D&D 5E Factions in your game

[questing gm]

While it is quite understood that the factions added in the updated Basic Rules is meant for the Adventurers League organized play, I was thinking if any DM has any idea of giving these factions a role to play in their game other than organized play?

One reason I asked this is because in the starter adventure, the PCs are given an opportunity to join these factions when they meet with certain NPCs in Phandalin, though I'm thinking of dropping these options entirely. Again, while I understand that this is done mainly to make the characters organised play-legal, I am asking if any DM has found a way to interweave these factions to the adventure more, or how they intend the factions chosen by the characters to be more involved in a long term campaign after the starter adventure.

 

[Li Shenron]

We have always had tons of factions in our games, whether from published settings, DM-created or player-created...

A full fantasy setting can have hundreds of factions, but for organized play and writing adventure paths it's just so much easier if you focus on only 5. You can't write an adventure and try to link everyone's possible faction to the story if you have hundreds of factions, but with only 5 you can easily make sure all of them are linked in some way. Plus from the player's point of view, about 20% of the other players are going to have the same faction as yours.

 

[fjw70]

I don't plan to use factions.

 

[Scorpio616]

Have loathed factions since Vampire:tM (in the form of Clans). It's fine in where PCs are supposed to undermine one another's efforts, but the number one unspoken rule of siting down at the table for a normal RPG game is you don't screw over or work against other PCs. Anything that can make the party less loyal to one another is a recipe for disaster.

The one savings grace for factions is the section in some books where the factions talk smack about one another.

 

[Charles Rampant]

There are two kinds of Faction.

Player Factions - like Vampire. These are used to distinguish between players and give them a source of prebuild and reasonably safe intra-party conflict. I say reasonably safe, because almost always these factions are working together in the setting, like in ToD or the Camarrilla.

Setting Factions - like in the Forgotten Realms normally. These are there to provide storylines, hooks and antagonists or allies to negotiate and fight with. Though players can join the Harpers, say, this isn't the primary purpose of the organisation, which is to be a method of feeding plot to the party. You will want the factions to hate each other, since that way their conflicts can be a source of storylines for the players to interact with.

Planescape's factions were the exception, in that they were both player-focused but also mutually antagonistic setting factions, and I hear that this was why GMs for that setting often needed to keep an eye on potential conflict-causers being in the same party together. Meanwhile the Tyranny of Dragon ones are an example of setting factions being forced together so that they can serve as player factions.

 

[Gargoyle]

Have loathed factions since Vampire:tM (in the form of Clans). It's fine in where PCs are supposed to undermine one another's efforts, but the number one unspoken rule of siting down at the table for a normal RPG game is you don't screw over or work against other PCs. Anything that can make the party less loyal to one another is a recipe for disaster.

The one savings grace for factions is the section in some books where the factions talk smack about one another.

I think the potential for harm depends on how factions are presented and the maturity of the players. In Tyranny of Dragons, it's clear that the idea is that factions who normally oppose each other (Zhentarim and Harpers for instance) are forced to work together against the Cult of the Dragon. As long as the DM makes that point clear through NPC's that the Cult of the Dragon is the enemy and the players are mature enough to keep their rivalries in check, I could see where it adds a nice dynamic. There's nothing wrong with a Harper and a Zhent arguing about which quest to pursue or how to treat a prisoner, etc.

But just like roleplaying alignment and personality traits, it can be taken too far. You probably don't want them assassinating each other Paranoia style. I always have a brief talk with my players before a campaign about party loyalty. I explain out of character that I want to run a game where the player characters are allies and are loyal to each other. I ask them to come with the reasons in their background as to how they know each other, and why they care about each other. They may not always agree or get along, and might even fight, but I tell them to try to think of their party as a family or close group of friends. It seems to help avoid needless conflicts.

Not everyone will want that kind of campaign, but whatever it is you want, if you take five minutes to talk about it before the game starts, I guarantee you can avoid most problems if your players are at least trying to be mature.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are two kinds of Faction.

Player Factions - like Vampire. These are used to distinguish between players and give them a source of prebuild and reasonably safe intra-party conflict. I say reasonably safe, because almost always these factions are working together in the setting, like in ToD or the Camarrilla.

Setting Factions - like in the Forgotten Realms normally. These are there to provide storylines, hooks and antagonists or allies to negotiate and fight with. Though players can join the Harpers, say, this isn't the primary purpose of the organisation, which is to be a method of feeding plot to the party. You will want the factions to hate each other, since that way their conflicts can be a source of storylines for the players to interact with.

Thank you for this.

What we need, then, is five:ish forgotten realms factions that can act as player factions. That is, five factions that are at minimum neutral towards each other if not minor allies, but still sufficiently different from each other in their manners, methods and goals to justify having them all along.

The ideal is that the first time, one faction provides an adventure/quest/mission for the entire party. Then, the second time, it's another faction that starts the next adventure.

The first adventure benefits the first player the most, since it is he or she who advances in the organisation and "unlocks" membership benefits. But that's not of great concern, since the next time it could be my turn - the next time it could be my organisation that hands out the mission, with me as team leader and me basking in the glory (or taking the blame).

---

The first thing you probably is thinking of is: the gods and churches. It would indeed be easy to find a cluster of half a dozen gods that work in the same general direction. And you could always consider the class features of clerics and paladins as "faction benefits" that you "unlock" with adventure (read levels).

Problem is, the FR churches are incredibly bland. And, of course, they're not exactly inclusive of random-classed murderhobos.

---

What you would want is five factions much like the harpers or the zhentarim, complete with "unlockable" faction benefits, ideas for typical quests, and the like.

But, very much unlike the harpers and the zhentarim, five factions that actually get along with each other naturally. Even for characters that eventually become outright leaders in their respective organizations; meaning that even when it is the players who call the shots, the factions' philosophies can't diverge nearly as much as the harpers and the zhents.

So here's my challenge to y'all. It comes in five parts!

a) Name a significant FR faction that work well with, or share similar goals with, Emerald Enclave.

b) Name a significant FR faction that work well with, or share similar goals with, order of the Gauntlet.

c) Name a significant FR faction that work well with, or share similar goals with, the Harpers.

d) Name a significant FR faction that work well with, or share similar goals with, Lord's Alliance.

e) Name a significant FR faction that work well with, or share similar goals with, the Zhentarim.

The idea, of course, is to collect "clusters" of factions, so DMs can offer a choice of compatible or semi-compatible factions, instead of the too-divergent list of five offered by the game as it stands.

 

[MasterTrancer]

While it is quite understood that the factions added in the updated Basic Rules is meant for the Adventurers League organized play, I was thinking if any DM has any idea of giving these factions a role to play in their game other than organized play?

One reason I asked this is because in the starter adventure, the PCs are given an opportunity to join these factions when they meet with certain NPCs in Phandalin, though I'm thinking of dropping these options entirely. Again, while I understand that this is done mainly to make the characters organised play-legal, I am asking if any DM has found a way to interweave these factions to the adventure more, or how they intend the factions chosen by the characters to be more involved in a long term campaign after the starter adventure.

I plan to use them a lot; coming from a Planescape background I like the factions, since they can give you lots of opportunities for role-playing, exploiting well the "social" pillar. This is obviously strongly dependant on the tone and type of the campaign though, so in a more h'n's group they may be just quest and rewards givers.

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's a short list of FR organizations that could replace the above list, the goal being that all of these could work together, even given their different goals and priorities.

the Moonstars
Knights of the Shield
Iron Throne
The Silver Stake
Merchant's League

This assumes the organizations are made smaller or larger, made more/less powerful, or just tweaked a bit, in order to make them all meet a baseline of available resources that makes them suitable for player selection.

Together with the Harpers and the Lords' Alliance, the list includes both organizations that could work together directly as well as competitors, who would probably work best when allied against a common enemy. In many cases, that enemy is the Zhentarim.

I do know some of these organizations have secret agendas that make them look less suitable. But simply hold back that plot development until the PC or PCs are influential enough to stop it, and everything's fine. Just like how WotC apparently is handling the Emerald Enclave...?

 

[IchneumonWasp]

I have played a lot of Vampire: the Masquerade (both as a player and a game master) and, as other have mentioned before, it is full of factions. The difficulty is such games is often that, while faction are great in that they automatically link the player characters to the world/story and what is happening it in, it is more difficult to bring the party together and make them work like a team.

One time I was running a game of Dark Age Vampire (set in ancient Constantinople), and the game really failed, because I just couldn't get the player characters to 'care' about each other and work towards common goals. Although it was one of the best games I've ever run, it did really suffer because of that. I have also played Werewolf: the Forsaken and I feel that game really has a good balance and escapes the problem of Vampire games as the werewolf character have a real in game reason to work together as a 'pack'.

In D&D games, I haven't seen much factions in play, at least not of the kind of characters joining them. I'm currently still building my 5e campaign world, but I am trying to incorporate them. Currently, the plan is to have different semi-neutral guilds have a very present place in the world. I think factions fulfill 2 goals in the game:

1. They are organizations that provide the players with storybooks, quests, and can be involved in the plot.
2. They are one way the player characters can differentiate themselves.

So, I'm now planning on indeed including at least the following organizations that the players can join: a thieves/pirate guild, a wizards guild, a semi-religious order of knights, one main church and two secret cults, one worshipping nature and one worshipping creatures from the Far Realm.

Since the point is to allow the players to differente themselves, I try to make these factions more than just your average wizards and thieves guild, each having their own objectives and political agenda. Also, it isn't per se obvious that the rogue would join the thieves guild and the wizard the wizards guild, but any scholarly type whose main aim is to gather and uncover forgotten knowledge may feel like joining the 'wizards guild'.

However, in this campaign I'm planning, I'm aiming for a more easy going and 'simple' game world, so I'm not designing the guilds with the idea of increasing party conflict. So, most of them will usually get along just fine.