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

[blargney the second]

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

 

[Mr. Draco]

Good question. From my own experience gaming, I'm inclined to say that this isn't entirely possible to set up. On one hand, there's only so much you can do as a GM that can help foster philosophical discussions. On the other hand, there certainly are things that you can do. Firstly, make sure the type of game you run is a more thought-oriented game (intrigue, mysteries, and games where knowledge really is power). Also, talk to your players a day before each game session or so to find out what they're planning on doing; that'll let you prepare better for what's likely to happen (it's much easier to have a philosophical discussion, or set one up, when you're ready for it, and much harder to encourage when your players really just want to take this week's session and go beat up some orcs). Beyond that, make philosophy matter. This goes along with the "knowledge is power" idea, but if you reward your players for knowing things, or delving into philosophical mysteries, then they'll be more likely to.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

The last session of my game had no combat in it whatsoever and it was one of the best sessions that I have ever been a part of. It was easily the best session that I have GM'ed.

A lot of what I enjoyed about it was just sitting there and listening to the PC's have long in-character discussions amongst themselves about several things that were going on in the campaign. A lot of it was driven by one person in particular but everyone joined in and played along with everyone having a great time.

How I get that to happen again? I think a lot of it was due to the players really getting into their characters. It was about the 6th or 7th session of a new campaign and some of the things that they discussed were things that have been building since the first session. If you can get your players to really immerse themselves in the game then the chances of situations like that happening are probably greater.

So in summary, I'm not 100% sure how it happened but I really hope that it happens again soon!

Olaf the Stout

 

[Umbran]

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

Players, by their nature, are unpredictable. You can't make things happen that they really don't want to do. You can, however, do things to encourage this kind of conversation...

1)Focus encounters around a moral dilemma or information, rather than action.

2)Have NPCs with whom the party is expected to interact with more than superficially, but with whom they are not expected to be hostile.

3)Have NPCs with interesting, but not repugnant, philosophies that are well-considered, and have them inject these into conversation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Hussar]

That's some great stuff RC. Thanks. I have a captured blackguard elf in my WLD game that is Discussing things with my party. Issues regarding the World's Largest Dungeon. The party has allied with the Angel builders of the Dungeon and the Elf has brought up the point about whether or not the Angels will actually let them out regardless of their alignment.

I'm waiting to see if they bite or not.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

You need to have the philosphy be relevant to the game at hand. If the philosophical discussion will result in the solving of a problem or puzzle that plagues the PC's, or something like that, players will get more interested. If you can set up each of the elements of the discussion so that the players all understand the various points (by being referenced or vital to previous sessions), that will smooth things out.

When I introduced my new campaign world to my players, I had a few sessions that touched on specific elements of my world (planar mechanics, the church vs. wizards conflict, fey vs. human conflict). Not exactly the same thing, but the theory holds.

 

[Quickleaf]

Great advice RC! Really understanding the mindset of the antagonists is key.

Here's an example of how I, as a DM, set up philosophical debate in a campaign:

1) I knew what the PCs believed, what their goals were, how far they were willing to go for those goals, what they cherished, who they served, etc.
Rainfall (PC) is trying to find out who had slandered her family's name and sabotaged her father's career and sent him into imprisonment. A child of nobility she believes she never has to explain herself to others. She is willing to kill the guilty and has teamed up with the half-fiend Telakil in order to escape mysterious assassins; the two have become lovers.

2) I focused on the NPCs the players were most interested in and spent time fleshing out their motives, their web of relationships, what higher power(s) they believe in, etc.
Telakil (NPC) is torn between his evil and good natures, knowing full well that he is leading Rainfall and her allies into a trap orchestrated by his vile father, yet he finds himself falling in love with Rainfall. Moreover, his dreams are filled with images of a benign Goddess, and the possibility of faith has been born in his heart. He has been an assassin most of his life, is willing to kill innocents...though he is beginning to question himself.

3) Based on this information, I think of a dilemma that would put the PC and NPC in some sort of conflict that requires thought and discussion before action.
What if Rainfall and her companions come across a demon with information about the conspiracy to bring down Rainfall's noble house? Let's up the ante, and have the demon hint that it knows where her father is being imprisoned. The demon offers to help them to the best of its abilities, but requests that they help redeem its soul. Telakil doesn't believe the demon; in fact he doubts whether a "fallen angel" can ever be redeemed - its choice is final in his mind. Now the stage is set for a question: Can a demon be redeemed?

4) Encourage players to think and discuss. Do this by modelling philosophical inquiry with NPCs, not forcing the issue on the players, and providing "carrots" (XP, favors owed by NPCs, bonus modifiers down the road, an extra feat like "reconciliation of ethics" or what have you).
It begins when the demon reveals that Telakil plans treachery. Backed into a corner by the hostile PCs, Telakil states his belief that demons can't be redeemed, and sneers at their "guilibility" before fleeing. The demon says it had seen the light of redemption in Telakil's eyes and so hoped to claim that light for itself. If they accept the demon's aide they should indeed get the information about Rainfall's father (the carrot). They could also get extra XP for role-playing, or even the demon's eternal gratitude if they manage to redeem it.

 

[Chaldfont]

I'm not sure I can help with the philosophical part: our games tend to be pretty light. But when I want the players to get into character and really hash something out, I usually corner one of the players out of game and recruit him to get things started. You can tell the player some things his character would know, but the others do not. You can even plant false information by really skewing what you tell the player based on his character's personality.

Then, in the game, you can just turn to that player and start up the conversation. Usually the others will join in and have fun.

 

[Afrodyte]

I will concur with those posters who say that giving players more complex issues to deal with would be a good idea. To elaborate, as a player, I prefer not to have a linear approach to problem-solving. Instead, I like to choose from a variety of options, each with their own consequences. This does two things for me. First, it helps me roleplay better since I'd be making choices that actually reflect my character instead of simply following the plot along. Second, it gives me and the other players more ownership over the outcome. In many linear plots, getting from point A to point B has less to do with what a player or PC chooses and more to do with how well the player negotiates the game system or how well that player rolled.

Something that I think would work for me is to have the PCs not be the major decision-makers in the campaign. Instead, the PCs could be working for the major decision-makers, but they would have more influence than simply being mercenaries or grunts sent on this or that mission. For instance, perhaps the PCs work for an established guild, and a branch from another guild moves very close to the established guild's turf. Through whatever means they decide to use, they can deal with problems before they start. They could destroy the outside branch, buy them off, or negotiate with them. For a very D&D-esque example, read Steve Brust's novels about Vlad Taltos.