How to make D&D more political?

[howandwhy99]

2. Reward roleplaying. Make sure that the benefits from diplomacy far outweigh what they'd get from killing someone and taking their stuff.

The default as I understand it is:
A. XP for killing a monster + GP cost of treasure balanced by worth of treasure to your class.
or
B. An ally who increases your group's level and abilities available as well as all the treasure.

I believe D&D is set up to lean towards cooperation versus competition. This is part of why 1-on-1 solo games were considered different to team games where each player was constantly assessing how they aligned with everyone else.

As far as advice, check out the game Diplomacy for how instill political interactions between players. Politics begins at home and in D&D one of the first and most common issues is Treasure Distribution. It could be such a issue that the books often included advice for settling matters before they could become contentions between players. But I would disagree with doing that. Those are not rules and how a party purports itself is a huge part of the game as a group activity. At least hold off on such heavy handedness until each person is put in the position of understanding how gaining treasure can be a benefit to them.

Engaging with NPCs politically, meaning governance and their perceived authority in relation to you, can be part of every NPC encounter. Tell the ogres you were sent by their clan chief lead them. That'll take some doing. But it changes the dynamic of the game by entering into other content and game structures. All of which is what you want to do. So, first and foremost, implement that content and structure into your play material. Once the NPCs are behaving as more than simply combat targets the players should twig to the idea that the world has more going on than your standard MMO.

 

[Phototoxin]

All this info has been really helpful.

I've been thinking and I guess part of the motivation for asking the question is that as the PCs approach paragon, they have more influence and allies (including a young adamantine dragon, a retired paladin and a young wizard that they spared) which will lead to more NPC-PC relationships developing. In addition there is a big background arc involving the rogue who is romantically involved with the defender and her background is going to effect all of them. But the players know this.
I'm thinking of incorporating the Dungeon 190 'masquerade' type encounter as part of it while the other NPCs do stuff 'back at base'.
In addition another thing I'm thinking of is making the players have to choose between 2 'neutral' parties who are at odds with each other.

Also in reference to the PCs kill everything - that's easy to say but when there is a literal horde of orcs, sometimes diplomacy is the hardest option to do for the players and the DM as if they players get cocky an army or orcs could just kill them through attrition.

 

[Piratecat]

In addition another thing I'm thinking of is making the players have to choose between 2 'neutral' parties who are at odds with each other.

I love this idea. "Choose the nature of the beast!"

Also in reference to the PCs kill everything - that's easy to say but when there is a literal horde of orcs, sometimes diplomacy is the hardest option to do for the players and the DM as if they players get cocky an army or orcs could just kill them through attrition.

The trick here is that the army of orcs can attack any one of dozens of different villages and towns. Through warfare, the PCs can save one town. Through diplomacy, they could save all of them -- or turn the orcs towards a single, selected target. Using a bluff check during a diplomatic encounter to say "Stop lying. We know you're after the Spear of Gruumsh. The Chapel of Saint Alonso is ready and well protected. It will never be yours!" is particularly effective, especially when the Chapel of Saint Alonso is a great big trap and the Spear of Gruumsh doesn't exist.