I've been thinking of making the focus of my next campaign a civil war in a great empire, and I'm wondering if that is too complicated or how it could best be worked. What I was thinking is that in the early stages of it it would involve a lot of raids and intrigues as the three heirs or claimants are trying to avoid outright war. Thoughts?
be fun. Make them nobles with no true heir left,They could all be of distant relation to the crown.Might be fun to play the build up to a war and every thing from the opening battle to the end of the war.
My want to even though in a secret group that caused it all for some unknown reseon.So much you can do with such a game.
|
Start with proxy engagements; this guy's count lays siege to that guy's count's city.
Also, assassinations and city intrigue could be cool.
This guys' units and that guys' units meeting in the market square of a neutral city...
The p.c.'s could start out having nothing to do with any of it...
Also, depends on your groups' style.
Spy vs. spy could be cool.
Also, is there an overarching evil mastermind(s) involved, or are people just doing what greedy people do?
|
(Ray sees that his earlier post, though very good advice, really doesn't help so he writes another)
You know you have to get the PCs involved. So, . . . Make them part of one of the three factions. And actually, let them pick, before the campaign, which faction they want to support.
You'll have to describe to your Players a little about each faction and give a few details of the members and their goals. Let the Players "tinker" with the NPCs. Then have the Players choose which one they want to ally with and you can start designing your campaign from there.
*Maybe the PCs begin the campaign as villagers away from the capital but they are dragged into the situation.
*Or maybe they begin in the capital but are in the "other" faction's court and they have to contact the faction they want to support.
*Maybe the PCs are asked to become spies. NOTE, Keep in mind this is a very hard game to run: there is very little combat; all encounters are essentially "Save OR Die" situations; it's usually very difficult to find a group of PCs that work evenly or equally in this setting -- what does the Paladin or Druid or Barbarian do and is the Rogue too important, ie., better than the other PCs?
-W. E. Ray
|
(Ray sees that his earlier post, though very good advice, really doesn't help so he writes another)
You know you have to get the PCs involved. So, . . . Make them part of one of the three factions. And actually, let them pick, before the campaign, which faction they want to support.
You'll have to describe to your Players a little about each faction and give a few details of the members and their goals. Let the Players "tinker" with the NPCs. Then have the Players choose which one they want to ally with and you can start designing your campaign from there.
*Maybe the PCs begin the campaign as villagers away from the capital but they are dragged into the situation.
*Or maybe they begin in the capital but are in the "other" faction's court and they have to contact the faction they want to support.
*Maybe the PCs are asked to become spies. NOTE, Keep in mind this is a very hard game to run: there is very little combat; all encounters are essentially "Save OR Die" situations; it's usually very difficult to find a group of PCs that work evenly or equally in this setting -- what does the Paladin or Druid or Barbarian do and is the Rogue too important, ie., better than the other PCs?-W. E. Ray
As much as people malign 4E, importing a variant of the Skill Challenge system for a game like this could go a LONG way to increasing the fun and lessening the "one skill check encounter" issue.
... what does the Paladin or Druid or Barbarian do ...?
Distractions. While the rogue is trying to get the info, the less subtle classes are drawing off the sentries.
Witness protection. When an ally or member of the PC's faction is in danger, muscle is what's called for.
Even in spy vs. spy scenarios, there are likely to be combats (James Bond, anyone? Particularly with Brosnan [sp?]). Think about storming an enemy faction's citadel. You're gonna want the barbarian there going "Say hello to my little friend!" with his greataxe.
Molech's right: it requires a different design ethos than a usual campaign. But it can definitely work, even for classes not traditionally associated with "spying." It sounds like a lot of fun!
Hm. I guess what I'm hoping for is for this to be the main background. The idea of the pcs picking a faction didn't occur to me but that sounds like a good idea for the start. How shall I do that then? Have a kind of portfolio for the faction leaders and their general resources? (as known by reputation or by what pcs might know) For doing this I was thinking maybe I need a kind of political platform for each faction, or what?
Good points about character classes. I'd like to avoid restricting too much.
I'm wary of spy missions. My player group aren't that spy friendly. They're more likely to want to do the Conan thing (when Conan's being a thief) or the James Bond thing--ie fake being friendly long enough to get into the palace and steal something. They always seem to have a mix of half subtle characters and half really physically tough characters.
|
|
Well, not much else I can think of to add at the moment, except to make certain your factions are defined.
I'm going to use the American Civil War as a basis for this example. Lets say that there could have been a third major side in that war, a remainder in New England that decided to take advantage of the opportunity of the war and succeed to rejoin Briton. You now have a three-sided war, but only one side faces conflict on two fronts.
Lets pull away from that example and think on a more ficticious set up. The idea with the Nobles is good, all distant relations to the throne, but no clear indication of who is closest. Perhaps the best bet here would be to say that there are many Nobles who are of relation to the throne, but there are three who have the closest ties to it. These three have managed to gain almost equal support among the "lesser" Nobles as to who should be crowned.
You may even wish to make one slightly more closely related to the throne by blood, but is a bastard child and not truely accepted by the majority of the Nobles, or who has fewer supporting Nobles, but those few are more fervent than the rest. Just try and avoid the stereotypical "unaccepted and angry son" or "good and just underdog" plots if you want to keep it less predictable.
I was thinking of these, and I'd appreciate blunt criticism please.
1. The smartest of them is also the most decadent and corrupt. He delegates really well but doesn't want to take to the field at all if he can help it. He is in a fairly secure position and prefers to try to get the other two to fight it out.
2. The youngest by pure chance holds the Imperial Capital, but little else. She is torn between two senior advisors, one radical and the other very conservative. Until these intrigues are resolved things seem paralyzed. Resources start out strong but dwindle as the other two factions hold the major trade roads. All goods must come by sea; fortunately there is a decent fleet at the beck and call of this faction.
3. The eldest is a man known for his honour and personal courage in the service of the Empire. To those in the highest circles he is also known as the puppet of his senior military advisor and his own daughter. He genuinely believes that claiming the throne would be for the good of the country. This faction controls the largest region but it is disunited and begins with various uprisings and internal warfare.
|
|
I was thinking of these, and I'd appreciate blunt criticism please.
1. The smartest of them is also the most decadent and corrupt. He delegates really well but doesn't want to take to the field at all if he can help it. He is in a fairly secure position and prefers to try to get the other two to fight it out.
2. The youngest by pure chance holds the Imperial Capital, but little else. She is torn between two senior advisors, one radical and the other very conservative. Until these intrigues are resolved things seem paralyzed. Resources start out strong but dwindle as the other two factions hold the major trade roads. All goods must come by sea; fortunately there is a decent fleet at the beck and call of this faction.
3. The eldest is a man known for his honour and personal courage in the service of the Empire. To those in the highest circles he is also known as the puppet of his senior military advisor and his own daughter. He genuinely believes that claiming the throne would be for the good of the country. This faction controls the largest region but it is disunited and begins with various uprisings and internal warfare.
Okay, some ideas based on this. #3 may be interesting, you could kick up intrigue by having the Military Advisor and Daughter not only in collusion but having an affair.
#1 may have used shady connections to learn of this and uses it as leverage later on down the line.
#2 is hard to say, some players would expect one of the Senior Advisors to be taking advantage of the Noble, but you can twist it by having them both taking advantage of her politically. Potentially even having each of them be agents of Nobles #1 and #3(or more accurately, the Military Advisor and Daughter), as a means to get the Imperial Capital in hand.
Just broad stokes and all that.
I was actually thinking as well that #2 might have a strong sense of personal destiny, to make things more interesting, but that this comes from one of the advisors who is say a powerful priest or psionic claiming to have knowledge of the future. But yes, I like your ideas about factions having influence over one another.
|
PC could be unaffiliated. They could be trying to accomplish a completely different mission and the civil war serves as a background (kinda' like Indiana Jones and WWII). PCs have friends that have been draw in on all sides, who may or may not be totally committed to their sides, so they could occasionally work with PCs. They could also have enemies on all sides.
Maybe all three sides are bad (or at least not good) and looking for something - ancient weapons, powerful artifacts, a bound demon/god - to unleash on the others. PC have to find it first.
This would work really well if there is a puppet master behind all three rulers, manipulating everyone. This would only become apparent at really high levels, but the PC might try to take out corrupt rulers/advisers and get the kingdoms to work together again against the real enemy.
What kind of purpose might a puppet master have? Who might the puppet master be?
|
|
Mosaic brings up a fun possible option but one that can have a serious problem -- or be one that becomes a different campaign than what you may want.
*** The fundamental problem with heavy intrigue games (if your group doesn't mind few combats) is the sheer number of important NPCs. Think of all the characters in the Game of Thrones series. It's alot. When the Players have only cursory knowledge of these they're never going to remember any of them.
There are two things you can do to help solve this. One, have the Players help you design the NPCs before the campaign begins. Involve them in this part of the campaign design. (Once play begins, of course, they no longer get to voice any suggestions; the NPCs are completely your domain.) Second, use names everyone already knows for the NPCs. This helps everyone remember the names. If you have to go so far as to name the dukes' wizards Elminster and Gandolf then do it.
Now, if the PCs are only peripherally involved in the political conflict (or not at all) they have no reason to learn who the major players and operators are. This is the nature of the problem I mentioned earlier; none of your Players are going to remember who's who.
The other thing is that this kind of campaign can quickly and very easily turn into a campaign that has absolutely nothing to do with urban intrigue and political manuevering. Now, this may be fine. Civil War between three factions doesn't have to be intrigue and politics. It doesn't even have to be urban. I just got the impression that that's kind of what you are after.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
... what does the Paladin or Druid or Barbarian do ...?
Distractions. While the rogue is trying to get the info, the less subtle classes are drawing off the sentries.
Eh, I don't like this.
I guess I just haven't learned how to pull it off yet as a DM but all my attempts have ended up doing two things, both bad. One, the PCs are separated too much. I don't like to separate the gaming table often and I won't do it for extended lengths of game-time. I just feel it's bad. Second, In the situations I've seen, this still makes one or two PCs important to the campaign and others significantly less important. Now, some of this will depend on what PC concepts the other Players want to run. And sure, sometimes you don't always get to play the PC you want to play (6 Players want urban PCs and the 7th wants a desert barbarian) but even without extremes it can be quite difficult.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
Have them be hired by one faction, then get screwed over. Then they work for the other guy and they screw them over too.
Great stuff for one or two parts of the campaign but the campaign as a whole needs to have a bigger picture.
When you're talking with your Players on what some of the NPCs are gonna be like there will come a time when you'll think of the perfect NPC to screw the PCs over. (The Players help you design lots of these NPCs but they don't get to learn everything.)
Now, a couple months from now when you guys are several weeks into the campaign and an NPC that they helped design screws them over you can give them Heath's address instead of mine and they can kill him.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
I was thinking of these, and I'd appreciate blunt criticism please.
1. The smartest of them is also the most decadent and corrupt. He delegates really well but doesn't want to take to the field at all if he can help it. He is in a fairly secure position and prefers to try to get the other two to fight it out.
2. The youngest by pure chance holds the Imperial Capital, but little else. She is torn between two senior advisors, one radical and the other very conservative. Until these intrigues are resolved things seem paralyzed. Resources start out strong but dwindle as the other two factions hold the major trade roads. All goods must come by sea; fortunately there is a decent fleet at the beck and call of this faction.
3. The eldest is a man known for his honour and personal courage in the service of the Empire. To those in the highest circles he is also known as the puppet of his senior military advisor and his own daughter. He genuinely believes that claiming the throne would be for the good of the country. This faction controls the largest region but it is disunited and begins with various uprisings and internal warfare.
This is exactly the kind of first step you need to do. You like these NPC ideas and the dynamic of the conflict here so start with that.
The next step is to go to the Players. Think about it, everything you mention here is common knowledge for the citizens of this "nation"; the PCs have to know this stuff. And it's going to take some development, all of which will be common knowledge.
Sometimes, while you guys are developing a little "evil-DM" light will spark in the back of your mind and you won't share what you're thinking with the group.
Make a little "tree" chart with the NPCs on it and share it with your Players.
Maybe all the NPCs in Faction #1 (smart & corrupt) have French-sounding names. Or maybe their names all have lots of "d"s in them. Do something similar for the other two groups as well. This way as you guys design the backgrounds for these NPCs you have an easy mnemonic device to remember the names. You won't mix up the smart delegator and the old honorable guy dancing to his daughter's strings.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
What kind of purpose might a puppet master have? Who might the puppet master be?
You're the DM; you have to decide.
I would add, however, that you don't have to decide now. It may be better to wait even after the campaign begins before you decide.
>Now, like the Master of Puppets says, "Chop your breakfast on a mirror"
I can see how involving them might be a big help, this is a totally new idea to me that I find very interesting. If I use "Song of Ice and Fire" as an example then I can get an idea of how to start. For example let's say the pcs agree at least on a particular faction and then help me develop it.
So for example each House in ASOIF has the following:
1. Principal family members
2. Senior family retainers
3. bannermen/subject lords
4. a few extra retainers
Then there is a sense of the House--what they are known for, what their motto is, what resources they have.
Finally there are the rivalries, both internal and external. Anything else I might suggest just in case they stare at me blankly?
I will take your other advice: the mastermind thing is one that I'm wary of anyway, I kind of like the idea that the rivarly simply exists and other groups may come up trying to take advantage in the midst of it as needs be. I also agree that I don't want to divide up the group too much. With my last group that nearly drove me crazy.
|
|
What kind of purpose might a puppet master have? Who might the puppet master be?What do puppet masters always want?
Something you may consider for the puppet master. Make him an ancient god older and more powerful than each of the current ones; seperately but not together. They struck out against him and while unable to destroy him, they sealed him into a immortal yet material form, then locked that away in some form of prison. This god spent his time amassing power and putting together plans which would take hundreds if not thousands of years to comes to fruition. Events happening today are a series of chain-reactions designed to bring the ultimate plan into reality.
Yes, I realize I summarized just about every fantasy movie in existence.
It's tempting but you've given me another idea. I think it might be fun to have an element of "The Iliad" in all this. Like that the gods of the pantheon in the whole country take sides or remain neutral as the case might be. It tends to be a big Manichean struggle in most modern fantasy but I think I'd like to do that. Thoughts?
It's tempting but you've given me another idea. I think it might be fun to have an element of "The Iliad" in all this. Like that the gods of the pantheon in the whole country take sides or remain neutral as the case might be. It tends to be a big Manichean struggle in most modern fantasy but I think I'd like to do that. Thoughts?
Yes. That. Awesome.
I absolutely love the way the gods interact with mortals an each other in The Iliad. D&D assumes "real" gods that get involved, so get them involved! You may have to devise a totally new homebrew for this concept, if you aren't doing that already.
You could run something similar to victory points from Heroes of Battle (I think?), only the points go towards divine favor. X number of points can be "spent" on a favor from an "allied" god. This shouldn't become such a powerful element that it dominates the campaign, but should certainly be one of the major factors in every battle.
"We have to get Apollo to stop being pissed at us!"
"Loki gave him what ability? I think I'm gonna call that favor in now, Thor."
Okay, not exactly like that (at least in game), but you get the idea.
Thanks--I need a culture and pantheon to think of now, or at least to be inspired by.
I'm wondering if I'd like a greco-roman kind of thing, or maybe something more babylon/sumerian. For this campaign I'd do away with alignment, maybe using a system more based on reputation and honour which seems more in keeping with both mythologies anyway.
|
|
I had an idea along these lines;
island nation of the lich king...he had all these undead and evil coalitions ready to invade the mainland, but he got goofy and tried to steal this silver dragons' eggs. Epic battle....lich lost...
The lich's family (living or not....) is broken into little fiefdoms across this island and a la the Ambers from Zelazny, they're all fighting for dad's old digs.
There's former humanoid troop/servitors of the lich king all over the island, who now don't have any standing orders. There's undead, and feuding family members' household troops.
And, there's.....a campaign secret...Monte Cook said you always need one of them...
I was hoping to put a little different spin on the idea. Instead of a country embroiled in intrigue, slowly slipping into civil war, how about making the setting a large city-state? The king dies of unnatural causes, an assassin's blade in the night. Under these morbid circumstances, the heirs, the king’s twin sons, rise to the throne agreeing to rule jointly. Meanwhile the youngest son, a cleric steps forward to assume the mantle of high priest of the city. The campaign would begin with rumors that the twins were vying for more power. Perhaps stories of soldiers from the surrounding principalities slipping over the walls at night and gathering in support of one of the kings. Maybe rumors that one of the kings is stockpiling supplies or building a massive armory. Reports abound that outside ambassadors are arriving to lend their support to one of the kings in exchange for concessions.
The PCs find themselves hired by one of the king’s advisors to investigate the rumors. The players can find evidence of a plot to kill the families of their king's elite body guard but they can't trace the plot back to the source. Maybe the assassin's body can turn up gutted with mystic symbols burnt into his flesh and drained of blood.
After several adventures, where the PCs find considerable evidence to support that someone is gathering to make a power play within the city, the wife of their kingly patron gets murdered (unless the pcs stop the attempt) at the spring ball. The other king gets blamed and this sparks open warfare. The city gets split into two factions and the war rages from building to building until it settles along more static lines. Maybe the PCs have to smuggle supplies into a surrounded district. Maybe the PCs need to steal into the occupied docks to burn the other kings supply ships. Perhaps, they have to garner outside support from the outlying farmsteads.
At some point the players have to traverse the cities sewers to transport some relevant item only to find a massive temple complex to a dark god directly beneath the center of the city. Upon further examination it belongs to a long banished god who's return to the world can only be triggered with a massive blood sacrifice on the summer solstice. The cleric brother, who has been a low key player to this point, begins manipulating both parties to lead a massive attack on the town square where the battle lines meet. Is he trying to spur a massive carnage filled battle sending blood pouring down into the sewers? Can the PCs stop the battle in time and if they can't what is the outcome of a dark god rising in the middle of the city?
well that’s my 2 cents....or possibly a nickel.....
Just an idea but maybee you could use the affiliations option for each faction?
|
|
Okay, some ideas based on this. #3 may be interesting, you could kick up intrigue by having the Military Advisor and Daughter not only in collusion but having an affair.I find the idea of an affair between the Advisor and Daughter a bit trite/cliche. More likely they oppose one another. Given that a woman leads another faction this must be a fairly egalitarian world, so the daughter is in line for the throne if her father wins. She'd want that for herself without the Advisor becoming a potential rival in his attempt to become king himself, or else ensure direct legacy from his master to his issue with the daughter, bypassing her with himself as Regent during their minority.
This is true, but I mentioned it that way because I'd already suggested a similar thing with the advisors for the Young Noble to be whispering conflicting advice into her ear. I didn't want to give an idea that was too repetitive. So I sacrificed some originality to keep things mixxed up.
Besides, such a thing can work. Perhaps its a tryst of convenience. Daddy arranged a marriage for his daughter to someone she detests, she gets the help of the General(a logical assumption since he's a Military Advisor), in exchange, he gets his hooks into his boss' heir.
Cliche? Yes. Redundant? No. Partially inspired by the Count of Monte Cristo? Damn straight.
Rezdave: first of all thanks very much for the very intense response.
I find myself that while you need only put as many npcs forward as you need for adventures that it helps to have lists of them to fill roles as need be. For example I downloaded a bunch of stuff on the Lythia.com site and I use harnmaster npcs for generic roles--guardsman, merchant, craftsman, etc--just so that I have names and faces and skills of ordinary folk at hand.
As for Molech's ideas, I understand what you're saying but I think that he's trying to suggest how to capture the sense that the pcs should know a lot about the world they live in. In a way there is more investment in it, and I think that it may be a risk worth taking. Anyway we'll see if they even want to do that.
On the other hand what you suggested about me picking the area they start in is a very good point. Otherwise the amount of work I have to do may be unbelievable.
I like your points about the civil wars. One thing I had wondered about were cultural elements but in a way all that is irrelevant--there's no real difference between say the Taira/Minamoto civil war where the acclamation of the Emperor of the victor is important or the Roman where it is the acclamation of the people that is important; ultimately victory will result in acclamation of the real leader fo the nation. In a way the cultural elements I choose will be more about flavour and appearance than anything.
Bloody Sunday's Best: I really like your idea actually. I may just have it as a separate one or may even go with it altogether. I like the factions I've already set up but yours has a focus and intensity that I find very worth considering. The only problem I have with it is the ubergod at the end. I've kind of done that sort of thing several times; I'd like to have more of a human element with the deities involved just doing their thing. What I may do is incorporate elements of what you suggested into the faction I set things in.
blackrose angel I'm not sure what you mean...
Heathansson The only problem with your scenario is that it sounds almost exactly like the last campaign I ran. Seriously, I like undead and it sounds fun but my players will groan and say "Not another LICH."
Cato Novus
I actually agree with you about the daughter and the general. I was recently watching "I Claudius" for inspiration and noticed that that kind of thing happens several times in the series. In particular I noticed it between Sejanus and Livillia. Sejanus as the commander of the guard gets increasing power because of Emperor Tiberius' dependance on him, and in the meantime is having an affair with Tiberius' daughter in law. Actually the situations in history are very complex and I don't know if you could run them in a game without writing a novel as Molech points out.
It seems to me that sometimes cliches are actually a reflection of how people really feel and act.
My alternative idea was to have a kind of political alliance between the daughter and the general, but no love interest. What I'd actually been thinking would be that the general avoided romantic entanglements quite deliberately in order to not be distracted, while the daughter might have 'favourites' that are usually intellectual lightweights she can discard easily.
There might be another spin to put on it depending on your perspectives. The US civil war was mentioned as a possible inspiration but I thought of another civil war in this mix (or actually, two civil wars combined): War of the Roses and the English civil war mixed together-two royal factions, each trying to seize the throne, while a third faction is made of nobles or some kind of court of the citizens who after seeing the faults of the monarchy, want to abolish it all together. This could make for an interesting dynamic. As an alternative, perhaps one of the possible heirs does not want to be an absolute ruler showing concern for the common folk and hopes to create a republic/democracy style power structure with the monarch becoming less powerful but still having a role. Just a couple possibilities.
Affiliation are in player handbook 2 p163
other example can be found in complete champion.
|
|
The best real-life analogy to your scenario is the Chinese Warlord period (1890ish to mid-1930s), after you reduce the technology levels to something akin to the 100-Year War - a couple of major leaders that commanded the uncertain loyalty of a large number of nobles and warlords. Keep in mind that under feudalism, nobles swear personal loyalty to their liege, and that these loyalties can change very quickly. A civil war in such a setting would mostly be long periods of tension and uncertainty, punctuated by short bursts of violence - there would be more manouvering and intriguing than actual fighting, and the armies would be used very rarely. PCs would need to travel between different nobles, convincing them to switch sides - and, once the PCs gain a reputation as important and capable players, they will be similarly approached. Other missions would be breaking and entering, eliminating unreasonable nobles and just getting on with their lives during uncertain times. Of course, the PCs will be subject to similar attacks from other fsctions as well.
Beyond the ever-shifting political loyalties of scheming nobles, you'll also want some radicals - this bunch is a particularly fascinating crew, but Japanese and Chinese history is full of odd secret societies with strange goals. The addition of magic multiplies these groups' potentials and goals even further.
Finally, keep in mind that outside intervention is rife in civil wars. Your conflict-ridden country will be closely scrutinied by its neighbours - once real conflict breaks out, it is highly probable that the neighbours will move in and seize vital assets like mines or ports. Just to keep trade flowing, of course...
If you want to keep a more human driven aspect to the campaign arc, I would revise the idea slightly. The players find the lost temple of evil god x. Believing that someone is plotting to awaken uber god they alert their patron. Somehow the cities nobles become aware. Perhaps the PCs present the information at a council meeting sparking mass hysteria. In walks the cleric brother who believes the paladins and priests of his faith can defeat this unknown cult threatening the city. He pleads for more power and its granted. The PCs return to the temple of evil god x only to find evidence that all of the artifacts are fakes. They end up discovering they were duped by their sources who told them the sinister back story of uber god and now they have inadvertently given the cleric brother tremendous powers since the beleaguered citizens of the city are looking to him to stop the cult. Could this have been the machinations of the cleric brother to grant him the power to form a theocracy or is someone trying to lure a considerable number of the cities soldiers under the city into a trap....meanwhile reports of cultists climbing out of the sewers are becoming rampant... is it just paranoia?
As some of the other posters have recommended, I love the idea of outside foreign powers intervening. I once played in a Birthright campaign where Ghoere attacked Elenie (a npc ruled country) and nearly routed its army. Elenie was desperately hiring mercenaries to stave off the invasion. Fearing a shift in the power balances in the region, one of the PCs, the ruler of Roesone, refitted several units of his regulars as mercenaries pretending to be unaffiliated to his throne. They hired themselves out to Elenie and began turning the tide against Ghoere. Because of their martial successes, the mercenary captain became a popular icon among the commoners. The PCs ended up forging a fake version of an artifact that was a lost symbol of rulership, having the mercenary captain go on a staged daring quest to retrieve said fake artifact, and he used this to make a play for the throne and oust Elenie's royal family. These things tend to get mired down in convoluted webs of intrigue.....
I think I like the idea of the city cult more as a possible adventure that happens within the faction the pcs are involved with. It sounds like it could be a good way for the pcs to be introduced to significant npcs (should they start low level and be non-nobles for instance) and like it's just plain fun anyway. What I'd do though is have the god in question possibly be imprisoned and perhaps give an extra boost to the pcs' side--perhaps it is a sibling of the gods already supporting the faction. It has a touch of Moorcock/Leiber that I quite like.
It sounds like your birthright campaign has elements that I'd like in mine. I'll have to look more into that kind of thing.
Then there's more grist for the civil war mill from Vattnisse--which I appreciate. One thing that I very much agree with is the idea that there would be more assassinations, bribes, kidnappings and raids in these circumstances. I don't really want large standing armies anyway. I think all three faction leaders would be very much aware of the risk--once the sword is drawn it must have blood, that kind of thing. The foreign intervention thing is another matter; I don't really want a huge amount of detail about that yet but I will have a couple of outside power blocks. (the barbarians or the free cities or some such thing)
|
|
They end up discovering they were duped by their sources who told them the sinister back story of uber god and now they have inadvertently given the cleric brother tremendous powers since the beleaguered citizens of the city are looking to him to stop the cult.
Something like this is a fantastic story element and PC motivator.
I've always been surprised that more books don't start this way. The bad guy getting loose or what ever the calamity is, it's the main character's fault and the rest of the book/series is about the main character trying to fix and atone for his/her screw up in the first part.
Fantasy example- In many fantasy stories the main character is a nobody who has potential he doesn't know about. At some point he is approached by a mentor who teaches him to use his power and save the world. The Belgariad, the Shannara books, the Wheel of Time books, Harry Potter, even the Hobbit. There is usually an element of distrust which goes on way too long (You'd think by book 6 Harry would just trust Dumbledor!). But what if it were true and the mentor was manipulating the hero! They reach the last chamber in the secret dungeon where they will seal the evil god's tomb forever. The mentor turns to the hero and says, "Thanks," as he runs a knife threw his back and breaks the seal. Tell me that guy isn't going to be motivated to put the bad guy back in his hole.
Star Wars example- In the second Star Wars, Anakin, Obi-Wan and the rest of the Jedis fight Doku and his Separatist allies, who are in league with Palpatane (Dath Sidious?). Okay fine. But wouldn't have been better if Doku and the Separatist - instead of being bad guys - were right, and they foresaw the fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire. If this had been the case, the Jedi would have been on the wrong side and while thinking they were defending the Republic were actually helping to create the Empire and sealing their own fate. Now that's tragedy!
Anyway, just some more ideas for you.
I think that the reason why the pc screw up idea isn't done more often is that it kind of has to happen by accident for the players not to hate the dm. That's really the best way; you CAN trick pcs into doing things but I've sometimes plotted out something that made perfect sense only to find the players insisting on doing something so different it makes my head spin. I'm sure all of us have had this happen.
Cato Novus: do you have a link or can you let us know what your campaign setting is like? If you'd rather not share too much I understand.
|
|
I think that the reason why the pc screw up idea isn't done more often is that it kind of has to happen by accident for the players not to hate the dm. That's really the best way; you CAN trick pcs into doing things but I've sometimes plotted out something that made perfect sense only to find the players insisting on doing something so different it makes my head spin. I'm sure all of us have had this happen.
Cato Novus: do you have a link or can you let us know what your campaign setting is like? If you'd rather not share too much I understand.
*points to the space directly below your nose*
:P
|
|
I think that the reason why the pc screw up idea isn't done more often is that it kind of has to happen by accident for the players not to hate the dm. That's really the best way; you CAN trick pcs into doing things but I've sometimes plotted out something that made perfect sense only to find the players insisting on doing something so different it makes my head spin. I'm sure all of us have had this happen.
Cato Novus: do you have a link or can you let us know what your campaign setting is like? If you'd rather not share too much I understand.
*points to the space directly below your nose*
:P
There are some things I'm working on that I have not posted here, but it doesn't deal much with the political climate of the setting. More like cultural differences and some potential rules I'm hammering out which I will offer up to my players.
I've noticed that; I also posted on your link. thanks for linking me btw.
One thing I've been batting around is the idea of using the OGL/Mongoose setting book "Stygia" which is for Conan. I quite like it and it has a lot of the cultural, magical and area information already done. I believe that Egypt, which was the inspiration of Stygia, had several periods where the country was unstable and where there was no consensus on who was Pharaoh.
Another reason is that I have a number of old adventures I could convert that suit that kind of area very well.