My players have built up and stabilized their kingdom to a point where Grigori's agitation can mostly be ignored.
Even with -2 from the Unrest incited by Grigori, they only fail the initial Stability check on a 1, so Unrest is reduced to 1. Then Akiros steps in as the Royal Assassin, and reduces it to 0.
There's some loss (the initial Stability check could've yielded BP instead), but they can pretty much let Grigori rant as long as he wants and the kingdom will keep on keeping on.
I'm not sure which of these three things would be most fun:
1) reward their players for their good planning by letting them ignore Grigori as he powerlessly rails against them for as long as they want
2) escalate Grigori's Unrest generation, from 2 to 1d3+1 to 1d4+1 to 1d6+1 every month to prod the PCs into taking action
3) the trolls return! some year and a half ago, the PCs killed off most of Hargulka's trolls, several levels sooner than they were expected; Hargulka himself and the rock troll fought them to a standoff and departed to parts unknown with the Stag Helm and the paladin's ancestral sword, so they're bound to show up eventually; why not now, to give some extra weight to Grigori's rants?
What do you think? Any other ideas?
I've yet to meet the PC that could ignore a character hurling insults at them for any length of time. Let alone publicly and to a crowd.
Let them ignore the unrest. Good planning should always be rewarded.
If you want Grigori's death could make him a martyr. Justifying a greater generation of unrest. Does the PC's kingdom carry the death penalty for sedition? In a good PC's kingdom I saw the Royal Assassin reducing unrest by taking out dangerous criminals/enemies/monsters etc. not political agitators.
I've yet to meet the PC that could ignore a character hurling insults at them for any length of time. Let alone publicly and to a crowd.
Well, there's that...
Let them ignore the unrest. Good planning should always be rewarded.
On one hand I agree, but on the other, I want them to confront enemies, talk them down, cut them up, and take their treasure, not just sit in their castle and plot their Economy, Loyalty and Stability modifiers so that they can't fail a check.
If you want Grigori's death could make him a martyr. Justifying a greater generation of unrest. Does the PC's kingdom carry the death penalty for sedition? In a good PC's kingdom I saw the Royal Assassin reducing unrest by taking out dangerous criminals/enemies/monsters etc. not political agitators.
That's the consequence the adventure mentions for killing him, and although the idea did come up, it was quickly rejected, so I don't think there's any real chance of my PCs doing that.
They're mostly planning to ignore him until they build a waterfront. Since on of the main points in his speeches was they instituted heavy taxes and were just hoarding the gold (which is true, since they're trying to save up 90 BP for the waterfront), they're hoping that once it's built, Grigori will lose credibility, or perhaps even cause to complain (optimistically, they consider him something of a hobbyist agitator, rather than someone on a mission to sabotage them).
Perhaps the fact that Grigori will keep agitating, successfully, even when they build the waterfront will be enough to goad them into direct action.
On one hand I agree, but on the other, I want them to confront enemies, talk them down, cut them up, and take their treasure, not just sit in their castle and plot their Economy, Loyalty and Stability modifiers so that they can't fail a check.
If that makes your players happy then let them do that.
Player's don't want what you want exactly. They just want to kick ass. Their kingdom is an extension of their character. Building a great kingdom that laughs at Econ, Loyalty and Stability checks makes players feel good just like making a powerful characters that kills a bunch of monsters and takes their loot. If your characters are really putting that much work into it then their reward IS a happy, prosperous, stable kingdom and everything that entails.
If you're finding simple rolls to be too boring then try to spice them up with more description or interactivity. Make sure the PC's are aware that Grigori is harmless mechanically because their kingdom is so great and people are so happy and not because he's supposed to be a joke. If mechanically he's generating zero unrest and just basically being nothing but a pest describe a jeering crowd running him out of town pelting him with rotten fruit.
If the PC's want to outlast him that's a valid tactic. Grigori isn't getting paid to stand around forever and produce no results.
Maybe the PC's turn Grigori around. Maybe he's actually impressed by their reaction. I am. It's certainly unexpected.
I'm not sure which of these three things would be most fun:
1) reward their players for their good planning by letting them ignore Grigori as he powerlessly rails against them for as long as they want
2) escalate Grigori's Unrest generation, from 2 to 1d3+1 to 1d4+1 to 1d6+1 every month to prod the PCs into taking action
3) the trolls return! some year and a half ago, the PCs killed off most of Hargulka's trolls, several levels sooner than they were expected; Hargulka himself and the rock troll fought them to a standoff and departed to parts unknown with the Stag Helm and the paladin's ancestral sword, so they're bound to show up eventually; why not now, to give some extra weight to Grigori's rants?
In my experience 2 and 3 are more fun for GM's. Though both are just a form of railroading. The PCs are not affected by my encounter the way I thought they would so I will automatically change it till they are forced to. 3 is good railroading though since it's got story history and like you said it's gotta happen eventually.
2 is bad. Very bad.
1 is more fun for players. Do with that what you will.
If the PC's want to outlast him that's a valid tactic. Grigori isn't getting paid to stand around forever and produce no results.
Maybe the PC's turn Grigori around. Maybe he's actually impressed by their reaction. I am. It's certainly unexpected.
That's a good point!
They are being somewhat naive about him, thinking he's just someone who lives by blackmailing fledgling kingdoms with the threat of Unrest. If they show him he can't touch them and impress him enough for him to drop a hint about his employers, that might be more interesting than defeating him without finding out the background.
Perhaps Pitax/Mivon/Brevoy sees him as nice friendly replacement for the PCs; they give him more people/money to increase his influence and build a true rebellion.
Perhaps he moves to a border town, lulling the PCs into thinking the problem is going away, and he later has the town invite in invaders.
Perhaps he starts advocating for democracy, forcing the creation of local town councils in each city. Perhaps he's a true believer, not just a stooge....
The French Revolution has some good examples of how things can get out of hand, and with Galt nearby, all the required agitators are a few short weeks away.
I think #2 is a valid option, and fair to the PCs, if you give them some subtle warnings (or none, if they truly are not paying attention). I would escalate more slowly, and then have a precipitating event, that causes it to jump from 1-6 unrest to 1-6+4 in one month (for example), and if they don't deal with the problem, just add 2-4 more base points. this can also get them to start to build an army, which they may need later. ;)
They could also get warning from the River Kingdom next to Galt, headed by the refugee from there, to give them more diplomatic contacts with the various RKs.
I would leave things be. Their superior planning should allow them to reap the rewards that come with it. It *is* costing them 1BP per month, as you say, since they would normally never fail the stability checks at the beginning of each month. Also - if they ever happen to fail a check which increases unrest due to a random event, their "cushion" is already gone and they'll have to deal with that unrest as well.
If it goes on for many months, Grigori might eventually decide he can't accomplish his goal and leave. To me, that's a very successful (the best, perhaps) way to deal with him.
One thing I'd point out is that the Royal Assassin probably shouldn't be reducing unrest from Grigori. The RA is an abstraction, but let's not forget what he's doing: he's killing those people that are formenting unrest. That's *how* the unrest is going down.
Normally, things like Grigori are also abstracted. So an abstract RA assasinates an abstract rabble rouster: unrest goes down by one. However, in this case you have an actual NPC doing the rabble rousing. Therefore, the RA can't deal with him abstractly: he has to kill him.
Either rule that one day Akiros decides to perform the role that was assigned to him, and assasinate Grigori (or threaten to enough that he shuts up) - or rule that Akiros quite obviously isn't performing his role and that the PCs can no longer benefit from the -1 unrest.
Am I making sense?
The Royal Assassin's Unrest reduction does not mean he's off killing those fomenting Unrest. I think (and the way I play it) is that the people know they can be punished severely for dissent, and so he intimidates them into behaving.
If the Royal Assassin was off killing all dissenters, then no Good kingdom would ever have one. And just because he's called an Assassin, doesn't mean he is one. He's the kingdom's executioner, which is a necessary, and possibly more merciful, way to handle any executions needed.
The Royal Assassin's Unrest reduction does not mean he's off killing those fomenting Unrest. I think (and the way I play it) is that the people know they can be punished severely for dissent, and so he intimidates them into behaving.
If the Royal Assassin was off killing all dissenters, then no Good kingdom would ever have one. And just because he's called an Assassin, doesn't mean he is one. He's the kingdom's executioner, which is a necessary, and possibly more merciful, way to handle any executions needed.
The GMs have latitude as to how to interpret this role, yes. And it's unlikely that LG cities are having him murder people in the streets. However, my point is that he's doing something. And therefore that "something" has to apply to Grigori for it to reduce the Unrest he's causing. It has to be de-abstracted. If it's "threatening those who forment", then Grigori has to be threatened - and if he's not threatened - then the Unrest he generates does not go down.
Our would-be Royal Assassin is planning to call himself the Lord High Executioner. I'm thinking of instituting kiddy matinees and saying that unrest goes down because all the teen males are busy gaping in the seats instead of being outside doing gang things. :)
There are lots of ways to interpret a particular mechanic.
Heck, he could be the Lord High Social Worker and reduce unrest by personally seeing to proper child rearing practices.
The GMs have latitude as to how to interpret this role, yes. And it's unlikely that LG cities are having him murder people in the streets. However, my point is that he's doing something. And therefore that "something" has to apply to Grigori for it to reduce the Unrest he's causing. It has to be de-abstracted. If it's "threatening those who forment", then Grigori has to be threatened - and if he's not threatened - then the Unrest he generates does not go down.
I was thinking he's killing off, arresting, threatening (as appropriate to the rulers' style) those Grigori is inciting, not Grigori himself.
The GMs have latitude as to how to interpret this role, yes. And it's unlikely that LG cities are having him murder people in the streets. However, my point is that he's doing something. And therefore that "something" has to apply to Grigori for it to reduce the Unrest he's causing. It has to be de-abstracted. If it's "threatening those who forment", then Grigori has to be threatened - and if he's not threatened - then the Unrest he generates does not go down.I was thinking he's killing off, arresting, threatening (as appropriate to the rulers' style) those Grigori is inciting, not Grigori himself.
What does Grigori have to say about that? These sorts of things can snowball. People that might have been ignoring him before might back him up now, just out of principle.
What does Grigori have to say about that? These sorts of things can snowball. People that might have been ignoring him before might back him up now, just out of principle.
I guess that's why Unrest is back up to 2 by the end of the month?
|
The Royal Assassin's Unrest reduction does not mean he's off killing those fomenting Unrest. I think (and the way I play it) is that the people know they can be punished severely for dissent, and so he intimidates them into behaving.
If the Royal Assassin was off killing all dissenters, then no Good kingdom would ever have one. And just because he's called an Assassin, doesn't mean he is one. He's the kingdom's executioner, which is a necessary, and possibly more merciful, way to handle any executions needed.
This will work for a bit, but eventually people will go 'we're all worried about the government punishing us for dissent, but they haven't punished this loudmouth, so why should we worry?'
If PCs don't want to kill agitator then let his shadowy patron do it - by sending assassin that murders Grigori in a way pointing to PCs. And you could make criminal/political adventure in which players are trying to find murderer and/or reduce political backlash of people believing that they killed him secretly.
The GMs have latitude as to how to interpret this role, yes. And it's unlikely that LG cities are having him murder people in the streets. However, my point is that he's doing something. And therefore that "something" has to apply to Grigori for it to reduce the Unrest he's causing. It has to be de-abstracted. If it's "threatening those who forment", then Grigori has to be threatened - and if he's not threatened - then the Unrest he generates does not go down.
What you're not getting is that Grigori isn't part of the community, he's not the unrest, he's what's causing it. Every month a few more people actually listen to what he's saying, get upset, start grumbling, start muttering and start not helping the community or even working against it. It's these people that the RA (Residential Assistant) neutralizes to reduce unrest.