Planescape parties and factions

[wocky]

Here's a question for those of you that have some experience running or playing Planescape:

¿What's the "usual" relationship between the party and the factions? ¿Are all PCs usually members of the same faction? ¿Are they free to be members of almost any faction individually? ¿Are they usually free from afilliation to a faction, except when hired for specific assignments?

I'm planning a future campaign, and think that it might be good if all PCs belong to the same faction... however, I'm afraid that they might not align themselves enough with the faction's philosophy (especially if I choose it myself). If they're each free to either align with some faction or not, I expect a lot of problems within the party. If they're just hired by factions for assignments, it'll be harder to set up hooks, and I don't think Planescape will be as fun.

In case your answer is that PCs are usually affiliated with a faction (either as a party or individually): which are good faction choices and which should be avoided, in your experience?

 

[Ryltar]

I've had no problems with different factions, so far. Remember, the factions are philosophers (forget about the clubs for a moment ). Having PCs in a party that belong to different factions (or better yet: some who don't belong to any faction at all), make for excellent roleplaying. It depends on the campaign, of course ... if you're running something that is invariably going to lead to factions clashing violently, then maybe you should discourage the players from choosing exactly these factions. Normally, all they are gonna do if they're really into the faction thingy is: they are gonna start heated debates on the turning points of your campaign - and some PCs might try to recruit the as of yet unaligned ones.

Do not choose the factions for them. Give them a resume - point them towards zshuford's web page or the planewalker.com document - and let them read what you think they should know. If this is going to work, your players have to identify with what they are supposed to play .

Ryl

 

[ThirdWizard]

It has always worked out well with them chosing which faction to belong to, but then they always talk about it beforehand. No Hardheads with Anarchists running around together, in other words. I've never run a game where they're all part of the same faction, but it would work really well, I think, if the players all liked the particular faction. There's a fair amount of leeway in there for most of them, actually, and most of them are probably less pidgeon-holing than alignment (not that I think alignment is particularly pidgeon-holing even). So, you could still have a nice variety of characters in the party.

Just try to avoid having factions that hate each other in the same party and you should be fine. And, a Cypher is always welcome!

 

[Lancelot]

DM'ed a Planescape group for about five years - it remains one of my favorite settings. My experience was to let players choose the factions they desired although, as noted by ThirdWizard, it helps if they all talk about it first to ensure no outright conflicts.

We had one experienced player decide to take an Anarchist in a primarily-Lawful group, which created some extra spice. He was undercover the whole time, masquerading as a Guvnor (Fraternity of Order). Every session, he'd look for subtle ways to undermine the goals of the other players. His methods had to be extremely subtle - at least two of the other players were also very experienced and were hip to all the usual tricks (note-passing to the DM, inexplicable character absences, etc). He usually arranged all his tricks and sabotages with me prior to the session via email, and then left it to me to make the appropriate rolls on his behalf behind the screen.

Funnily enough, they never found him out. He fell prey to a fiend after 20 or so sessions, and the player rolled up a more 'normal' replacement.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The Anarchist within the group is great. Oh so hard to pull off, but I love it. *DM eye starts a gleamin'*

 

[Ruined]

In my general PS games, the players all pick different factions, going with the above suggestion of "non-warring" factions. It makes for good variety and some good roleplay when the tough decisions come about.

Also, I have run one short-lived theme campaign in PS, where the entire group was a functioning Anarchist cell. All had covers in different factions so they still had interactions with other factions and differing personalities, but they had a neat unifying focus. Alas, scheduling killed that one.

The upcoming campaign (after I wrap up Scarred Lands) is a PS game centered around bounty hunter themes. They'll all be serving some power, probably that of Lei Kung from Acheron. There will be jobs and tasks, until they reach the point where they break free. All will still have faction alliances, but they won't be as strong until they center themselves in Sigil (as long as things go the way I imagine they will).

Best of luck on your new game!

 

[Psion]

It's usually not that difficult to pull off if you have a generally compatible group of factions. Ciphers, sensates, signers, and godsmen are pretty safe and neutral. Others tend to not get on with some faction or another.

 

[der_kluge]

I'll side with Psion here. I had to restart 2 PS campaigns because of faction conflicts. My best advice is to pick a handful of factions which you think work well together, and allow only those, unless the player can agree to not specifically be disruptive. Dustmen can be safe, but it's risky, otherwise, sensates, ciphers, signers, and a few others which escape are all pretty harmless towards each other.

 

[Hammerhead]

Well I don't see why specific people inside factions can't get along, even if their general philosophies don't. I'm sure all of us have friends who are have vastly different political, economic, religious beliefs...I can see a few problems emerging between Hardheads and Anarchists, for example, but the faction isn't the sole component of a prime's belief system.

 

[Shemeska]

For three years in my last campaign I had an Indep, a Cipher, and a Xaositect in the same group. And except for the time that they were forced by circumstance into dealing with a Mercykiller/Sodkiller everything went pretty smooth. Well, except for trying to break the Xaositect out of prison after she got busted pilfering from the office of Estevan of the Planar Trade Consortium.

They, the PCs and players alike, generally have loathed the Harmonium, not cared for the Sodkillers/Mercykillers, got along great with the Transcendant Order, and been largely ambivalent with the others.

Now my second campaign, 150 years after the first, I've had some of the factions dissolve, regroup from having been dead, some factions added, and none of the players are actually involved in any of them (at the moment).

I did run a oneshot game however with an Athar mage in the same group as a cleric of pelor, and it was amusing because he was always volunteering the cleric to go first into danger, but it usually made sense at the time even though he was intentionally trying to get him hurt so he could mock him for his deity not saving his tail or some such.