In your experience, do you think conflicting agendas between players is a requirement for political games to work?

Or is it possible to have interesting political games with players on the same "side"?

Quote from: Itachi;980292In your experience, do you think conflicting agendas between players is a requirement for political games to work?

I think conflicting agendas between players is far more interesting than all of them pursuing the same goals.

Conflicting goals would be a lot more fun to me.  Would Us vs. Them even be political?

What game is this? Paranoia?

I'm not much into political games, but I think such stuff would require at least three agendas to work well. This is going to work best if the three agendas are being pursued by three different players. Sure, the GM can "play" several agendas, but things are going to flow better if there are other live players driving the various agendas. And probably the ideal is actually the GM really just plays the audience and the non-GM players drive the competing agendas.

I also think that it is more interesting if players have their own agendas. To be interesting, a political game should have a little ambiguity. If the issues are so black and white that every PC can wholeheartedly agree on everything, you haven't designed an interesting political game. It still might be an interesting game, but it is probably closer in model to a thriller than a true political game.

Of course, you need mature players to pull this off. Most people I game with can separate PC conflict from player conflict, and they can deal with in-game politics without needing to drag in their real world politics. That second part becomes more important the closer the politics of your setting matches up with real world issues. Of course, even if you didn't intend to make a political statement with adventure involving the negotiation of glorph mining rights on the planet Tweetwoo, it doesn't mean players won't find them.

Assuming you have the right players though, it's more interesting with players with differing agendas as a lot of the game can focus on them bouncing off one another, keeping them all involved. A tense negotiation between the PCs is a lot more interesting than a tense negotiation between an NPC and the party's faceman while the rest of the group checks their phones.

Players don't need to have conflicting agendas, and if the agendas conflict enough, the game can become about that conflict. Any combination can be fun, though tastes vary and sometimes a game slides in a direction that's not so fun for some people.

For examples:

* I've played in games with a lot of politics where the PCs were all pretty much on the same side, which have worked well or at least had as much interesting politics as anyone wanted.

* I've also seen political games where the PCs have their hands full dealing with the NPC/situation politics, and one PC goes double-agent or even disagrees with what the group is doing, and that sidetracks most of the attention of the game, either repeatedly, or until the conflict is resolved often by the PC leaving or getting killed by the other PCs.

* I've also seen games that had both NPC/situation politics and diverse goals and perspectives and agendas amongst the PCs, but where the PC conflicts don't derail the game but make it rather interesting even despite occasional splits and subterfuges and fights and side sessions and so on. That has made for some really great and interesting games, but it seems to me like what has made the difference has been the quality of roleplaying and GMing. And what's tended to make it awful is when the GM and/or players get stuck by some convention or expectation (like the PCs NOT splitting or fighting or killing each other for artificial reasons so the conflicts don't flow and instead drag on torturously instead of getting resolved).

* I've also seen games where the conflicts are mostly about the PCs' conflicts, intentionally, although this generally wants a format where the PCs are not expected to be together most of the time.

Quote from: Itachi;980292In your experience, do you think conflicting agendas between players is a requirement for political games to work?

No.

Quote from: Itachi;980292Or is it possible to have interesting political games with players on the same "side"?

Yes.

There is a game play model that I don't think you have considered. Two separate player groups working in the same setting, trying to achieve similar goals, but not working together. The conflicts between the groups happen less frequently, but "feel" more organic and natural, while playing out over the course of the campaign.

Quote from: jeff37923;980309...groups working in the same setting, trying to achieve similar goals, but not working together.

Stop talking about Congress in the RPG forum.

I think there can be great political conflicts between PCs - as exemplified in Amber Diceless among others.  Still, I think there can also be interesting games of political maneuvering where the PCs are on roughly the same side.

As a more concrete example, I had a long-ish campaign set in the world of Harn, where the PCs were all missionaries trying to open a Ilviran church in a new city. There were some traditional adventures, but a lot of the action was social maneuvering between different factions to get our place set up and attract interest.

http://web.archive.org/web/20081005084542/http://pages.sbcglobal.net:80/jchokey/city/general/intro/index.html

Obviously you can have a great political RPG where the PCs are on one side and hostile factions are NPC. My Wilderlands campaign is basically that, to a large extent. The politics centres on alliance building vs the Evil Empire. Getting a bunch of disparate and often mutually antagonistic Free Peoples to work together. It's great fun, and far more suitable for long term play than antagonistic PCs IME.

Quote from: Itachi;980292In your experience, do you think conflicting agendas between players is a requirement for political games to work?

Or is it possible to have interesting political games with players on the same "side"?

Either way. As long as players understand politics, so they can role-play in it. Otherwise, you'll need result charts to roll on for every situation there might be in the game, and the players just do what the chart says happens.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;980386Either way. As long as players understand politics, so they can role-play in it. Otherwise, you'll need result charts to roll on for every situation there might be in the game, and the players just do what the chart says happens.

I don't think you need players with special knowledge to have a good political game. 'Politics' doesn't need to involve parliamentary procedure or carefully-timed filibusters. Politics is just baked into our monkey brains as a way of handling conflict. When you introduce political conflict into your game, it's up to the players to be as blunt or sophisticated in their tactics as they choose. Both options can be effective depending on the situation.

From my experience, in campaign games it's mostly "us vs. them". For example, in our Ars Magica campaign we decided together to push certain topics at the upcoming tribunal, and then every one of us did their own thing to help and advance our cause. In "day to day" business, politics are always in the background, but seldom front and center.

In political one shots, conflicting agendas between players work better, because it makes for a faster paced game. Nobody has to wait for the GM to "do stuff", talking and scheming can go on in parallel, and the main job for the GM is to bring structure to the chaos.

Here's the link to a real-time one shot I ran with great success (5 players+referee, max. 4 hours):
http://drivethrurpg.com/product/154931/Crisis-Meeting--ONE-The-HUETEOTL-project

Blurb:

Spoiler

The President of the United States of America visits a research base in the Pacific. There, a dangerous experiment will take place that might solve the energy problems of the USA forever. But not everything is at it seems. And while his political rivals undermine his position, possible successors bring themselves into positions, scientists argue about test parameters, extremists plan attacks and the Chinese government issues one ultimatum after the other, the clock keeps ticking towards a horrible climax.

Crisis Meeting is a real-time in-character chamber drama for five players and one referee.The players take the roles of the US President and high-ranking politicians and scientists and have to act in a murky, ever-changing situation, where their personal future and carreer is at stake as well as the fate of the whole world.

This document contains all information needed to start playing with minimal preparation: A starting scenario with several timelines for possible courses of events, five detailed characters, each with his/her own background, resources and goals, and all rules necessary. In addition, only several sheets of paper and pens for every participiant, a ten-sided die for the referee and a clock are needed.

German version:
http://drivethrurpg.com/product/154673/Krisensitzung--EINS-Das-HUETEOTLProjekt

Quote from: Pyromancer;980465From my experience, in campaign games it's mostly "us vs. them". For example, in our Ars Magica campaign we decided together to push certain topics at the upcoming tribunal, and then every one of us did their own thing to help and advance our cause. In "day to day" business, politics are always in the background, but seldom front and center.

When I ran Ars Magica, it had both going on. Most sessions would start with a covenant council meeting where everyone played their magus, and you would get player vs. player politicking. At tribunals though, the group would usually go in with a united agenda.

Quote from: Itachi;980292In your experience, do you think conflicting agendas between players is a requirement for political games to work?

Or is it possible to have interesting political games with players on the same "side"?

Definitely possible to have an interesting game with all the players on the same side. Just look at The West Wing for example. All of the major characters were on the same side, yet they had enough interesting stories to fill 7 seasons.

It's just a matter of the GM providing an interesting background and memorable opponents.

Games with players on opposing sides can be appear more interesting in the beginning, but seldom last long in my experience.