PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Politics?



Fates
2013-10-10, 06:04 PM
In the D&D 3.5 campaign I'm currently DMing, three of the seven :smallsigh: PCs are about to participate in a sort of diplomatic council scenario.



Basically, they are each heads of their respective elf clans, and all the clans (who are subservient to a king and queen but still each have a degree of (un)official sovereignty) are in the midst of a dispute as to whether or not the elven kingdom should join forces with an alliance of dwarves, orcs, and goblinoids who are currently attempting to eradicate the oppressive theocracy that dominates most of the world (also the antagonist of the campaign), with the caveat that they *may* be out to drive the human race to extinction (there's a long history in the campaign of humans repressing the other races- the church is just the most recent case).

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out how exactly I'm going to run this in-game. The council consists of the ten clan leaders, the king and the queen, and two representatives from the aforementioned alliance. My current thought is to give a short description of the personality, goals, holdings, etc of the different NPCs on the council (with the exception of the king and queen), and allow the other four players to choose an NPC to play as (for fluff reasons, there is no way whatsoever that their characters could be present there), but this is flawed for obvious reasons.

The other issue is that I'm really not a terribly good improviser RP-wise. I usually write out lengthy dialogue for NPCs in the case of different player decisions, and then do my best to adapt those if necessary. But this discussion will most likely drag on a long time, and there are a lot of NPCs involved, and we'll be meeting tomorrow morning.

Any suggestions as to how to run such a discussion realistically without boring everyone present to tears? My players are pretty RP-happy most of the time, but I'm not positive that they'd all be happy with an hours-long debate, particularly those who wouldn't be playing as their own characters.

Thanks in advance,
Fates.

The Oni
2013-10-10, 06:13 PM
Players are PCs. If they don't have any way to influence the council's decision as their characters, they shouldn't have any say in the matter. I think roleplaying characters that are unrelated to them is likely only to break immersion in the campaign.

If they have any measure of influence in the politics of the city, though, perhaps throwing their support behind one of those NPCs would affect the outcome? Could they send messages pledging their support, or something?

Fates
2013-10-10, 06:58 PM
One of the NPCs is the son-in-law of one of the council members, and another is a second cousin of another (though the two have never met), but beyond that the other two players would have no way of manipulating the outcome unless they did so on their own initiative, and I could hardly simply tell them that that's what they're supposed to do.

I do agree that having the players roleplay council members would break immersion, which is why I was hesitant to do so. The only issue with having them work outside of the actual council hall itself is that they would have nothing to do between recesses. :smallconfused:

The Oni
2013-10-10, 07:47 PM
Then how's this:

Next town the PCs encounter, they go shopping as adventurers are wont to do. One of the merchants is practically GIVING away a stash of what look like very well-made Goblinbane weapons. Make sure to make him look very suspicious and/or stressed out.

When they push for info, he tells them about the alliance and how the weapons are about to become either useless or barred from sale per the terms of the alliance. There's your exposition.

Fates
2013-10-10, 11:58 PM
I appreciate the help, but an exposition isn't what I need. All the players are already well aware of what's going on at the moment.

I'll figure out something to do tomorrow, but right now, it's off to bed for me.

tasw
2013-10-11, 12:22 AM
I would take the players who can actually have a say in the council show up an hour early if possible and RP out the council then.

That way they can have their characters influence the world and the players who cant have that in this case dont have to sit around watching and waiting.

NichG
2013-10-11, 12:32 AM
So one thing I learned from having an arc of a campaign that was heavily political: don't try to make the politics realistic (in the sense of a stable world that isn't 'solved' by someone saying three sentences to a guy who should have figured it out by now).

Realistic politics is basically a bit of a dismal situation - everything that can be resolved is a form of capital that the people in the political situation have been spending for the entirety of their tenure. That means that the things that are left are thorny issues that no one wants to budge on, so there's very little for a smart player to go 'well why don't you give the other guy this, and he'll give you that' - in a realistic political scenario, those opportunities have mostly been snatched up.

This is dreadfully boring for the players. It means that there's going to be lots of frustrating 'lets talk to this guy - okay, he won't budge and he has good reasons not to that we can't easily get around, and threats/other overt things don't work because the system is well enough designed that assassinating a political figure doesn't mean you get to take their place'.

Instead, make the NPCs a little bit dumb. Make it so there are things where the NPCs will say 'why didn't we think of that!'. You have to balance it so that there's still a game to be had rather than just 'the PCs show up and fix everyone's problems' - maybe make it so that someone else smart has been manipulating everything and that has left a lot of snaggles that the PCs can resolve, and so that they're more directly trying to work against the influence of the Wormtongue of the scenario. Design it like a fight, where the other NPCs are the terrain, and the antagonist is moving them without necessarily exercising an incredible amount of subtlety in the process. Make bribes and threats work far better than they should for both sides. Things like that.

Basically you want to avoid making it seem like 'well thats a real problem we've got here, I'm stuck'.

Fates
2013-10-11, 02:21 AM
snip

Thanks for the advice! I admit, I've not run a long political encounter in the past, and I'll be sure to keep that in mind. However, I'll have to go against it to an extent for the following reasons:

1. The PCs are for the most part unsure as to which side to take on the issue.
This is because, while the Alliance is definitely morally questionable, the elves are likely doomed without their support- and only one of the PCs on the council is good-aligned, and that one is a half-elf and so is not equally represented (the elves are somewhat racist in this campaign).
For this reason, a large part of the politics will actually involve the NPCs attempting to win the PCs over, and for the players to come to an educated decision as to which side to support.

2. For RP reasons, some of the clans will have to be rigid in their decision. Part of the assumption in this is that, whether the council sides with the Alliance or the Independants, at least a portion of the clans on the opposing side will abandon the elven kingdom- the ultimate goal here, no matter which side is supported, is to win over enough of the neutral clans that the Elven kingdom will not be forced to disband and can reunite the clans through further diplomatic or, if necessary, military action. While some of the clans who have already established a side have are unsure of their decision and may be swayed to the other, some will likely be impossible to persuade barring drastic measures.

3. Annoying though it can be at times, my players are typically concerned with realism over practicality. As a general rule, they feel much more satisfied, and therefore better enjoy the game, if they are forced to strive hard to do so. I will implement a degree of stupidity (or at least gullibility) into all NPCs involved, but not to an outrageously unrealistic extent. That would serve only to break immersion.

4. The PCs might not be unified in their position on the matter, and so to have them able to convince the NPCs to follow their lead too easily might result in some sort of diplomatic arms race, which I'd like to avoid. There is currently a single clan which I plan to serve as a manipulative villain sort, but one of the realities of elf politics in this campaign is that most people involved are going to be self-serving and manipulative. Mind, some are much subtler than others, and there are a few genuinely good and honest people on the council, but even so, every clan has its own agenda and so the PCs will most likely have to find out what those agendas are before making a serious attempt at persuasion.


Although, that actually gives me an idea. All of the PCs who are not on the council are quite stealthy, and so could serve to help the other PCs in the realms of infiltration and subterfuge. Mind you, this is not meant to be an hour-long undertaking- we'll be lucky if the council has made its decision by the end of the five-hour session. But now I think I know how I'll keep the adventure interesting for those PCs who are not on the council. Thanks a lot for your help.


EDIT: Blegh, lots of typos and grammatical errors in this. Blame two consecutive sleepless nights and my cold for that, I guess. :smallsigh:

Acatalepsy
2013-10-11, 02:52 AM
Realistic politics is basically a bit of a dismal situation - everything that can be resolved is a form of capital that the people in the political situation have been spending for the entirety of their tenure. That means that the things that are left are thorny issues that no one wants to budge on, so there's very little for a smart player to go 'well why don't you give the other guy this, and he'll give you that' - in a realistic political scenario, those opportunities have mostly been snatched up.

That's not entirely true - there's plenty of places where there are immediate, obvious gains to be made, and smart people have suggested them, but the incentives don't line up right for the right people to actual cause it to happen.

There are two key points in all of this. One is that the PCs have to have power. Maybe not a lot of power. But they have to be the kind of people who can talk to the right people and be taken seriously. Perhaps more importantly, PCs often have what is, in politics, magic power unto itself - namely, independence of action. PCs usually aren't concerned about internal rivals or profits for their company or whatever - which makes them wildcards in a political scenario, who can be courted by NPCs and who can try to lever things to go the way they want by being unpredictable. PCs are also often the ones who get around a lot, which is critical - in a negotiation or political situation, simply having the authority of having been there, or having talked to multiple sides or factions, is power in and of itself.

The second is that the political situation isn't static. It's true that in any long-standing situation, all of the good deals will be made after a while - but PCs are usually responding to dynamic events, which means that the situation has changed, and that they're in a new situation. Even the simple decay of time means that nothing is ever really static. Given that PCs have lots of independence of action, and get around a lot, that means that they can and will be the first ones on the scene, so to speak. There exist good deals to be made, and the PCs can try shape the new 'business as usual' by shaping the agreements and politics before anyone else can get there and do it first.

Finally, remember that politics isn't about policy - it's not true now, and it's especially not true before the invention of the modern state, and definitely not in fantasy. It's about signalling loyalty, it's about who hates who, and who feels insulted, and who wants a bigger slice of the pie. It is in these factors, not the policy itself, that you have your game, and that's what political PCs will have to try and use to get whatever it is they want. Social pressure, lies, rumors, blackmail, etc - a word whispered in the right ear (I'm rather fond of "don't you think she looks tired?") - all of these are tools of the political PC. Even excluding dirty tricks, there's plenty in the form of "talking to the right people at the right time" to get the job done. It won't be a slam dunk problem solved everyone is happy situation after that, but an ongoing process - but presumably the PCs are just trying to get things "good enough" to solve the problem, not build long lasting coalitions (which can and will take constant effort).

NichG
2013-10-11, 12:30 PM
That's not entirely true - there's plenty of places where there are immediate, obvious gains to be made, and smart people have suggested them, but the incentives don't line up right for the right people to actual cause it to happen.


The second part of this is kind of what I mean. Its not that the core situation isn't easily solved, its that the 'entire' picture isn't easily solved. That lack of incentives is part of the overall problem, and those incentives will probably not be trivially fixed in a realistic portrayal (e.g. in a case where the adventurers don't have enough wealth to go and just buy off the country's debt or something).

I wasn't really trying to say that realistic politics can't have progress, but rather that asking the players to step into a political situation and take charge/make changes is asking a lot of most players, and it will likely feel frustrating before it feels epic and awesome. Its the same as if you present the players some other realistic problem (e.g. something cribbed from the modern world and adapted for magic that we have not been able to solve despite knowing its a problem).



The second is that the political situation isn't static. It's true that in any long-standing situation, all of the good deals will be made after a while - but PCs are usually responding to dynamic events, which means that the situation has changed, and that they're in a new situation. Even the simple decay of time means that nothing is ever really static. Given that PCs have lots of independence of action, and get around a lot, that means that they can and will be the first ones on the scene, so to speak. There exist good deals to be made, and the PCs can try shape the new 'business as usual' by shaping the agreements and politics before anyone else can get there and do it first.

Finally, remember that politics isn't about policy - it's not true now, and it's especially not true before the invention of the modern state, and definitely not in fantasy. It's about signalling loyalty, it's about who hates who, and who feels insulted, and who wants a bigger slice of the pie. It is in these factors, not the policy itself, that you have your game, and that's what political PCs will have to try and use to get whatever it is they want. Social pressure, lies, rumors, blackmail, etc - a word whispered in the right ear (I'm rather fond of "don't you think she looks tired?") - all of these are tools of the political PC. Even excluding dirty tricks, there's plenty in the form of "talking to the right people at the right time" to get the job done. It won't be a slam dunk problem solved everyone is happy situation after that, but an ongoing process - but presumably the PCs are just trying to get things "good enough" to solve the problem, not build long lasting coalitions (which can and will take constant effort).

This does bring up a second point - you may be able to pull off a realistic scenario if you do a bit of tutorial first. Basically give them a couple easy political scenarios to resolve before they have to go and take care of the huge and thorny issue. There's a lot of 'the PCs have to do X, Y, Z' in this post and I think those are good ideas, but I also think that most players will need to be exposed to these ideas before they're asked to apply them.

Acatalepsy
2013-10-11, 12:53 PM
This does bring up a second point - you may be able to pull off a realistic scenario if you do a bit of tutorial first. Basically give them a couple easy political scenarios to resolve before they have to go and take care of the huge and thorny issue. There's a lot of 'the PCs have to do X, Y, Z' in this post and I think those are good ideas, but I also think that most players will need to be exposed to these ideas before they're asked to apply them.

Well, you should never throw a political pickle at players who weren't explicitly looking for something like that, or pitching it to them first. I tend to view political games like mystery games - fun, but to be used only when you're sure everyone knows what they're getting into, and you trust their overall competence, intelligence, and focus to keep things rolling. Not that you don't often need to nudge players, even ones who are on their game, but if the players get bogged down too fast, the game starts feeling railroad-y and they lose any sense of agency.

NichG
2013-10-11, 03:11 PM
Well, you should never throw a political pickle at players who weren't explicitly looking for something like that, or pitching it to them first. I tend to view political games like mystery games - fun, but to be used only when you're sure everyone knows what they're getting into, and you trust their overall competence, intelligence, and focus to keep things rolling. Not that you don't often need to nudge players, even ones who are on their game, but if the players get bogged down too fast, the game starts feeling railroad-y and they lose any sense of agency.

Yeah perhaps this is it. In my case it was a much longer campaign that ended up with a very political arc when the current dominant economic force in the setting (that the PCs loosely belonged to) encountered another civilization that had tech that let them basically wage economic warfare and devalue the currency of the realm by providing free food and basic material needs. The PCs realized that while they didn't like the sort of wage-slavery that was being enforced by the guild they belonged to, they also didn't like the 'holier-than-thou, your culture will be worthy to join us once you free yourself of this guild' attitude of the other civilization. Things got worse, there was a civil war created and funded by the other civilization, etc.

After the arc, my players felt that it had been a very dismal and depressing bit of the game, because essentially the conflict looked inevitable, every side had its share of really awful people calling shots, and even after the civil war was resolved it didn't really make anything 'move forward' for their civilization, it just restored a bit of status quo. They also felt it was very hard to actually budge anyone from their positions - the higher-tech civilization did have needs, but they were needs that the PCs in particular were able to do something about (first on the scene in many ways), but which the rest of their guild was pretty much primitive in comparison (at the time the PCs had been trying to 'lift up' their guild based on some things they had discovered).

If I were to boil down the dissatisfaction, it was because any option they had that would go forward in one way had some downside they felt was unacceptable (e.g. they could just give their guild the tech to compete, but that would mean that the awful people in their guild would have that power too; they could just join the other civilization, but they felt pride in their guild's ideals if not in the individuals currently in charge; they even could go assassinate half of their guild's rulership, but it'd basically estrange them and it wouldn't actually resolve the conflict, etc). The whole 'every choice has some downside and you have to pick which downside you can accept' thing turned out to be too depressing, and they didn't manage to find/come up with 'third options' without downsides.

Acatalepsy
2013-10-11, 04:01 PM
~snip~

I think that's a separate issue, more to do with tone than with gameplay. I'd be totally okay with having choices that all suck, as long as I was the one getting to make those choices, and there was something to do. It sounds like those players wanted there to be a different tone than the game they were playing - I'm thinking more of situations where the players literally cannot think of something to do or cannot commit to an action.

It's about balancing player competence and independence with the scenario. Like riddles and mystery games; sometimes the players just don't have the brainpower or experience to play the game and have fun. Stick me in a science fiction or modern setting, and I'll be happy to engage in political skullduggery all day. Stick me at a king's court or a tribal council, and I'm going to be lost unless there are other players or a patient GM who can explain what the options are (maybe with some good skill rolls).

erikun
2013-10-11, 09:25 PM
My thoughts on the subject are to give the players some goals to achieve that will cause different parties to ally with the PCs' decision. This could be anything from "My daughter's been kidnapped, I will support you if you save her!" to finding information that will push a neutral party to one decision or another, to proving to one politician that his allies have been lying to him, to even blackmailing certain characters themselves. Each "mission" could be handled as an adventure by itself, with the PCs trying to succeed to have the ability to influence the situation.

For more a realistic situation, have good reasons for both ventures - reasons to attack humanity and reasons to avoid doing so. As the PCs go on missions, the can choose for themselves which side they want to support. They will also have to choose who to show what too, as some politicians may decide to support the other side if they show them specific information.

Beige Dragon
2013-10-11, 11:16 PM
Give the other players a simple distraction. Perhaps, rumors of a ghost haunting a nearby village? Someones well got poisoned? Or even, they come across alot of money, have them go on a shopping spree. Then, something happens, to where they get to keep a liiiiiiittle bit of it, but not too much. It might be hard to DM two things are once, but basically, have all the stuff set out of the other group, and just quickly switch back to do things. Maybe have them manage monster's health if need be.