge unsettled forest to the south, and an enormous mountain range to the west. The only secure passage into or out of the area is a dirt road that passes 100 miles north of the town where the campaign begins. Traders from the motherland come through the area only twice a year because of how difficult it is to get to. The people of the land would, of course, look unfavorably upon the motherland coming to stake her claim, but that's not what happens. After a good bit of turmoil, the people realize they are ill-equipped to handle the current threat. At first, they fight on alone, but eventually they have to reach out for help. Or maybe they don't. There is flexibility there, especially since I'm hoping they will use the simple people of the area as the seed of their own army. But my guess is that they will reach out in order to minimize the damage to their homeland.

I think you are judging the stated isolation based on current technologies. Certainly in our society, it would be quite difficult to be so isolated. But just a few hundred years ago, major nations in our reality had areas much like I described. Heck, Scotland went through very similar ordeals, except they weren't geographically separated. Places in old USSR were barely part of the nation and didn't see tax collectors for generations. The concept isn't as far-fetched as you suggest. In fact, even with our current technologies, there are myriad examples of relatively self-sufficient areas that, while part of a larger nation, hold no loyalty to that nation. In the forests of Brazil, for instance, or the Northern reaches of Canada.

I suppose, to your other point, that I could just say that the region isn't actually a part of the motherland. But there are a couple reasons why I chose this specific relationship. First, it's a bit of foreshadowing for later in the campaign. The people in this area discover that their ancestors, from loooooong ago, were actually warriors. The country where they currently reside use to be independent, but they were wiped out, almost to a man. I think it may just give the players the background necessary to guide them to declare independence later on. Even if they opt to ask the motherland for help, they certainly won't be happy about it. Regaining their independence quickly and permanently will, hopefully, be the push necessary to achieve that outcome.

Second, it gives the players a gateway to bigger things. With two dimensional rifts right in their back yard they will eventually need a way to close them. When considering that, there needs to be a sensible first step. Being a part of that nation, provides the security that they can go there and learn what they need to with little danger. It's a safety net. I would like to draw them out of their home region, after all. Once they get some seasoning, then they can go back and secure their homeland.

Also, on a more political note, if a bunch of people from a different nation on your border came to you and asked for assistance; it's extremely unlikely that help would be provided. Conversely, if people from a remote region of YOUR land came and asked for assistance; the king is extremely likely to assist. Getting his armies into that area and starting to collect taxes from an isolated people would probably be enough draw to convince the king to send a battalion or so of troops to assist.

Satinavian
2016-12-10, 07:24 AM
I think you are judging the stated isolation based on current technologies. Certainly in our society, it would be quite difficult to be so isolated. But just a few hundred years ago, major nations in our reality had areas much like I described. Heck, Scotland went through very similar ordeals, except they weren't geographically separated. Places in old USSR were barely part of the nation and didn't see tax collectors for generations. The concept isn't as far-fetched as you suggest. In fact, even with our current technologies, there are myriad examples of relatively self-sufficient areas that, while part of a larger nation, hold no loyalty to that nation. In the forests of Brazil, for instance, or the Northern reaches of Canada.No, i am basing it on history.
If someplace is as far away that all people living there have forgotten to be part of some nation and every single aspect of central gouvernment is missing there, the reagion is not part. There is not more than a claim. That has happened extremely often, yes.

I suppose, to your other point, that I could just say that the region isn't actually a part of the motherland. But there are a couple reasons why I chose this specific relationship. First, it's a bit of foreshadowing for later in the campaign. The people in this area discover that their ancestors, from loooooong ago, were actually warriors. The country where they currently reside use to be independent, but they were wiped out, almost to a man. I think it may just give the players the background necessary to guide them to declare independence later on. Even if they opt to ask the motherland for help, they certainly won't be happy about it. Regaining their independence quickly and permanently will, hopefully, be the push necessary to achieve that outcome. And why would the motherland that not even receives tax or tribute feel compelled to help ? How would the citicens feel to waste the life of their soldiers to fight some third party in some remote place that is either seen as not part of the country or a part of the country which never fullfilled its obligation in the past (e.g. taxes, soldiers for other wars of the kingdom etc.) Nations don't protect regions that are de facto not part of them. Except if they want to hurt the invaders anyway.

Second, it gives the players a gateway to bigger things. With two dimensional rifts right in their back yard they will eventually need a way to close them. When considering that, there needs to be a sensible first step. Being a part of that nation, provides the security that they can go there and learn what they need to with little danger.That can be done with a trading partner as well.

Also, on a more political note, if a bunch of people from a different nation on your border came to you and asked for assistance; it's extremely unlikely that help would be provided. Conversely, if people from a remote region of YOUR land came and asked for assistance; the king is extremely likely to assist. Getting his armies into that area and starting to collect taxes from an isolated people would probably be enough draw to convince the king to send a battalion or so of troops to assist.Yes, that is the problem.

See, feudalism is basically giving and taking. The souvereign provides safety and protection, the vassal provides taxes and warriors. A queen would and should not rush to help a province in trouble if that province never paid taxes and stuff before. That is just not how it works.


You could however let the PCs in need ask for their country to become subjects to a foreign queen in exchange for the repulsion of invaders. Such thing did happen all the time. But even here the queen should think carefully if the future tax and other resources of the PC region is worth the cost of the war and if she can hold the region reasonably in the future.

Also bear in mind that the PCs should have to take a personal oath of fealty before getting any help, regardless how you decide to handle the country. The betrayal required to fight for independence after the souverain saved their home is a big thing in any remotely feudal society and beyond.

Stryyke
2016-12-10, 08:37 AM
'And why would the motherland that not even receives tax or tribute feel compelled to help ? How would the citicens feel to waste the life of their soldiers to fight some third party in some remote place that is either seen as not part of the country or a part of the country which never fullfilled its obligation in the past (e.g. taxes, soldiers for other wars of the kingdom etc.) Nations don't protect regions that are de facto not part of them. Except if they want to hurt the invaders anyway."

Why wouldn't a motherland extend aid to any part of her claim, regardless of how far away it is. When the British had claims in America, did they not send aid to help fight the local nationals? Of course they did. And that was across an ocean. Besides, what king would balk at the chance to collect taxes from those who haven't paid in generations. Sure they may be a couple hundred miles from the capital, but that isn't so much, even back then. Especially if that area has a product that others want (like coal, or iron, or tabac).

Also, any king would be startled at best when confirmation of a threat reached his ear: especially if the threat comes from a completely unexpected direction. If the Northern and Eastern borders are well guarded, it would be problematic to find that an army was to the west. How did the army get there? How big is that army? Who is responsible for an attack upon their claim? What are the political ramifications? As long as the group can provide evidence of the invasion, no king would turn his back. Kingdoms defend their claims.

The biggest question is exactly how grateful would the king be? Perhaps grateful enough to set them in charge of a distant claim? Maybe not that grateful, but enough to grant them a boon for sure.

Satinavian
2016-12-10, 09:11 AM
When the British had colonies, those usually were taxed. And the people living there knew about the British rule. There were also usually British troops present.

As long as the group can provide evidence of the invasion, no king would turn his back. Kingdoms defend their claims.No. They try to take the claimed land when they are strong and whoever rules it is weak. In every other situation they ignore it. Certainly they don't defend it when some particular strong new opponent attacks the uppity locals.

Besides, what king would balk at the chance to collect taxes from those who haven't paid in generations.You never get owned taxes for several generations back. You only could collect normal taxes in the future. Which is not a lot for some backwater swampy land. Most kings would indeed bark at the idea to go to war for that. But it is not impossible.

Also, any king would be startled at best when confirmation of a threat reached his ear: especially if the threat comes from a completely unexpected direction. If the Northern and Eastern borders are well guarded, it would be problematic to find that an army was to the west. How did the army get there? How big is that army?That would be interesting enough to send spies. Maybe even "military advisors", but not to send an army. If the country is that remote and behind a hard to cross marsh land, the invader does not seem that much of a threat to the heartland. better to defend the kingdom on the kingdoms side of the swamp, so that the enemy has the problem with overlong supply routes and difficult terrain.

The biggest question is exactly how grateful would the king be? Perhaps grateful enough to set them in charge of a distant claim? Actually, why not ?
- They know the area
- The locals like them
- They have better connections to the king and more trust than everyone else from there.
- They actually like it there
If there is no other local ruler who would make problems by being disposed in favor of the PCs and no other royal family mamber desperately in need of some position, there is no reason not to make the PCs (well, probably one of them if we have feudalism) the ruler of that stretch of land in the name of the king.

It has been very very common to accept local rulers for new territories in the realm. Because it is the easiest way. It is basically the norm whenever territory is aquired without a lot of bloodshed. It would be not uncommon to make the new allience even more tough by an act of political marriage.

Stryyke
2016-12-10, 07:42 PM
Marriage. A something I hadn't considered. I wonder if the king might set them in charge of the region on the condition that the face of the group marries someone down the line of succession. That could introduce a whole new storyline whereby the wife (probably) is spying for the king, and the player has to swing her around to his way of thinking. It would also make it much easier for the Baron, for lack of a better title, to go off gallivanting across the globe with someone he trusts at the helm in his home province. Make her a tomboy so the people trust her when the second attack comes. Better that the group actually be there, but if they aren't . . . Hmmm. Could work. I had a different plan, but good to make sure options are available.

Also, bear in mind I just suggested sending a battalion. That's a couple hundred soldiers or so. I wasn't suggesting that the King send all of his armies. Just a detachment to investigate.