[Review] Dynasties and Demagogues (...and an informal poll)

[Fenes 2]

I ordered the book as soon as it was available. Any sourcebook thing that is not just composed of more feats, skills, prestige classes and new elven subraces, all geared to make for leaner, meaner killing machines, is worth a look in my opinion.

(I noticed that I don't use all that stuff anyway, I usually get by with the PHB/SRD and my notes and homebrew sourcebooks during the game.)

As far as political campaigns go, I aim for a middle ground - in one campaign the PCs are meddling in politics, sometimes guided by a superior in the temple they are working for, sometimes on their own, and I like to balance purely political manoevers - diplomacy and talk - with more swashbuckling manoevers - getting the dirt on someone for blackmail/exposure the heroic/roguish way.

 

[Tuerny]

Got this book last night. I have been VERY impressed with it so far. It easily is in the top 5 d20 books I have purchased.

Maybe even the best overall..

Now I just need to figure out how to implement it in an India-inspired fantasy setting.


Jesse D.

 

[mmadsen]

In fact, the example adventure ('Deception at Villa Zarios') takes up 13 of the introduction's 16 pages! This adventure is completely playable, requires little to no additional rules, and wonderfully shows how a political adventure is different than a more traditional adventure. It includes eight acts with plot twists and red herrings, five fully detailed NPCs, two monsters, a complete map of the estate of Villa Zarios, a stat block for the local community, and an interesting new potion ('Winebane'). This adventure alone could easily be the start of any style of campaign a GM (in this book, Game Moderator) wanted to run. Following the adventure, there is a brief look back at how this is similar to, and differs from traditional adventures.

Sounds excellent.

 

[mmadsen]

But with the standard rules, while my buddy and his 10th level barbarian can take center stage in the game session during the 2 hour combat encounter as he muscles his way heroically through hordes of ogres, when its my bard's turn to use his special skills in a social setting, the action is often resolved in a single roll of the dice, and it either worked, or it did not.

That's a fairly general problem. Even D&D staples, like disabling traps, get reduced to just one die roll.

Anyway, are the social/political rules presented in Dynasties and Demagogues good? Do they yield reasonable results? Are they fun?

 

[Morrow]

In my experience, a D&D game with a political slant is a pretty hard sell. I've tried to start up politically flavored games on a couple of occasions without much luck. I suspect it would be a lot easier to slip political elements into a game that players are already engaged in, than to recruit players for a new 'political game.' That said, Dynasties and Demagogues sounds like a great idea. It looks like just the kind of help that a DM would need.

The question that will determine whether I purchase the product is how many new game mechanics Dynasties and Demagogues has to introduce to get the job done. I admit it, I'm a lazy gamer. I love games, but learning new game rules bores me. If I can use Dynasties and Demagogues without worrying about the new personality feats or complicated rules for political combat (just pulling a couple things from the review), Atlas can expect my gaming dollar. If the volume is only useable in conjunction with those new mechanics, I'll probably skip it.

Morrow

 

[Storminator]

That's a fairly general problem. Even D&D staples, like disabling traps, get reduced to just one die roll.

Anyway, are the social/political rules presented in Dynasties and Demagogues good? Do they yield reasonable results? Are they fun?

The complex debating rules are pretty cool. Once my DM reads the section (loaned him the book last night) and my priest gets ushered into the noble's venue, I'll be playtesting them extensively.

The basic idea is that simple debating has been replaced by abstract debating combat rules. Every participant has political points, a debating initiative, and a huge list of debating manuevers (forceful interrogation, offer compromise, the big lie, etc). Each manuever has a skill associated with it, and you get a modifier based on your foe's previous manuever (for example, if you offer compromise in response to forceful interrogation you look weak and get a penalty). Successful manuevers knock out your foes political points, and the last man standing gets his way.

It turns the boring skill check into a more complex undertaking. And even weak players can help out the master debater, once they settle on a few manuevers.

PS

 

[jasamcarl]

The complex debating rules are pretty cool. Once my DM reads the section (loaned him the book last night) and my priest gets ushered into the noble's venue, I'll be playtesting them extensively.

The basic idea is that simple debating has been replaced by abstract debating combat rules. Every participant has political points, a debating initiative, and a huge list of debating manuevers (forceful interrogation, offer compromise, the big lie, etc). Each manuever has a skill associated with it, and you get a modifier based on your foe's previous manuever (for example, if you offer compromise in response to forceful interrogation you look weak and get a penalty). Successful manuevers knock out your foes political points, and the last man standing gets his way.

It turns the boring skill check into a more complex undertaking. And even weak players can help out the master debater, once they settle on a few manuevers.

PS

Now this sounds cool. Might be one of the few d20 supps i pick up, because intrigue is one of the few niche styles i'm a fan of. And finally, a narrative subgame that actually provides a core game reward.

One question though, are there any 'traditional' costs to using the system, i.e. gold or the risk of losing xp or levels? I ask because I would not run an entirely political campaign, but rather an orthodox campaign with political touches, so I would prefer if the debate and election rules tie into that paradigm of that core system as much as possible. Given that it apparently provides xp rewards, i'm afraid if using it does not have a built-in risk factor with non-arbitrary effects on the hack-n-slash core of the game, using it will essentially be nothing more than a give-away. And does it just provide xp, or gold as well? Thanks in advance.

 

[Storminator]

Now this sounds cool. Might be one of the few d20 supps i pick up, because intrigue is one of the few niche styles i'm a fan of. And finally, a narrative subgame that actually provides a core game reward.

One question though, are there any 'traditional' costs to using the system, i.e. gold or the risk of losing xp or levels? I ask because I would not run an entirely political campaign, but rather an orthodox campaign with political touches, so I would prefer if the debate and election rules tie into that paradigm of that core system as much as possible. Given that it apparently provides xp rewards, i'm afraid if using it does not have a built-in risk factor with non-arbitrary effects on the hack-n-slash core of the game, using it will essentially be nothing more than a give-away. And does it just provide xp, or gold as well? Thanks in advance.

Errr, loaned the book out.

It talks about giving out XP as per challenge ratings, but I'm always a little leary of that approach. A 10th level fighter that's really scary in combat can get his ass handed to him by a 1st level bard in a debate. And that 5th level aristocrat can be a lot of trouble.

As for rewards, I can imagine that winning key debates can be worth a lot of money. If the debate is about which shipping company to use for city business, and you own one of them, winning the debate can be huge.

I really like how the new debate rules look like regular combats. The style of play and flow at the table should be the same, just the weapons and armor are different. Like I said, once I've played, I'll post back.

PS

 

[mmadsen]

I want to (and do) run political games, but fail to see how the rules don't support it.

I would consider the complete absence of political rules as not supporting a political game. Preventing a polical game? No. Not supporting a political game? Certainly.

How does Dynasties and Demagogues codify politics anyway? Does it introduce scores for political influence, loyalty of various factions, etc.?

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: [Review] Dynasties and Demagogues (...and an informal poll)

I would consider the complete absence of political rules as the not supporting a political game.

Smarmy, aren't you?

If the skills system supports the kinds of skills checks that occur in a political game, then that is support AFAIAC.

There is a camp, you know, that feels that especially where roleplaying is involved, you don't need to codify everything to support it.