[Legendary Games Ultimate Factions] How to represent vassals or inter-national Factions?


Advice and Rules Questions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am getting into Ultimate Factions, which I think adds a missing element to the Kingdom Rules from Ultimate Campaign - structure for scheming groups that are not kingdoms themselves. In old Birthright terms, non-landed Domains vs. Realms.

What I am wondering, though, is how to best represent factions that span kingdoms, whether or not there is a vassalage situation.

For example, with a large kingdom that has several smaller realms as vassals, organizations at the kingdom level (such as a state religion) might have branches in each of the vassal realms. Or an organization (such as a bandit gang) might be headquartered in one realm but operate in both that realm and adjacent ones.

So I am pondering how best to represent these kinds of scenarios, and am looking for suggestions/advice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flattery will get you anywhere...

Excellent question.

...

Oh, you want more?

Okay, Factions are intended to be "the group within the kingdom in question", which is why foreign factions exist as a group, and other kingdoms have their "own" factions, but you're quite right that an overarching faction can have sub-factions elsewhere.

If you're in the situation where factions are influencing one another across kingdom boundaries, the Aid, Faction operation probably covers most positive effects (there's one big exception) and Subversion, Faction the negative ones.

(For the rules purists out there, yes, both of those operations are missing "other faction in the kingdom" to limit them. That was intentional, even though the rules are generally intended to only apply to a single kingdom.)

The big exception I mentioned is monetary aid. The over-faction can pass WP to the sub-faction at will, without need for an operation... and I just spotted a rather big issue with page 11 because the Income Phase doesn't have a header and appears to be part of the Operations Phase.

Anyway, during Step 2 of the upkeep phase, allow the over-faction to designate any amount of WP to be given to any sub-factions. Those WP arrive during Step 1 of the income phase. This is one of the few places I would suggest it not be instantaneous "fire and forget", because a sudden massive infusion of WP just before the Operations phase could make things slightly too easy for the sub-faction.

Hope this suggestion suits, and please ask any more questions! (The sole reason there was a delay in my reply is that I had to GM my weekly game.)


Thanks for the response!

So it sounds like you're thinking the best approach is to make local factions in each area of operation, like "chapters" of the main faction, and treat them as allies/vassals of the main one?

Should the local "branch" sizes be added to determine the overall "parent" Faction's effective size for goals/operations affecting the suzerain kingdom?

Perhaps the "Foreign" designation should not be so much its own Faction type as a two-part label like the "Disguised" level of secrecy... Foreign/Military, for example, or Foreign/Trade designating that HQ is external to the kingdom, but this is the local presence?

Brainstorming
As for the transfer of wealth, perhaps using the size of the Faction.. so the limit on the amount of WP any faction "chapter" can transfer to or from the parent is limited by the smaller of the Factions' sizes, according to the chart used for the number of Operations?

Alternatively, a 1d2 or 1d3 month delay in transferring funds? Or WP to be transferred moves at 1d4 WP per month? Regular transfers could become an adventure seed ... suddenly, I see Michael Crighton's "The Great Train Robbery" taking shape. :)


Because I was very much focused on making factions part of a single kingdom, the foreign type was put in to be a catchall for any faction from outside the kingdom.

If you want the added detail of foreign factions having a type, may I suggest the following modification to the bonuses provided:

A foreign faction may choose apply the bonuses from the type of faction it is, or may move some or all of the bonuses to Power. The faction may not have total bonuses which exceed +2.

Brainstorming: Size of the receiving faction is a good limit, perhaps consider this:

For every whole multiple of the receiving faction's size, add a point of tension to the ceding faction.

I'm not a fan of imposing any sort of delay to factions, but if you don't mind the extra bookkeeping, then imposing a short delay to WP delivery isn't a bad idea. If you combine this with my thought about tension, reduce the amount of tension gained by the number of months it takes to deliver.


Understood about the focus. Most of the content within the Kingdom rules core is about the PCs managing issues within one kingdom, after all. Interactions outside that (diplomacy, vassalage) are in the optional rules.

AS I think more about international factions, I wonder...


  • Foreign factions are all disguised ... some (ex. Military or Legal) are disguised as openly-Foreign (diplomatic) factions, others are openly other types (ex. Trade) with a disguised basis of Foreign (spies).
  • Factions exposed as clandestinely other than what they appears to be suffer a penalty to Reputation equal to their Size Modifier. Perhaps gaining Tension of an equal amount as well?
  • Factions should be able to own/hold/field armies. Church Guards and other forces associated with offices come to mind as example cases.
  • Foreign factions fielding armies suffer a reputation hit for each army beyond the first (1 unit of guards is justifiable, more being seen as preparation for causing trouble?)


I think what you have here are the very awesome beginnings of a gap in the kingdom rules: inter-kingdom diplomatic relations.

The existing diplomatic and espionage edicts are all well and good, but don't quite cover everything, as you've noted, especially when we break things down to faction level play.

I shall ponder, because that might be worth exploring in depth.

Oh, and as for Factions owning/fielding armies - use the optional faction downtime rules to create armies as organisations within the faction. That's actually the whole reason that rule exists.

(Note: the word "organization" appears in both the Downtime (UCam) and Influence (UInt) subsystems and means very different things in each, but since Factions touches on both subsystems I had to use it in both senses within the book. Context is everything, and I try to refer to "Downtime Organisations" or "Organisational Influence" to make it clear which subsystem I'm talking about.)

(Second note: Organisation/Organization. I know.)


The biggest difficulty I can foresee in expanded diplomacy is the matrix of relationships that emerges when "A" is allied with "B" and "C", but "B" and "C" are enemies, and "D" is trying to foment a war between them. Representing and tracking that (especially if there are more actors involved) becomes challenging without computer assistance.

Regarding "Organizations" .. noted, yes. I was a little disappointed that Paizo chose to create the Organizations in U. Intrigue differently from the Factions and Schools that exist in Golarion. The base rules are, I believe, Open Content, so there was already a framework to use in the RPG line.

When it comes to armies, I was thinking more on the kingdom scale.. using the added rules from Ultimate Battle and Ultimate War. I suppose knowing how to translate Wealth Points into BP is sufficient for that overall.

If you're considering expansion material, there's also magic. Magic on a kingdom scale (Strategic), or large-scale magic on the battlefield (Tactical), is missing (other than magic equipment for the armed units).

The ability if a Religious Faction to bless or curse crops would be a prime example of such things. Missions for PCs to prevent curses, or to protect ceremonial entourages performing blessings, become more integrated into the world that way.


I think I have a solution to the difficulty of numerous kingdoms interacting in complex ways.

I figured you probably were thinking at kingdom scale, but if (for example), a faction has an organisation of 100 soldier teams (500 soldiers), then it's possible to run that as an army.

Being frank, magic isn't my strong point, so while I'm aware that kingdom- and faction-scale magic would be an excellent thing, I also believe that I'm not the best person to do it. Which isn't to say that I won't try.


In the back of my head is an experiment I've wanted to see work: one group of players as the adventuring PCs, and another group of players running the organizations (Kingdoms, Factions, etc.) in the world around the first group. The decisions of the second group may open opportunities for the first group (such as hiring them to resolve an event, which turns into an adventure), while the actions of the first group may affect the successes and failures of the plans of the second group.

As for the magic, it is a difficult subject. Birthright (2nd Edition AD&D) had rules for both scales. Battle Magic required researching a separate version of the spell and needed numerous assistants to execute them in combat. Realm spells required a facility to focus the spell on the region to be affected... a Temple gathering power from the supporters for divine casters and a constructed focus point in pristine wilderness for arcane casters.

Birthright made sense because the whole of the game was doing a dual "RPG/strategy board game" hybrid. Pathfinder's kingdom rules don't go in that direction, which is why I'm pondering additions :)

I've been toying with new Team types for Downtime Organizations: Magic Soldiers. Upgrade from Soldier or Mage, or build directly with Magi-class characters. Something similar for "Holy Warriors" would be with Soldiers or Priests upgrading, or directly built with Warpriests. The Magic Soldiers fit nicely for the "enforcement" arm of one group of mages in my homebrew world that are charged with enforcing the kingdon's laws regarding magic use.. a kind of "magic police".


It is also worth noting that there are a couple of Paizo products that present a basic framework for actions by Factions.

The Hell's Rebels Players' Guide outlines how the Silver Ravens operate as a variant of the Teams and Organizations rules in Ultimate Campaign. Adapting some of that material might be worth looking at.

Also, the Player Companion "Black Markets" presents actions for Teams to take in their day-to-day operations, with appropriate risks. Expanding on this idea may be a way to approach Organization "operations" against each other.


You're not wrong. There were a few things along those lines that I considered incorporating - I decided not to for a number of reasons that I won't get into right now.

Once I've done my next book I might be able to see about appropriate adaptations and conversions. No promises, I'm afraid, but I think it's quite possibly a good idea.


:) Yeah.. life is what happens while you're making other plans, as John Lennon is quoted.

In any event, I will continue to ponder my homebrew solutions. I have a nagging feeling that the Caravan Rules from Jade Regent, the Expedition Management rules from Serpent's Skull, the Piracy rules from Skull & Shackles, and the Rebellion organization rules could be massaged into a coherent, unified whole.

Now I just need to find the right hammer... :)

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Urath DM wrote:

:) Yeah.. life is what happens while you're making other plans, as John Lennon is quoted.

In any event, I will continue to ponder my homebrew solutions. I have a nagging feeling that the Caravan Rules from Jade Regent, the Expedition Management rules from Serpent's Skull, the Piracy rules from Skull & Shackles, and the Rebellion organization rules could be massaged into a coherent, unified whole.

Now I just need to find the right hammer... :)

Once upon a time we toyed with redoing the caravan rules from Jade Regent, but they seemed to have acquired enough of a stink on them that most people were down on the whole idea. We do need to make sure we produce products for which we think there's a demand and it didn't seem there for it.

HOWEVER, now a long ways down the road from Jade Regent, incorporating revised caravan rules as one of several subsystems in a compilation book might be something we do.


That's encouraging.

I think a more detailed variant of Trading rules for Kingdoms would dovetail nicely with re-worked Caravan rules for Downtime.

A Caravan could be represented as a mobile "Building" in a way, with each Wagon being a "Room". The rules in Jade Regent were focused on "residential" Caravans.. variant types for Merchants, or using pack animals exclusively rather than wagons, would be interesting (camel trains would fit nicely into the Legacy of Fire AP early on, for example).

Perhaps trans-natonal Factions should be represented similarly to Kingdoms (using BP instead of WP, for example, and facing Consumption costs), while their localized presence is represented as in Ultimate Factions.

But I've always been a big fan of political simulation rules... and I have no idea of the overall size of such a market. The various efforts to date in 3.x and PF hint that there's some. But enough? That I don't know.


It would probably be possible to create some sort of complex unified simulation subsystem that could be tweaked into behaving like any of the AP subsystems (most subsystems are something along the lines of "Aquire points. At certain thresholds, results happen", and everything else is just window dressing). The hard part is coming up with the unique point acquisition methods and results that are appropriate to the adventure.

Now, you mention trading rules, and that's something I can get behind (detailed rules for resources, supply and demand, import and export taxes...), but I (and Jason) have very carefully not yet violated one of the unspoken rules of the Kingdom Rules: You only need the players' kingdom to run the game.

The only exception to this is Diplomatic Edicts, and if I were expanding on trade rules I'd probably look at carefully integrating variants for diplomacy, too.

Definitely worthy of future consideration.


Expeditious Retreat Press tried to do an "economic simulator" in their Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe book for 3.x. It was a valiant effort, but doomed in that it listed everything on the purchase list and assigned a DC to the ability to purchase it. With the game system expanding as long as it is published, such an itemized list quickly becomes a maintenance nightmare, and is easily outdated. I prefer something rule-based, or category-based... like 'Exotic Weapons" as a group rather than each one individually.

I have some notions about Supply and Demand, inspired by "Merchants of Venus", and old Avalon Hill board game. Supply and Demand gets knowing the type of goods being carried, and that can be hard to do with generic things like "Goods", "Influence", "Magic", "Labor". or "BP". Not that I mind.. but it speaks to the need for computer tools to really manage that additional complexity... and makes paper-based campaigns more likely to pass it by.

Still ... Import and Export taxes could be interesting.
Smuggling leads to adventures, as does protecting valuable trade goods moving from place to place.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Advice and Rules Questions / [Legendary Games Ultimate Factions] How to represent vassals or inter-national Factions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice and Rules Questions