Sometimes when I think intrigue scenarios for my games I get stuck, or lack ideas. It's hard for me to visualize interesting situations where you have to get dirt on someone, spread a rumor, attack someone's reputation, build an alliance without someone noticing. I have a few guesses now, but I was wondering what kind of prep people do for this, or just specific examples of how you've done it.
Anything helps!
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1112568Players role-playing in a character-driven sandbox.
Edit: Almost anything helps!
I always start with the NPCs and their motivations. I never write a plot.
Simon is not wrong about the importance of NPCs. How this plays out depends on the motivation for intrigue. One of three things is going on.
1. The PCs are countering or reacting to someone else's attempt at intrigue.
An example would be the part of The Three Musketeers where D'Artagnan and friends are racing to get to the Duke of Buckingham to retrieve the Queen's diamonds (which she gave to Buckingham as a keepsake) before the upcoming ball where she must wear the diamonds. The Cardinal plans to embarrass the Queen by showing that she has lost the diamonds that the King had given her. (The Cardinal talked the King into hosting a ball and requesting the Queen wear her diamonds.)
The NPCs are the antagonists. The GM creates the initial action. This works best if the GM has created some dynamic, motivated NPCs who have goals that they are trying to move forward that are at least somewhat in opposition to the PCs.
2. The PCs have been given a mission by their patron/master/superior that requires them to intrigue.
This is a mission-based adventure or scenario. Since it's a mission, the type of intrigue required is part of the assignment, though the exact method or details often will be left to the players.
An example would be the same situation, but from the POV of the Cardinal's agents. The Cardinal knows that the Queen will send someone to get the diamonds back from Buckingham so he assigns his agent, Milady De Winter, to go to England, find Buckingham, and steal two of the diamonds. Exactly how she manages the theft is left up to her. She's a femme fatale and a thief, so she uses flirtation and sleight of hand at a dance to steal two of the diamonds. Meanwhile the Cardinal sends his other agent, Rochefort, to set ambushes for D'Artagnan and friends to stop them, and as Prime Minister he orders the ports closed so no one can leave France without a pass.
Notice that the GM must create a patron/boss/superior of the players with motivations and goals. This works best of there are other NPCs with goals in opposition to the player's patron.
3. The players decide to use intrigue as a means to their ends.
This usually shows up in a sandbox setting. The GM doesn't need to do anything specific (other than running a world in motion). He just needs to react to the plan that the players (for reasons of their own) create and attempt to execute. This is the inverse of #1.
If in the previous examples, the Cardinal was a PC, then a player would be the one to conceive of the plan to embarrass the Queen based on emerging play. The PC-Cardinal wants to decrease the power of the Hapsburgs in general (especially the Hapsburg King of Spain) and the Queen, who is the King of Spain's sister, in particular, by causing a rift between the King and his Queen.
As the GM you can't plan this scenario. The players drive the intrigue. The GM creates the setting and the motivations of the important NPCs and runs the world and has it react to whatever the PCs are doing or trying to do.
You need complications to make it work. At heart, that's the same thing as S'mon's and Bren's answers, only looked at from a slightly different perspective. That is, the way you are probably going to introduce most of your complications is with the NPC's and their motivations. For any decent stab at intrigue in a game, you'll need multiple NPC's and/or factions, because A versus B doesn't lead to very rich intrigue. (Players versus the Cardinal is a conflict, but by itself not much in the way of intrigue. For intrigue, there has to be agents, some with their own agendas, neutral but interested parties, etc.) Moreover, in a game you need more options than a novel, because some of your options are likely to fall flat, be ignored, or seem contrived if the players miss them or lack interest in learning them.
However, complications need not be only NPC's. For example, let's say you use Bren's scenario but want to include some misdirection that none of the main players know. Maybe a thief has stolen the queen's diamonds and replaced them with imitations. The thief isn't the complication. He is an NPC, and could be found, but his motivations are simple and have nothing to do with the intrigue. His actions have thrown a monkey wrench in everyone's plan. For the purposes of the intrigue, the thief could be assumed hidden, long fled, dead. It's not the thief that is important but the fact of the theft.
Intrigue works best when it's between protagonists. Have players with conflicting interests from the get go and you're set for a good time of plotting & scheming & backstabbing. The classical "adventuring party" style is not really conductive to this.
You can look at games that do this by default to take some cues. Paranoia, Undying, Monsterhearts and Shinobigami are good examples that I know and have played. Ive heard Amber and Smallville are also good for this, but I haven't played them myself.
I've done a handful of semi-successful intriguey things. The three mechanisms that worked well for me were:
1. NPC with a selfish motivation -- what kind of action would someone take that harms people around them to some degree in order to promote their own wealth/standing/influence? Deals with the devil, murder, backstabbing, undermining, all kinds of stuff can fall in this bucket.
2. Pettiness -- some slight or misunderstanding that was the genesis of a rift between two NPCs or groups of NPCs, that now motivates them to take covert pot shots at each other (and perhaps open ones too?)
3. Deep divides -- NPC or Group A has a foundational belief in Blue. NPC or Group B has a foundational belief in Green. Put them together in an environment. What happens?
I have had success creating bulleted categories attached to NPCs as sketched pieces, free to respond to game state context. They'd be motives, interests, ties, etc. Then I ply it all in 3x5 index cards for the NPCs, so they are flexible, not fixed to a 'plot'.
Players' actions thwart or help an NPC's Job, Relationship, Quest, or Secret? NPC can be reactive.
Players' inaction leaves an opportunity to pursue these unmolested? NPC can be pro-active.
Wanna make a quick adventure? Shuffle some NPCs, draw a few, try to make sense of the drawn cards as it relates to the current game context.
Players ignore your tentative adventure in the middle of reveal? Draw some other cards, spin a coherent adventure with what's drawn, and try to entice Players elsewhere... and now your previous adventure resolves with NPC pro-action.
I've had some success teaching some new GMs this simple adventure prep technique. It is loose enough to keep responding to Players, yet easy to keep notes of its Action : Consequences. :)
This seems actionable. I'll give it a try.
Quote from: Opaopajr;1112477I have had success creating bulleted categories attached to NPCs as sketched pieces, free to respond to game state context. They'd be motives, interests, ties, etc. Then I ply it all in 3x5 index cards for the NPCs, so they are flexible, not fixed to a 'plot'.
Right now motivations, goals, secrets, and "some reason s/he may not be completely loyal to so-and-so" seems about right. I like thinking about motivation and goals as seperate things. Motivations suggest alternative but still acceptable goals, giving NPC's some room to negotiate and compromise.
Yep, situations, not plots.
I think we all can agree that an intrigue situation is likely to develop when theft and violence are likely to get you arrested, and everyone at least pretends to be on the same side, so you have to use social pressure of various kinds to achieve your ends.
Sometimes players who have no concept of how to manipulate social dynamics are playing characters who do. Can anyone speak to that?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1112466For any decent stab at intrigue in a game, you'll need multiple NPC's and/or factions, because A versus B doesn't lead to very rich intrigue.
Good point. I didn't think to mention it as it's something I always have in a setting. (I'm fond, possibly overly fond, of complexity and complication in my settings.) If we look at the main factions involved in the Queen's Diamonds example we see that the Queen, the King, the Cardinal, and the Duke of Buckingham each head a different faction with varying and sometimes opposing interests.
Queen Anne of Austria - favors her Hapsburg relatives who control Austria, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, much of Italy, and vast parts of the New World. They have nearly encircled France, which is there only major land rival. She is in love with Buckingham. Madam Bonacieux, seamstress to the Queen, is part of the Queen's faction. She is also the wife of D'Artagnan's landlord, the object of his romantic interest, and the person who brings D'Artagnan into the action. And he brings his friends, Three Musketeers
King Louis XIII - rules France and is rivals with Spain, Austria, and England. He is often the subject and object of intrigue. He is a bit apathetic and his goal often seems to be avoiding having to exert himself and not to be shown up too much by the Cardinal. The King's Musketeers are part of the King's faction and are hostile to the Cardinal and his Guards. D'Artagnan is a Gascon and a wannabe Musketeer. He is friends with the eponymous Three Musketeers - Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.
Cardinal Richelieu - diplomat, churchman, scholar, and warrior, he is effectively the Prime Minister of France. He is opposed to the Hapsburgs and wants France to increase in power and influence over it's rivals. He is also somewhat of a rival to his own King. He has many agents, among them Rochefort and Milady De Winter.
The Duke of Buckingham - wealthy and handsome, he holds a similar position in England to that of Richelieu, though he isn't as focused on duty. He is in lust and possibly in love with Queen Anne. That doesn't stop him from flirting with others. The Puritans (another English faction) don't like Buckingham. Some Puritans see him as the next thing to the antichrist.
Quote from: Ashakyre;1112533Sometimes players who have no concept of how to manipulate social dynamics are playing characters who do. Can anyone speak to that?
That can be (and usually is) a problem, in the same way that players who have little or no concept of tactics can be a problem in combat focused action.
The ways one mitigates for players who are a bit clueless about intrigue and social manipulation is the same as how one mitigates for players who are clueless about tactics.
1. You can let them fail and hope they learn from their failures.
2. You can try to teach the players the missing skill.
3. You can give them hints about what their more adept characters might know that the player does not.
4. You can be easier on them than you would be on someone more skilled.
5. You can use a system that bakes in some of the character expertise into the game mechanics.
If none of the players have any expertise in social manipulation and intrigue, you might really want to rethink using that as a focus for play.
Quote from: Ashakyre;1112533Sometimes players who have no concept of how to manipulate social dynamics are playing characters who do. Can anyone speak to that?
Ultimately, it becomes a question of immersion, in one form or another. Specifically, if the player can state what they are trying to do, can the GM and the other players chip in on what actions to take, what to say, who to say it to? Or does immersion demand that the player speak for himself?
Immersion isn't high on my list of priorities. Decision making by players is. I've got groups that more or less agree with my priorities. So for us, the minimum is that the player make a decision. If that means that the player gets coached on what the character should say, and even how they should say it, when necessary, then we'll do that. We do expect players to improve, at least slowly, over time. But no one expects everyone to get good at it.
Another thing you can try is to formalize that mechanic in the rules. In my early D&D games (with random stat generation), we had a rule that a character with a high Int, Wis, or Cha would get the help of most or all of the other players. That is, we don't have anyone at the table that can portray a 17 Cha, but 5 players working together might be able to approximate it. Whereas someone with a 13 was mostly on their own, but could be bailed out by the group maybe once per incident. "No, you don't actually say that thing you just said. Instead, you say this." "Right, free pass used up." Of course, we also played it that if a player with a particular low ability tried to fast talk using the players skills, the rest of the group was free to veto it. And the players were mean enough to do that, too. :)
Quote from: Bren;1112535That can be (and usually is) a problem, in the same way that players who have little or no concept of tactics can be a problem in combat focused action.
At least, in combat, people can generally understand that you can walk up to someone and try to cut them with your sword. There something about the nature of social dynamics that being bad at it prevents you from being able to percieve its structures. You don't even know where to start.
Also, there's something about social action that interferes with breaking down its components into "moves."
Quote from: Bren;11125355. You can use a system that bakes in some of the character expertise into the game mechanics.
Yeah, this is where I hoped the conversation might go. People sometimes react with pre-baked assumptions about social mechanics, but there's something to be said for this. The Alexandrian, may his sanity rest in peace, had a great series about game structure: basically, something to do that's reasonable when you have no other ideas. It's not that you can't do anything else, just that, absent inspiration, there's always one thing you know you can do to move the game forward. In dungeon crawls that thing is moving to the next, unexplored room. It's always worth consideration and often a good idea.
Perhaps we could say it's always a good idea to find out who is connected to who, find out what people's motivations are, etc.
If you had to say "this social thing will usually move the game along" what might it be?
Quote from: Ashakyre;1112557At least, in combat, people can generally understand that you can walk up to someone and try to cut them with your sword.
Cut them, yes. But to know whether they can walk up to their opponent without getting killed or blocked before they can cut their opponent gets into tactics. Tactical movement is one of the places that the tactically inept falter.
QuoteThere something about the nature of social dynamics that being bad at it prevents you from being able to percieve its structures. You don't even know where to start.
Relationship maps can help to understand social structures. But I'd say that the place they need to start is figuring out what change they want to effect. If the players can decide on that, then they next will need to break down the method of effecting the change into one or more (usually more) steps.
Example Step 1: Richelieu's goal might be: "I want to strengthen France and weaken Spain."
QuoteAlso, there's something about social action that interferes with breaking down its components into "moves."
Honor & Intrigue has social maneuvers that do break things down to some extent. Of course they are not nearly as many or clearly detailed as the combat maneuvers. And they do require the player to figure out what they are trying to accomplish and select a maneuver that has some chance of enacting the change.
QuotePerhaps we could say it's always a good idea to find out who is connected to who, find out what people's motivations are, etc.
Rarely is that a bad idea. That could be the second step after they figure out what they change they want to see. Figuring out who connects to who and what their motivations are let's the players start to hypothesize about how they might go about attempting to effect the change they want to see.
Example Step 2: Richelieu finds out that
- Queen Anne is a Hapsburg and she favors her relatives in Austria and Spain.
- Buckingham is flirting with the Queen and it seems like she fancies the Duke.
- King Louis is currently neutral towards Queen Anne.
And really steps 1 and 2 are iterative. As you learn more you may decide on a different change to try to effect. But that may cause you to then want to learn something else or about someone else's motivations, etc. etc.
Example New Step 1: Richelieu decides to try to change the King's attitude towards Queen Anne from neutral to suspicion/distrust.
Example Breaking it Down Into Smaller Steps: How can he do that. Well...Perhaps he can use the flirtation between the Queen and Buckhingham to make the King jealous. But to do that he may need to find out more information.
One of the problems with doing this is that players who suck at social interaction and intrigue often get impatient with planning. Which is unfortunate because they need much more time to plan than does someone who is good at interaction. But you see the same thing with tactics. The people who suck at tactics seldom want to spend any time planning or mapping out good tactics. They just want to attack and then they are surprised when events don't go their way.
Quote from: Ashakyre;1112455Sometimes when I think intrigue scenarios for my games I get stuck, or lack ideas. It's hard for me to visualize interesting situations where you have to get dirt on someone, spread a rumor, attack someone's reputation, build an alliance without someone noticing. I have a few guesses now, but I was wondering what kind of prep people do for this, or just specific examples of how you've done it.
Anything helps!
Players role-playing in a character-driven sandbox.