No one has mentioned Reign yet?
Its basic assumption is that the PCs are all part of a "Company" - an organization that might range from a small mercenary band to a large kingdom - which interacts with other such groups and organizations, and PC actions can improve the odds for the Company to succeed.
Vampire and other World of Darkness games leap immediately to mind. But I've done that in nearly every system I've run including Dungeons and Dragons.
The key components (for my style) are:
None of those are really system dependent. But WoD has politics baked into the setting.
Oooh, I love point 4. Could you expand a bit on that? I'd love to know some tips for pulling that into a game.
I'm not sure that I understand how point 2 would happen in a TTRPG
Legitimate grievances? Mostly it just means the sides have reasons for acting the way they do. Ancient feuds or acts of aggression that were never reconciled. People doing the things they have to do but it impacts another group of people negatively and the affected people don't look at or care about the reasons, just that they are being hurt.
For point 4, pit characters' morals against results and see what happens. Are they willing to sacrifice some for the good of many? Will they tolerate lesser evils to ward off greater ones? Things like that.
Like... say there is a fascist-type ruler who is the first line of defense against an army of orcs or undead or whatever. Do you let him get steamrolled to weaken the enemy and dispatch an evil, militant kingdom? What about the people living there?
I mean there's no end to possibilities, it just depends on the world and story you want to tell. The only thing is, make sure it's not completely cynical. Everyone is flawed, but that doesn't mean everyone is bad or there aren't good guys and bad guys. Game of Thrones is good inspiration here.
One of my favourite things that happens with some NPCs is when there is just someone who is straightforwardly good or bad (relative to the setting) and it makes the players doubtful.
I first had this happen during a Curse of Strahd game, which is obviously quite a bleak setting. I found it important to include moments and characters of levity to emphasise the darkness of the campaign. My players spent a long time being suspicious of an NPC who they reasoned surely must have some nefarious, ulterior motive, despite just being someone who found that helping people out was a small but powerful act of resistance in a bleak world. Eventually the players realised "oh no, what if this NPC is actually a good as he seems, and in fact, our suspicion is yet another way in which we are being corrupted by the darkness of this world?".
Yeah, cool, thanks. I can see how throwing in catch-22s, wicked problems, moral dilemmas, etc. would lead to some interesting games/narratives.
The first thing to understand about how to have NPCs with legitimate grievances be a thing in a TTRPG is to imagine the world as a real one and the NPCs as people within that world. If you're just thinking of the setting as a flat backdrop for gameplay and the NPCs as colorful questgivers whose protection is a thin excuse for the plot to happen, then you're not going to be thinking in terms of things like what needs various NPCs might have and why they're unfulfilled or violated.
Ah, I immediately interpreted it as PCs with grievances. NPCs with legitimate grievances makes a lot more sense, thank you!
PCs having grievances can happen too, but it tends to be more of an intermediate technique than a basic one for players, and dependent on them already having a solid understanding of the setting.
Right, 'cause it's like a second-order effect? Like, your PC's grievance has to make coherent sense with/against the values/cultures that make up the setting?
Essentially, yes.
I find it useful to imagine that I hold the same view as the PCs, and then interrogate myself on the question "what if I'm wrong?". Specifically, asking how I would be able to tell if I'm wrong (i.e. what signs might or might not exist that would help to set me right), or ways that my intended solution to a problem could have ripple effects beyond what I expect.
I'm of the view that in life, we never really solve problems, we just transmute them into different problems that are easier to manage under our particular circumstances. The new problems created by a solution aren't necessarily going to be evident immediately; sometimes it takes time for the sticking points of a solution to present themselves.
Smart NPCs are a big part of making this work. If the players are on one side of a political issue, and there's an NPC who is in direct opposition to them, then if that NPC is smart, they'll be thinking ahead about what the players are likely trying to do. The NPC might not be able to stop the PCs from implementing their solution of choice, but might reasonably be able to figure out how to subvert this solution for their own ends (or figure out how to reverse or overcome the obstacle that this solution may present for the NPC)
Very cool, thanks!
Complexity science has a broadly similar take on complex problems - that there are no true solutions, but there may be ways to manage a problem that make it less of a problem (or a different type of problem, I guess). Makes a lot of sense to me.
World of Darkness was exactly what came to mind.
In my experience, you do need players who are going to put more effort in than "Dave the fighter"-tier D&D efforts. You can run a game of D&D where the players just walk down the hallway, fight everything they see, and have a good time. But a game about politics, with multiple factions? You need players who are going to pay attention and take some initiative.
I had a very frustrating game of Vampire many years ago where none of the players were really engaging with the fiction. They didn't remember who the different factions were, so they didn't understand any of their motivations.
I had a much better game some years later where the players really went for the story, and really got into who the major characters and groups were.
@naught101 The Dune TTRPG by Modiphius might be what you're looking for. The setting itself is inherently political, but the system also includes really slick rules for Intrigue (high-stakes negotiations or literal palace intrigue), Espionage, and Warfare. Worth a look.
God bound maybe? I think the intent is for you to truly operate in a global scale shaping it's governments and people to your desire. There's a few tweaks people suggest to the math to balance it a little better if you choose to run it, if not might at least give some ideas. There's a faction mechanic that I've heard good things about that sounds like what you're asking for
+1 for Godbound.
You play gods, so there is an assumption that it's high fantasy, but the one shots I've played so far had my players tackle interesting dilemmas and generally come away happy that this is not your typical DnD.
The game has actual rules to change the world, rules to handle factions with their problems to solve and assets to use and generally what you have is a great sandbox to generate adventures and see what happens when you meddle in the affairs of men.
I find it super light on the rules, despite being OSR, which is exactly how I like it.
Beamsaber, while being about giant robots, has a whole faction setup.
Similarly, in Blades in the Dark you are a gang in a city trying to rise up in the ranks of power in that city.
Some great suggestions in this thread (dune and VtM were the two that immediately sprang to mind for me).
Another one you could look at is Pendragon. The social standing and celebrity status of each of the PCs is a big part of this. If you like the setting it could be a good one.
Someone else already said the World of Darkness games like Vampire. I'm one of the dozens of people who prefered Requiem over Masquerade, but either should work for you.
I'll also throw out my current game crush: Fate. It's a general purpose system, so it focuses where you point it. Players are encouraged to come up with the major "Faces and Places" in the setting, along with the big issues, and then pursue their goals in that world. That could be as much about getting a favored candidate elected as taking out a corrupt CEO.
I love Fate. I am using it to run what I'm calling my "sedition sandbox" campaign (there's an evil empire, you've been sent to its capital as spies and saboteurs, now tell me how you bring it down from the inside).
It's been working great. On our best nights, we hit a tone reminiscent of Andor as my players hit key targets, turn their enemies against each other, and grapple with just how far they are willing to go in the name of the cause.
The Sword, The Crown, and The Unspeakable Power
It's an attempt to capture ASoIaF politicing and feel about world, pbta.
@naught101 Chivalry & Sorcery has been, from day one, an attempt to emulate the medieval world in fantasy right down to a very complete "influence" system building politics right into everything.
Legend of the Five Rings has courtly politics built into it. So does the old Pendragon game. Spark (and Sig) has factions and factional beliefs/conflict baked in as the core concept of the game.
ACKS had politics as the "end-game" so to speak. And I have hazy memories of Ars Magica doing politics.
Check out Kingdom! It's a less traditional game, but it strips away just about everything except for the power, politics, and intrigue, and does it rather well, in my mind. It can handle scopes as broad as a galaxy spanning empire or as narrow as an after school fan club.
Do note that it focuses primarily on internal politics, in that all the players are expected to be members of the same organisation and want it to succeed. But they should have very different ideas about how to accomplish that or what success looks like, which drives the ebbs and flows of power
Yes! I have a copy, but haven't had a chance to try it yet. it's on my short list
It's an excellent game, hope you get to try it out even if you don't pick it for this particular venture.
Forgive some unsolicited advice, but if you ever do get around to it, the bit that was trickiest for us to wrap our heads around was the Touchstone role. They don't have quite as many mechanics to interact with as Power and Perspective, so it can be easy for them to feel a bit sidelined.
The truth is, though, Touchstone wields an enormous amount of power. Played right, they decide if the Kingdom lives or dies. Power and Perspective should absolutely be trying as hard as they can to court/persuade/win over/cater to Touchstone at every turn, because that is the only way to get the people on your side. Perspective could be throwing out softball predictions with a clear right and wrong answer, but all Touchstone has to do is throw their weight behind the "wrong" choice and it still turns into an agonising dilemma for Power. Can't rule over ashes.
Sounds fascinating. Definitely interested to explore!
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):