I created this thread to suggest a campaign setup—a rubric for creating factions and conflict in D&D games. There are some great ideas in this vein already out there on the internets, such as the Powder Keg or The Price, and this “Icons” campaign setup is one that I have used and like.
So, in the 13th Age RPG rulebook, the first chapter is called “Icons,” and is a list of 13 powerful high-level NPCs around whom the 13th Age setting is organized and who, in that system, interact with PCs through special mechanics. Tbh, the icons in 13th age are all pretty boilerplate fantasy archetypes, they are:
Each entry for the 13 icons includes, among other info, a brief description of allies and enemies. Now that’s not new—lots of settings catalogue the relationships between major factions. What’s useful is the particular arrangement of relationships that 13th age created.
Most icons only list a couple of ally/enemy relationships, but some relationships are asymmetric (i.e. A is enemies with B, but B is not noted as enemies with A), and the factions are clustered into groups around two main conflicts with lots of antagonism within groups.
It looks like this:
Where red lines are enmities, green lines are alliances, dark lines (they’re supposed to be purple, /sigh) are more complicated relationships, and one-way red arrows suggest that the target of enmity is relatively uninterested in (or maybe unaware of) it.
In summary, the Emperor is the hub; he and a his allies (green) defend the status quo, with some allies (dark green) also allied to one another. There are two major challengers to the status quo (pink), the Lich King and the Orc Lord, but they are also hostile to each other. There is a smaller second conflict pitting the Diabolist and her sole ally (purple) against the Crusader and Great Gold Wyrm, which is mostly unconnected to either the Emperor’s coalition or its challengers. And finally, there are a couple of wildcard icons that have their own weird deals (gold), each with several enemies.
So when I create a setting with the Icons campaign setup, I first figure out what status quo the Emperor and his friends are defending. The status quo needn’t be something that the players will want to defend. It could be a coalition of devils, abominations, and maniacal autocrats. Or, alternately, the defenders of the status quo could all lead tiny factions and be losing ground to one or both challengers. The status quo conflict might even be overshadowed by the B-plot conflict.
I then start adding faction leader NPCs in the basic format below. Some NPCs should be leaders of cities or nations, others of cults or paramilitary factions, and a few should act mostly alone:
Alright, now the fun part, is that there’re a lot of weird inconsistencies in this broader structure. Why, for example, is the Elf Queen—2nd loose ally of the Emperor—also an ally of the High Druid, who regards the Emperor as an enemy? And why does the Elf Queen have complicated relationships with the Archmage, Dwarf King, and Priestess, despite being in the status quo coalition? The need to come up with explanations for these inconsistencies is what makes the arrangement useful. For me, they’re always more interesting/dynamic than the obvious ones I would have otherwise come up with.
The Icons campaign setup can be continent spanning or scale down to a small wilderness area and can work for lots of different milieu. Amongst the many settings I create compulsively, I have used it for an S&S Dark-Sun-alike but as Waterworld instead of Mad Max, a 50s Disney fairytale island hexcrawl with petty kings and old dark magic, a standard high fantasy world but with the Gith civil war as the B-plot, and an Eberron-ish WW1 setting with the squabbling kings of Europe swapped for uncaring deathless liches.
---K, questions---
Do you find this sort of campaign setup useful?
(If so, and you haven’t already, I strongly recommend reading the two blogs I linked up top, which are simpler and, probably, better ones than mine)
Do you ever use devices like this when creating a campaign? If so, what are they?
Do you have any suggestions that you think would improve the Icons setup?
So, in the 13th Age RPG rulebook, the first chapter is called “Icons,” and is a list of 13 powerful high-level NPCs around whom the 13th Age setting is organized and who, in that system, interact with PCs through special mechanics. Tbh, the icons in 13th age are all pretty boilerplate fantasy archetypes, they are:
- Archmage
- Crusader
- Diabolist
- Dwarf King
- Elf Queen
- Emperor
- Great Gold Wyrm
- High Druid
- Lich King
- Orc Lord
- Priestess
- Prince of Shadows
- The Three (Dragons)
Each entry for the 13 icons includes, among other info, a brief description of allies and enemies. Now that’s not new—lots of settings catalogue the relationships between major factions. What’s useful is the particular arrangement of relationships that 13th age created.
Most icons only list a couple of ally/enemy relationships, but some relationships are asymmetric (i.e. A is enemies with B, but B is not noted as enemies with A), and the factions are clustered into groups around two main conflicts with lots of antagonism within groups.
It looks like this:
Where red lines are enmities, green lines are alliances, dark lines (they’re supposed to be purple, /sigh) are more complicated relationships, and one-way red arrows suggest that the target of enmity is relatively uninterested in (or maybe unaware of) it.
In summary, the Emperor is the hub; he and a his allies (green) defend the status quo, with some allies (dark green) also allied to one another. There are two major challengers to the status quo (pink), the Lich King and the Orc Lord, but they are also hostile to each other. There is a smaller second conflict pitting the Diabolist and her sole ally (purple) against the Crusader and Great Gold Wyrm, which is mostly unconnected to either the Emperor’s coalition or its challengers. And finally, there are a couple of wildcard icons that have their own weird deals (gold), each with several enemies.
So when I create a setting with the Icons campaign setup, I first figure out what status quo the Emperor and his friends are defending. The status quo needn’t be something that the players will want to defend. It could be a coalition of devils, abominations, and maniacal autocrats. Or, alternately, the defenders of the status quo could all lead tiny factions and be losing ground to one or both challengers. The status quo conflict might even be overshadowed by the B-plot conflict.
I then start adding faction leader NPCs in the basic format below. Some NPCs should be leaders of cities or nations, others of cults or paramilitary factions, and a few should act mostly alone:
- Leader of the status quo coalition, usually the ruler of a large territory (Emperor)
- First close ally of the leader (Archmage)
- Second close ally of the leader (Priestess)
- First loose ally of the leader (Dwarf King)
- Second loose ally of the leader (Elf Queen)
- Third loose ally of the leader, also a player in the side conflict (Great Gold Wyrm)
- First major challenger—an existential or cosmic threat (Lich King)
- Second major challenger—a conventional threat (Orc Lord)
- Main antagonist in the side conflict (Diabolist)
- A tenuous ally of that antagonist and all-round agent of chaos (Prince of Shadows)
- First wildcard, the other player in the side conflict (Crusader)
- Second wildcard, a subtle enemy of the status quo leader (High Druid)
- Third wildcard, a force of destruction (The Three)
Alright, now the fun part, is that there’re a lot of weird inconsistencies in this broader structure. Why, for example, is the Elf Queen—2nd loose ally of the Emperor—also an ally of the High Druid, who regards the Emperor as an enemy? And why does the Elf Queen have complicated relationships with the Archmage, Dwarf King, and Priestess, despite being in the status quo coalition? The need to come up with explanations for these inconsistencies is what makes the arrangement useful. For me, they’re always more interesting/dynamic than the obvious ones I would have otherwise come up with.
The Icons campaign setup can be continent spanning or scale down to a small wilderness area and can work for lots of different milieu. Amongst the many settings I create compulsively, I have used it for an S&S Dark-Sun-alike but as Waterworld instead of Mad Max, a 50s Disney fairytale island hexcrawl with petty kings and old dark magic, a standard high fantasy world but with the Gith civil war as the B-plot, and an Eberron-ish WW1 setting with the squabbling kings of Europe swapped for uncaring deathless liches.
---K, questions---
Do you find this sort of campaign setup useful?
(If so, and you haven’t already, I strongly recommend reading the two blogs I linked up top, which are simpler and, probably, better ones than mine)
Do you ever use devices like this when creating a campaign? If so, what are they?
Do you have any suggestions that you think would improve the Icons setup?
