I’m interested in table top games that have a strong focus on power and politics, or possibly social change or intrigue that intersects with power and politics.
Not hung up on format or system, open to anything.
Any suggestions?
I’m interested in table top games that have a strong focus on power and politics, or possibly social change or intrigue that intersects with power and politics.
Not hung up on format or system, open to anything.
Any suggestions?
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
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.
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.