How do you feel about factions in RPGs?

[MGibster]

The problem I've had with factions, in every game I've read or played that had them, was that every faction had a tendency to treat anyone who didn't join up as an enemy. If you don't like any of the factions presented to you, you are treated as an enemy by all of them and you end up ground to a fine paste between them. Also, if the game is about the PCs' stories, it can feel as though factions are a way of imposing the GM's story onto the game--this is probably more my reason for not using them as a GM than anything I can point to as something I've experienced as a player.

Imposing their story onto the game is one of the fundamental jobs of the dungeon master. But it's a collaborative effort wherein the DM sets up the context in which the PCs stories will be told. i.e. I arrange the pins and you knock them down however you choose. So regardless of whether the game has factions or not, if I put down some pins and you tell me you don't want to bowl, we've got a problem. If you dislike factions that much it's probably best if we select another game.

 

[auburn2]

So as both a DM and a player I have found factions extremely fun as being part of the roleplay, not so much for players joining factions (although I have been dm for a couple harpers) but rather incorporating them into the story.

As DM I have found them particularly good when they are morally opposed to the players but seeking the same goal in the module. There are a lot of role playing opportunities and moral conflicts when your good party is working with the Zhents to take down another evil person/group. The zhents might be doing it because they are a rival, while the players are trying to free people from tyranny or whatever. It works best when they NEED help from the faction.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It works best when they NEED help from the faction.

That IMO is the key to factions. The PCs should not be a power bloc, striding through a world to which they are indifferent.

They should face tasks far beyond their capacities, but which are attainable if they can obtain support from other groups, which obviously leads to side missions and payment-gathering, hard choices, and planning.

 

[prabe]

Imposing their story onto the game is one of the fundamental jobs of the dungeon master. But it's a collaborative effort wherein the DM sets up the context in which the PCs stories will be told. i.e. I arrange the pins and you knock them down however you choose. So regardless of whether the game has factions or not, if I put down some pins and you tell me you don't want to bowl, we've got a problem. If you dislike factions that much it's probably best if we select another game.

It's probably a difference in outlook, mostly. I see my job as GM being to write what happens before the PCs come on the scene (and plausibly what'll happen if they don't). Once they do, the story belongs to them. Factions, when used badly (and I've never seen them used well) feel to me like the GM refusing to hand the story over to the PCs.

I'm all in favor of stuff that works the way @Jd Smith1 says--and I try to have NPCs that engage the PCs' interests and provide some incentives--I just don't think that being recruited by a handful of factions and being treated as enemies by the ones you don't join feels like fun.

 

[MGibster]

It's probably a difference in outlook, mostly. I see my job as GM being to write what happens before the PCs come on the scene (and plausibly what'll happen if they don't). Once they do, the story belongs to them. Factions, when used badly (and I've never seen them used well) feel to me like the GM refusing to hand the story over to the PCs.

I don't know if we have a radically different outlook as this is my approach the the game as well. Except I don't see the story as just theirs so much as it's ours due to the collaborative nature of role playing games. Most of the games I've seen make heavy use of factions are those where it's simply baked into the setting. If somebody really hates the Camarilla, Anarchs, or the Sabbat then Vampire the Masquerade isn't the game for them.

 

[prabe]

Most of the games I've seen make heavy use of factions are those where it's simply baked into the setting. If somebody really hates the Camarilla, Anarchs, or the Sabbat then Vampire the Masquerade isn't the game for them.

Yeah, I haven't liked the setting of any White Wolf game I've read or played (which is far from all of them). To closely paraphrase you: not games for me.

 

[Nytmare]

For me to invest anything in a game's factions, I need to have a chart showing alliances, coalitions, and motivations. I need a road map more than I need a 10 page history lesson.

 

[Bawylie]

I like it best when the faction system is behind the dm screen. When you have various groups with their own interests and needs and they interact with the players incidentally unless they develop very strong ties.

For example when you do a lot of quests for the local church and get to know the priest, the priest gets some better spells, and the community that the church serves improves. The players don’t have to join the faction formally and they don’t know they’re at “+7 with the Temple of the Mountain.” Of course the players could stop off at any time for the usual services they provide - basic healing and shelter - but if they don’t make donations or undertake quests, then that’s all they’ll ever access. And they’ll never really need to worry about how they’re doing with that faction.

Idk. Something about even saying “faction” out loud gets me in a weird mindset. It makes me want to game out and advantage. Instead of a guild or group that operates in the world and does stuff, a faction feels like a sub-game I’ve got to farm points for.

Maybe that’s just me.

 

[pemerton]

I find that games with active factions with known motivations, agendas, and agents/figureheads are a nearly crucial element to enjoyable RPG play.

Random murderhoboing with no motivation other than "phat lewt" is the very definition of RPG hell to me.

The PCs should not be a power bloc, striding through a world to which they are indifferent.

They should face tasks far beyond their capacities, but which are attainable if they can obtain support from other groups, which obviously leads to side missions and payment-gathering, hard choices, and planning.

I am not keen on games where players are expected to join a faction, particularly if they are expected to join different factions that may be opposed to one another. I love games like Blades in the Dark or Godbound where players are part of a personal or shared faction that they establish and lead.

I wouldn't describe my RPGing as "random murderhoboing", but our play doesn't tend to invovle NPC elements driving the events that occur at the table.

In our Prince Valiant game the PCs are there own faction - a bit like what Campbell describes - with two being (respecitively) Master and Marshall of a holy military order the PCs founded, and the third knight PC tagging along with them against his better judgment.

In our Classic Traveller game the PCs have had allies and enemies, and those NPCs are connected to various organisations such as the Imperial Scout Service and the Psionics Institute. But the PCs are not themselves members of any particular organisation. They are the crew of a vessel that belongs to the noble PC.

In our Burning Wheel game the PCs have personal connections to various NPCs, and the wizard is a member of a sorcerous cabal. But it is moslty personal dynamics (eg affections and rivalries), not political ones, that drive the action.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Oh, there were consequences. Maybe not character-ending ones, but their actions (when the rest of the party failed to mitigate their insults) absolutely had an affect on the game. But since it was really just 2-3 PCs being mouthy, I didn't want to punish the whole table too severely for the actions of a few.

Sounds like you have failed to assign consequences to PC actions.

I concur 100%. The adventure came up with a system for tracking the factions and their commitment to the coalition, but then got pretty vague as to what the effects were. Each of the factions should have had some sort of bonus for securing their loyalty (like magic items, or some sort of boon), and an effect for alienating them (like adding encounters as a result of that particular faction not being present). Heck, they even could have tied Tiamat's strength at the end to the coalition strength.

I do not think enough guidance was given in the AP on how to deal with the various factions/delegates.