So last session of my Incan fantasy game (using D&D 5e), my PCs started getting semi-political for the first time - and they went to the capital city to root out a cult member they knew was in there. They also have some family / organizational / religious connections.

I got a little stuck, though, as it felt like maybe I was making a little too quick a transition from dungeon-based play to political/domain-level play.

In dungeon-based play, players are looking at their character sheets a lot and thinking about what things on their character sheets will apply to the next situation. Not that it's purely mechanical. I think I've actually done a pretty good job of tying the dungeons into the setting and cultures of the world. But they're taking a lot of cues from there, and we have 2-3 combats per session.

Even though they were used to talking to NPCs and investigating. We've had two murder mysteries so far, for example. But it felt like players were coming a little unmoored when I had a session that was more about the bigger picture - who the cult were tied to, and how to pursue a member inside the capital city of the empire.

So I actually threw in an unplanned combat - where a night hag from the cult summoned some demons to go after them, and try to make their entrance into the capital look bad. I think it helped.

---

But it made me think in general, what are the best practices of taking the PCs from dealing with immediate physical problems like monster fighting and dungeon-delving, into bigger stuff like regional politics. In skill-based games that I've done, the character sheets have sometimes had stuff connecting to them to stuff like that - because they'd have a few more things like Social Rank advantage, specific skills, allies or contacts. It seems a little trickier in D&D, because I feel like what's on the character sheet doesn't connect as well to bigger-scale play.

This maybe touches on reward cycles that people have talked about. Combat and dungeon-delving involve more mechanics like spell-casting, hit points, initiative, and other stuff on the sheet.

I realize that in my last extended D&D campaign, I started transitioning them from the beginning -- because the players had a sheet of all the NPCs who they were responsible for. The premise was apocalyptic - a bit like The Walking Dead - so there were a bunch of non-combatants that the PCs were helping to survive. That made the campaign more social/political from the start.

I've heard of Adventurer Conqueror King, but I've never read it. I'd be curious to hear more, because it sounds like it has this transition built into the game premise.

Looking through ACKS I don't see anything for political/mystery/investigation play beyond a Proficiency system similar to 5e Skills, perhaps a bit more detailed - it has stuff like Seduction and Theology listed. ACKS has detailed rules for war, dominions, and trade, but overall is still very much a GM-decides, semi-free-kriegsspiel type game in the BX-BECMI D&D line.

If you need mechanical GM-side support I'd suggest looking at Justin Alexander's blog with his node-based play, three clue rule et al.

D&D did this ages ago from Name level, and ACKS is just carrying it on through. I prefer Birthright as a template on layered Domains over an area, dividing each province into: military, law, ecclesiastic, commerce, & magic. I think that shows the Negotiations of Power in any region; if you don't find a way to live with other power holders they WILL mess with you, because you ARE messing with them.

I feel the key, from experience in play, is how you manage relationships and coordination in D&D. It doesn't go into detail of the mechanics, which is wise given social dynamics are wonderfully complex and diverse. If you can coordinate a party, collaborate with Henchmen, manage your Hirelings, and still maintain profitability over time in a region, well... isn't that what you were trying to achieve in Domain Play only in a smaller scale?

You likely already have given your players the experience needed to do Domain Play. You just need to emphasize the shift in scale and locus. Bigger responsibilities means less carefree wanderings, but tethered to a powerbase means you must travel to other powerbases by necessity. Diplomacy and emissaries and delegation and multitasking become the new game due to the necessity of power projection.

It's probably worth drawing a distinction between "political" and "domain" play. Political play could mean a lot of things, but it sounds like for your campaign it means the interpersonal side of politics: negotiations, spying, favor-trading, blackmail and so forth. There aren't many games I'm aware of that have dedicated rules for that sort of thing. It's usually more a question of GM-ing style, and you handle it within whatever non-combat or social rules the game has. In old school-D&D, my impression is that most people do social situations through a combination of reaction rolls, common sense, and DM fiat.

The D&D domain rules are much more about the numbers side of politics: economics, territory, war, governance, etc., and they pretty much assume that the PCs possess lands and titles. ACKs does have pretty extensive rules for that, but they're only going to be useful if that's the kind of campaign you want to run.

Well the first and most important question would be do the players actually have any interest in getting involved in politics or are they happier just being hammers looking for a nail? Not all players are interested in being in charge of anything, they just want to keep hunting down bad guys. So my advice would be to first ask your players if they are interested in a move to the political arena and plan your campaign based on their answer.

Greetings!

Jhkim, I think that as you proceed to further develop your higher-level campaign to embrace the political domain, I think it is worthwhile to remember the importance "Factions within Factions." Lots of people can be more or less on the same side--while still in opposition to each other over organizational focus, and political and financial priorities. One political faction might stress the importance of ART, while another wants to focus on Public Works, and still another is focused on domestic security, justice and Law Enforcement. Then there are the more Pro-military group, the Foreign Trade group, and more. There should be various groups all competing for Finances, Political Power, Influence, and Prestige. None of these rivalries or competing relationships must necessarily engage in lethal or murderous opposition to each other--though such is always a possibility. That also opens up dynamics for competing sessions with the King or various other nobles, as well as court cases and legal tribunals. Out in the streets, of course, there can be loud-mouthed Demagogues seeking to spread the message, and essentially forming the role of Grifter, Charlatan, Political Opportunist, and Hustler.

Some political leaders might also support recruiting urban gangs of thugs and para-military ruffians to add to their influence and options in the streets. As well as well-connected and well-trained teams of professional spies and assassins.

Toss in sordid sexual affairs, weird kink fetishes, secrets--and of course, noble, faithful romances--and an assortment of spoiled brat children, competing siblings, emo-resentful ugly daughters, and you have the ingredients for a whole different social dimension.

Furthermore, there can also be distinctly different religious factions as well,  competing for the same kinds of things, and largely using the same channels and methods.

So many possibilities and potentials! Spend some hours also watching Mexican Tele-novellas. Great fun, and great sources of crazy inspiration!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Was it obvious that you would be transitioning from dungeons to politics from the start? If not, maybe you need to give the characters an opportunity to gain some political skills/feats/backgrounds. 

One of the issues is that it's pretty obvious what a character can do in combat - it's one of the things that 5th Ed is designed to do. And everyone is pretty similar in power.
On the other hand, only a couple of characters are actually mechanically set up to do "political" things (mastermind rogue, maybe?). A few others can do well (cha-based PCs). But what do I as a level 8 fighter with 10 cha do _mechanically_? I have no skills/feats/abilities that can I can use. Roleplay, you say? Of course. But I'm still at a disadvantage compared to the others - they can fall back on skills/feats/backgrounds/etc.

That might be why the players seem a bit "at sea". You might need to introduce some rules that allow everyone to be part of the political intrigues on a more even playing field. 

Quote from: spon on June 27, 2023, 09:38:59 AM
Was it obvious that you would be transitioning from dungeons to politics from the start? If not, maybe you need to give the characters an opportunity to gain some political skills/feats/backgrounds. 

One of the issues is that it's pretty obvious what a character can do in combat - it's one of the things that 5th Ed is designed to do. And everyone is pretty similar in power.
On the other hand, only a couple of characters are actually mechanically set up to do "political" things (mastermind rogue, maybe?). A few others can do well (cha-based PCs). But what do I as a level 8 fighter with 10 cha do _mechanically_? I have no skills/feats/abilities that can I can use. Roleplay, you say? Of course. But I'm still at a disadvantage compared to the others - they can fall back on skills/feats/backgrounds/etc.

That might be why the players seem a bit "at sea". You might need to introduce some rules that allow everyone to be part of the political intrigues on a more even playing field.

This a great example of why new school games that have the mechanics play the game for the players completely falls apart whenever a situation presents itself that can't be overcome by skill check or use of a special ability of some kind. Players have to suddenly think for the first time and they are befuddled. Doing this kind of thing in an old school system such as OD&D, B/X or AD&D and the players just roll with it because it isn't much different than what they have been doing all along-actually playing the game as players.

Outside of mechanical considerations, there can also be an issue of what you might call "genre savviness" when you move a group out of the standard exploring/fighting/dungeoneering mode of D&D. A surprising number of people just aren't interested in detective, espionage or political fiction, and consequently have no frame of reference for how to go about those kinds of activities.

Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 02:13:12 AM
Even though they were used to talking to NPCs and investigating. We've had two murder mysteries so far, for example. But it felt like players were coming a little unmoored when I had a session that was more about the bigger picture - who the cult were tied to, and how to pursue a member inside the capital city of the empire.

The only details that matter are the ones that impact how the NPCs act i.e. roleplaying.

Think about it for a minute, everything we attribute to a culture, clothing, mannerism, building styles, religious beliefs, all have roots in people making decisions and acting on them. With a book, boardgame, wargames, broad generalizations are useful to give an overview. But with RPGs we are approaching things from the bottom, the people. And what makes an Incan an Incan is the things they choose to do as a person.

For example, it isn't about who the cult is tied too. It is about who the individual cultists interact with outside of the cult. In your notes you generalized it to be the Red Flower society but to the players you would present it as the cultist Suyuntu has a relationship with Uchu of the Red Flowers.

The only remaining issue is to keep the interconnections down to the level that the players handle. For example, I had Arthurian myth analog going in my recent Majestic Wilderlands campaign, and all but one player struggled to keep track of the relations between Arthur, Modred (who is just an evil nephew), Constans (the bastard son of Arthur), Morgause (Modred's mother who hates Arthur), Morgan Le Fay (also hates Arthur), and Morgaine (Constans mother and Arthur's half-sister).

So you will have to fine the right level of details and be prepared to do a lot of coaching. In fact I would go.

QuoteHey I know some of this can be overwhelming, don't sweat it, I got your back and will remind you of what your character knows when it comes time for you to make a decision.

I found doing this makes the group far more relaxed as they know I am not going to bring a "gotcha". However I also make sure I don't tell them what to do with the information. I just coach them on the detail and answer questions if they are reasonable for what the players know.

Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 02:13:12 AM
So I actually threw in an unplanned combat - where a night hag from the cult summoned some demons to go after them, and try to make their entrance into the capital look bad. I think it helped.

So my situation was this. The players wanted to play the current campaign in the City State of the Invincible Overlord focusing on the city itself and urban adventures. I am using my Majestic Fantasy RPG rules which is based on OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. The majority of the group were novices to City-State itself and my Majestic Wilderlands.

As I usually do I worked with each player to come up with a background. Then I would write it up (nearly always a page or less). No mechanics just notes that amount to a list of rumors, allies, contacts, and enemies.

One of the players made a regular fighter and he thought roleplaying a young exiled Viking prince would be nice. As it turned out that fit perfectly with the events of a previous campaign that I ran a decade ago. So I gave him the following PDF.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R-sx8-XseSIuIcCcm6VIhtTU7hCjNp3s/view?usp=sharing

I did this to make this overview of the current state of City-State but I made it clear that they didn't have to memorize it to play. It is there as a reference in case I described something that they didn't understand. It also served as a reference for myself.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RbJsEXM2gCcHrjksT59FQUNofFosg6Ok/view?usp=sharing

So for the first 8 months of the campaigns (4 session per month) the players had adventures in City-State. All the details above were glossed over in favor of interactions with specific NPCs.

For example the stuff about Pegana, Hamakhis, boiled down to one of the players playing a Cleric of Nephthys (goddess of wealth and pleasure) becoming friends with a priestess from the Temple of Pegana (Hamakhis, God of Death and Judgment. One adventure that involved this character as the focus was he was placed in charge of running a street during a major festival and enlisted the rest of the party to help him. And that got started because his superior asked him to undertake the job.

The Viking Prince character dealt with some of the troubles his brothers and sisters got into. One adventure involved rescuing his sister from a cult in the city.

So what kicked the campaign into a political mode (if you can call it that) is the fact that the Viking Prince decided to enter the Arena and fight. And basically started racking up victories. Enough time had passed in the campaign that word got back to his uncle in exile elsewhere. So the uncle decided to send some of his "thugs" housecarls to take care of the prince, and hire assassins to kill the Prince's aunt and other family members.

Long story short, the toughest housecarl got into the final bout of the Arena champion fight along with the Viking Prince (who was 6th level at this point). Meanwhile his aunt was killed by another PC who unbeknownst to the party was an assassin whose cult just assigned the mission. Shit went down, the aunt died (the PC didn't get caught), but the Viking Prince triumphed spectacularly and became the talk of City-State.

The party tracked down the rest of his uncle's men in City-State and had them killed (except for a magic user). The Viking Prince started making plans for leaving City-State to track down and kill his Uncle. The party said sure why not! It sounds like fun getting caught up in the idea of a good old Viking revenge quest.

But the party needed more resources to hire a boat to get to where the uncle was. So started pursuing contacts and loose ends from previous adventures to generate funds.

But then the Viking Prince gets a summons from the Overlord of City-State. There is a whole backstory I won't get into but it is detailed and involves the machinations of four different groups of PCs across the decades in a neighboring realm next to the Overlord's territory.

How this was handed was the Viking Prince player meeting the Overlord and sitting down with him and roleplaying. Just like if you and I sat down to talk. There was some other NPCs but they were in the backdrop obviously assisting the Overlord. The bulk of the encounter was the Viking Prince and Overlord talking.

And the essence of the talk was that the Overlord will give a longship he had to the prince. Along with funds for a crew and supplies in order to bring his uncle to justice. The Overlord will also support the Prince's claim to the character's homeland and help him reconquer it. Provided that he swore fealty to the Overlord. The player said yes. The rest of the party got real nervous about it but the Viking Prince players said that the first order of business was vengence.

Fast forward a bit, the Viking Prince and party were successful in killing his uncle and avenging his aunt. Unfortunately, the assassin PC was exposed along the way. And his player had to make up another character.  The look on everybody's face, when they put that together, was priceless.

So the realm that was at the center of this was one I created decades ago with my setting's take on King Arthur. Instead of Saxons the invaders were Vikings.

So it was at this point that Viking Prince reputation grew to the point where some of the major players in Arthur's realms started paying attention. Namely Morgan Le Fay who was up until that point dealing with the Viking Prince's uncle. But since the Viking Prince killed the uncle she makes a decision to try to ensnare the Viking Prince in her plans. The party takes the bait by following up on a rumor she tells them. Basically an island that will grant the brave and worthy one wish if they overcome its challenges.

The campaigns continued on after and I will be happy to give more details. But the upshot is that all of this was handled vias character interactions. Sure there was a grand history, epic tales, and institutions behind this. But the PCs muddled their way through this by roleplaying with the NPCs and making decisions based on what they learned and who they liked.

Meanwhile, I kept track of the PCs immediate social circle and figured out what they were doing. For more distant social connections like the Overlord, the uncle, etc. I still kept track but more loosely until the PCs were noticed.

As for what the other PCs were doing, they made the decision as a group to make the vengeance quest their primary focus in the last parts of the campaign. Each of them found something to do in the different locations they visited. Particularly the mage who was keen on learning what he could about Viking magic.

And I did this with my classic D&D variant the Majestic Fantasy RPG.

Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 02:13:12 AM
But it made me think in general, what are the best practices of taking the PCs from dealing with immediate physical problems like monster fighting and dungeon-delving, into bigger stuff like regional politics. In skill-based games that I've done, the character sheets have sometimes had stuff connecting to them to stuff like that - because they'd have a few more things like Social Rank advantage, specific skills, allies or contacts. It seems a little trickier in D&D, because I feel like what's on the character sheet doesn't connect as well to bigger-scale play.

When I ran AD&D, I handled as notes the character sheet. The same way I handle it now.

As for when I ran GURPS, after the first five years, I stopped requiring players to pay points for social stuff like rank and contacts after character creation. Sure if you wanted to start wealthy and noble, you had to spend the point. But after the start of the campaigns it was all notes. I did use some of the social mechanics as guidelines because even if you don't use the mechanics, GURPS authors often packed some useful advice about how specific social relationships worked.

I still use reaction rolls to keep me honest how specific NPCs like the PCs. To make sure there is a realistic spread of good, neutral, and bad reactions in the absence of some specific reason.

Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 02:13:12 AM
This maybe touches on reward cycles that people have talked about. Combat and dungeon-delving involve more mechanics like spell-casting, hit points, initiative, and other stuff on the sheet.

The primary reward is the larger impact their decisions have.

There is an old Greek saying.

QuoteHappiness is the Exercise of Vital Powers, Along Lines of Excellence, in a Life Affording Them Scope

Even tho the latter part of the campaign was focused on the Viking Prince. Every player was keenly aware that done right, this will lead to the players becoming king and with each of them having a place and resources far greater than they enjoyed up to this point.

In another campaign, incidentally in the same realm the Viking Prince backstory was part of, the party were mercenary in the employ of the royal army. They bagged the Viking King, who happened to be the Viking Prince's father, and exchanged for King Arthur who purchased the King's ransom from the players.

They debated what to do with the money and decided they wanted to build an inn. They had the perfect spot picked out. A cross road that was in the midst of the wilderness but heavily travelled. The rest of the campaign was about them dealing with the local nobles, and clearing the immediate wilderness of various dangers. But since the goal was to get that inn built and then run it, the whole part was invested in what was going on and ensuring the various adventures and encounters were a success.

Most of the action in the last part of that campaign was high points (GURPS) adventuring in the Plain of Cairns and the numerous barrows it contained. It was right next to the site of the inn and needed to be dealt with.

Quote from: jhkim on June 27, 2023, 02:13:12 AM
I've heard of Adventurer Conqueror King, but I've never read it. I'd be curious to hear more, because it sounds like it has this transition built into the game premise.

The key thing about ACKS, along with my Majestic Fantasy RPG, is that it details what characters can do other than combat and spellcasting.

Sure you could use OD&D, B/X, to handle this with notes. But players don't just want to be able to do things other than combat and spellcasting, they want to get better as well. So Autarch came up with a way of handling that with ACKS, I have come up with a way of handling that with the MW rules.

But ACKS is very useful and because Autarch has made it open content, I had adapted it for my own use like a set of fantasy merchant rules.

https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Merchant%20Adventures%20Rev%2004.pdf

Hope this helps. And don't hesitate to PM if you want ask something off-board.

--
Jhkim drop me a private message if you want a sneak preview of ACKS II. Least I can do for enjoying your writing on the threefold model all these years.
--

The way that ACKS transitions players from adventurer to politician-ruler is with XP incentives. You need lots of XP to level. It gets harder to find that much XP just lying around in treasure hoards. But the game rewards XP -- lots of XP -- for domain activities. A lot of players in ACKS often are reluctant to set up a domain, fight a pitched battle, run a guild, make a magic item, etc. until they see the XP that their party members are getting for doing so. Then they suddenly become very interested.

The crucial but overlooked part of this system, however, is that it is carefully tuned so that the reward for domain activities of any given size domain declines as you level (there's an "XP threshold"), so that the player is constantly motivated for 'more more more'. You can get to 5th level with a barony, but you need a duchy to get to 9th level, etc.

If you put these incentives in place, and put together a game world that is structurally positioned for collapse/conquest/political advancement/etc, then the players freely enter this style of play. I tend to set up the world to be filled with either evil or incompetent rulers and threaten it with an existential enemy. This helps players, who might be reluctant to tread the jeweled thrones of the earth into dust, feel virtuous: "The King is in league with the enemy! We have to conquer his realm in order to lead it against the Dark Lord."

In terms of the transition from play, I did not do a good job of explaining this in ACKS so I have gone out of my way to do so in ACKS II. Also in ACKS II I've included rules for politics with mechanics for bribery, slander, assassination, spying, gaining influence over legislators and rulers, disputes, etc. There's also expanded rules for thieves to engage in various hijinks. These had previously appeared in AXIOMS.

Quote from: spon on June 27, 2023, 09:38:59 AM
Was it obvious that you would be transitioning from dungeons to politics from the start? If not, maybe you need to give the characters an opportunity to gain some political skills/feats/backgrounds. 

One of the issues is that it's pretty obvious what a character can do in combat - it's one of the things that 5th Ed is designed to do. And everyone is pretty similar in power.

On the other hand, only a couple of characters are actually mechanically set up to do "political" things (mastermind rogue, maybe?). A few others can do well (cha-based PCs). But what do I as a level 8 fighter with 10 cha do _mechanically_? I have no skills/feats/abilities that can I can use. Roleplay, you say? Of course. But I'm still at a disadvantage compared to the others - they can fall back on skills/feats/backgrounds/etc.

That might be why the players seem a bit "at sea". You might need to introduce some rules that allow everyone to be part of the political intrigues on a more even playing field.

Yes, this is exactly the issue that I'm thinking of. And yes, I've done a lot of things in my campaign that I haven't detailed here. I have been taking into account the preferences of my players, and telegraphing the shift. As they go up in level, they've been dealing with bigger issues. For example, in the previous adventure, they had just gotten oracular readings where they got answers about their potential ambitions.

So I've been trying to adjust it, but as you say, the core is still going from the balanced combat/dungeon-delving mode connected to their abilities and equipment lists on their sheets -- and transitioning up to where it's more things like the state of their stronghold, who their allies are, and other stuff that isn't part of the D&D character mechanics.

The fighter of the party is of royal blood, and she has family in the capital. The sorcerer is noble-born and has connections in the northern provinces. I've been working on giving all the characters something, but it's still tricky. For example, the fighter has the family and connections and status - but none of that is mechanical stuff on her character sheet. So I'm thinking about ways to do it better.

Some side notes:

• This doesn't have to be just about my campaign. I'd love to hear stories about how other people handled the transition.
• The point is that this is a slow transition. They'll still be adventuring/dungeon-delving for a few more adventures, but I want to think about the transition.
• A big difference from standard D&D is that I haven't had any monetary treasure in this campaign. There is no coinage in the setting, and the PCs aren't independent treasure-hunters. They are agents of a spiritual patron. So they're not going to build a stronghold with treasure, but they'll still establish themselves. But talk about stronghold building in other campaigns is relevant.

As has been mentioned, political isn't exactly domain, but they do overlap.

In my experience, using a game with a more deadly combat system, like Mythras (a BRP/RQ game) is perfect for setting up a political game or domain game because from the beginning it teaches players how to think outside the box to achieve goals.  Even in a combat scenario, standing toe to toe with everything and knocking it down is probably going to get you killed eventually, and being outnumbered, even by inferior opponents, is an extremely difficult situation.

Thus, players are always thinking of ways to change the odds, which...
First leads to more tactical fights. How you fight.
Then moves on to more strategic fights. Where and When you fight.
Then moves onto getting Allies and eliminating the interference of your foes' Allies.
This, of course, brings politics in to accomplish normal PC-like goals.

Now, you might think that this type of progression requires at some point having city adventures, and that makes it easier, but not 100% required.  For example, the social dungeon, with different factions that the PCs can ally with or play off against each other is the classic example.

In any case, the idea is to have a system and GMing style that can reward tactical and outside the box thinking, and you're halfway there.  5e, of course, is a terrible system for any form of in-depth campaigning because there is no "off the sheet" thinking required.

Quote from: crkrueger on June 27, 2023, 04:47:11 PM

Now, you might think that this type of progression requires at some point having city adventures, and that makes it easier, but not 100% required.  For example, the social dungeon, with different factions that the PCs can ally with or play off against each other is the classic example.

Good advice. TSR Module B4 has a terrific example of a setup for this kind of stuff.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 27, 2023, 05:51:38 PM

Quote from: crkrueger on June 27, 2023, 04:47:11 PM
Now, you might think that this type of progression requires at some point having city adventures, and that makes it easier, but not 100% required.  For example, the social dungeon, with different factions that the PCs can ally with or play off against each other is the classic example.

Good advice. TSR Module B4 has a terrific example of a setup for this kind of stuff.

Yeah. In this campaign, one of my early adventures was loosely adapted from "I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City", and the PCs negotiated with the bullywugs, beastmen, and tasloi to work against their main enemy the Yuan-ti.

Of published adventures, my other favorite social dungeon is The Sunless Citadel for 3E, which is a great intro adventure that includes a goblin-vs-kobold standoff on the upper level.

In my previous dragon apocalypse game, the PCs got into politics in the Underdark among different apocalypse survivor groups.