DMing: How do I setup philosophical in-character discussions?

[Starman]

I don't know, but I think you could do worse than read Sepulchrave's story hour.

I was going to suggest the same thing myself.

 

[blargney the second]

Wik: I'm not too worried about the debate skills. I do public speaking for a living, so I'm good at talking on my feet. (Where are you on VI?)

howandwhy99: I want there to be an action- and thought-provoking ethical ambiguity that plays sympathy and abhorence for both sides. Philosophical discussion is a big umbrella that encompasses ethical discourse, so it's all the same as far as I'm concerned. I like your suggestion for incorporating snippets of ethics. That should be easy enough to drop in anywhere.

Quickleaf: The primary PC is a LN female xeph swashmonkler who is a refugee from Cyre. Her family has a history with the lyre of building, so she has a vested interest in retrieving it. She's recently encountered a wererat that is indirectly involved with the whole shebang. Personality-wise she's a cross between Lara Croft, Storm from X-Men, and Mei from House of Flying Daggers. She's accompanied by a warforged defender (a custom canine-formed WF) of as-yet undetermined motives.

The lycanthropes are tied to organized crime through the halfling Boromar clan in Sharn as well as the Bilge Rats in Stormreach. Their new settlement will be in Xen'drik, where the pressures can be pretty intense. There are many factions/strains of lycanthrope that are cooperating to varying degrees in the construction of the settlement. They mostly use the curse to afflict people in positions of power, keeping it as quiet as possible.

The church is the Silver Flame, which is both widespread and focused in the theocracy of Thrane. In this game I've decided that Flamists caused the Mourning when they found out about the military-grade disease. There were relatively few prototype lycanthrope soldiers when Thrane nuked Cyre from orbit. There are definitely some sects that are more fanatic than others. I like your ideas of heresies and infected Flamists.

The Grumpy Celt: Umm, let's just call that a troll. :-|

Raven Crowking: Consequences are a big part of what I'm hoping to set up. If the PCs choose one side or the other at any given point, they should influence the outcome in various ways. Actions and words should have equal opportunity to affect the future.

-blarg

 

[howandwhy99]

howandwhy99: I want there to be an action- and thought-provoking ethical ambiguity that plays sympathy and abhorence for both sides. Philosophical discussion is a big umbrella that encompasses ethical discourse, so it's all the same as far as I'm concerned. I like your suggestion for incorporating snippets of ethics. That should be easy enough to drop in anywhere.

Really my big point (and I think Grumpy Celt's too) was to know if your players desire a game like this. If so, than forge ahead full. But if not, watch out for setting them up in a emotionally charged situation they didn't choose.

That's why I suggested some small, starting steps. If they enjoy something like those, offer more complicated stuff and go from there.

Or you could just tell the players up front the campaign is very philosophical and likely to iinclude a lot of debate.

However the group wants to play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[cmrscorpio]

On the topic of creating debate, most of my in-character philosphical debate is brought on whenever the PCs have to spend alot of time with a particular NPC. For instance, if your characters are escorting someone, or protecting someone, there isn't always action. There is alot of time spent simply plodding along a road or sitting next to the fire at day's end. I use this opportunity to have NPCs shoot the sh*t with the PCs.

Also, this adventure immediately sprang to mind when I saw the subject of this thread: http://www.planewalker.com/hooks/entry.php?intEntryID=597

 

[Wik]

Wik: I'm not too worried about the debate skills. I do public speaking for a living, so I'm good at talking on my feet. (Where are you on VI?)
-blarg

Ah. See, I'm not a bad speaker or anything (show me the DM that *is*!), but I have a problem with trying to get "indepth" and philosophical about things on the fly - it's very easy for my players to pick holes in my arguments. Now, when it comes time to creating fictional HISTORICAL information (being a history major), I have no problem pulling things out of the air.

Oh, and I'm a Sookie, moving to Vic fairly soon.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I hope you're not serious.

I was and remain totally serious. Do not participate unless you intend to give nothing away and take everything you can.

...you're taping them to playback the conversation so that you can use whatever they say, point-by-point, to destroy their characters!

There is no other plausable reason for having such a debate. no one is under anykind of requirment, ethical, moral, legal or otherwise, where they have to trust each other and believe in each others best intentions. It is deeply wise to be careful and keep thoughts to youself.

So, that is most sensible thing to think and believe when someone make an attempt - inept or otherwise - to draw you into a "debate."

Always remember, there is no such thing as a friendly fight.

 

[blargney the second]

howandwhy99: I like your baby steps approach What I have in mind isn't so much a debate as a discussion, more like what we're doing here.

Raven Crowking: I'm fortunate to have novice players - they haven't developed a sense of paranoia, so I can actually have non-confrontational conversations with their characters. I really like the idea of assigning ELs to conversations!

Wik: I'm frequently at Skyhaven Games at Tillicum for DDM games. Ask for Savage

The Grumpy Celt: I've got players who are interested in talking with NPCs, rather than just killing them. I think we might be playing a different sort of game than you're used to.

 

[arscott]

One of the coolest sessions I've ever played in involved a great philosophical discussion with a single NPC that lasted for over an hour. Recognizing that it was going to be a long one, we actually left the table and all went to sit on the couches to make ourselves more comfortable. I don't remember the specifics of it anymore, but in retrospect I've realized how much work must the DM must have put into setting that up.

I'd like to do something like that with my groups, but I have *no* idea how to make it happen.

Help?
-blarg

I don't think I can give more advice regarding the nature of the argument than these fine folks already have, but I do have two generic bits of advice:

1) Make sure the argument is structured in such a way that the Different PCs are reasonably likely to take opposing positions in the debate. When it's a debate between the players, its going to last longer and be more satisfying than a debate with the GM.

2) Start on the couches. Moving over to the couches when the debate starts draws an artificial distinction between "game time" and "debate time" and can cause the game to lose momentum.

 

[shilsen]

I was and remain totally serious. Do not participate unless you intend to give nothing away and take everything you can.

That approach would seriously bore the heck out of me. I've run some PCs who'd take exactly the above approach, but definitely not all of them, or even the majority.

There is no other plausable reason for having such a debate. no one is under anykind of requirment, ethical, moral, legal or otherwise, where they have to trust each other and believe in each others best intentions. It is deeply wise to be careful and keep thoughts to youself.

That's a very broad generalization. What about the reason that someone might get involved in a debate simply to find out more about what another person's viewpoints are? That's a completely plausible reason to me, from both real life and gaming experience. Then again, I've experienced a lot of things that are implausible and do implausible things daily. Implausible isn't the same as impossible.

So, that is most sensible thing to think and believe when someone make an attempt - inept or otherwise - to draw you into a "debate."

Always remember, there is no such thing as a friendly fight.

Having been in many, I have to say that you're completely wrong. They definitely are not the commonest type of fight, but they are.