stages of rebellion

[S'mon]

Mohammed & Mao both developed a 3-stage system for insurgency warfare, I suggest you google it. Basically it goes:

1. Defensive - create areas of support, avoid enemy attention.
2. Offensive - expansion, raiding, destabilise the enemy.
3. Military - the final conventional attack on the enemy.

It has worked well for Jihadis and Reds, it should work for you too.

 

[Noumenon]

Wow, what a great background for a campaign. Look at all the politics, and all the action, and the growing challenge, and the development afterward.

Will it bring about a possible entirely new form of government, like an American Republic, will it bring about a French Revolution Reign of Terror

I'm thinking dracocracy.

 

[haakon1]

Something to add to Mesh Hong's list is a Catalyst should be 7.a - this is an event that sets the fire of rebellion burning, moving it from unrest to a true rebellion.

QFT.

The political science explanation of revolution:
1) The J curve. Expectations are going up, then they are dashed. Revolutions aren't caused by repression, they are caused by hope that things are getting better, and then it doesn't. Recent example: The Iranian election, where the "liberal" faction thought their man was going to win, only to have their hopes dashed.

2) The spark. There needs to be an igniting event. Storming the Bastille, Boston Tea Party, that sort of thing.


I've also noticed that a revolution is usually successful when the troops are ordered to shoot the protesters, but refuse . . . that's the critical moment: when they raise their guns, do they fire, or not?

 

[LostSoul]

I think a skill challenge might work out very well for this.

You'd only make checks after something took place, and only to determine those forces outside the direct influence of the PCs - basically, they work on the small scale; how are things proceeding on the larger scale?

It would allow you to determine NPC actions and behaviours based on die rolls. That may not be what you want, but it's one way to handle it.

I would do roleplay, all the small-scene stuff, and what happens there would do two things: determine the skill that's used for the roll, who makes it, if other characters can lend Aid (and how), and any other modifiers to the roll. Sometimes things might turn out to be an automatic success; other times, an automatic failure.

It'd be more of a campaign-scale pacing mechanism.

 

[Orius]

The more the big bad tightens his grip, the more villages slip through his fingers.

Unless of course he's got some all-powerful nigh-unstoppable applied phlebotinum on tap or something.

 

[Quickleaf]

Tons of great responses, and hopefully useful for other DMs besides myself.

LostSoul, I think you're right about it serving more as a campaign pacing mechanic, but I'm veering away from designing it as a skill challenge.

Another thing you're gonna need is a really effective leadership organization if this is to be a true rebellion and not just a series of sporadic and geographically isolated temporary uprisings. Also, depending upon the geographic area involved (how spread out in actual terrain is the uprising to be, will it be localized to the capital or a major city where the prince is likely already in background operation seeking to gain influence and followers of his own, or will it be a national or kingdom wide operation) you will need a really effective and reliable means or set of means of communications.

I'm breaking up the campaign into two "parts", levels 1-5 the PCs are more underdogs, helping individual villages, securing the aid of small tribes, guilds or minor nobility - they are working to bring the movement to the masses. Levels 6-10 the PCs either become leaders of the rebellion or help establish a leader, they get to dictate extent of rebellion, organize communication, and secure aid of major political nobility.

Another thing you're gonna have to account for is push-back. How hostile or violent will the counter-insurgency, counter-rebellion become, and on who's side will the local and larger authorities decide, both in the early stages of the rebellion, and later on?

Exactly. I'm trying to map the Prince's push-back to various PC actions. For example, if they recover the King's stolen will (which reveals the Prince got passed up as heir to the throne), the Prince might attempt to frame them for stealing it.

Will it bring about a possible entirely new form of government, like an American Republic, will it bring about a French Revolution Reign of Terror, will it simply exchange one tyrant for another, will it lead to society wide change, or just local exchange of princes?

I think that's more paragon-tier territory, at least for my purposes, though I would love to explore it. It's also something the players will want to consider, since they'll be protecting the Prince's illegitimate son at various points - the boy was raised by a kindly witch but his father wants to recover him and raise him as a prince, to mold him as the next tyrant and to bolster his claim to the throne (i.e. "look I have a son, so when I take this throne, if something goes wrong during the regime change and I fall in battle/get assassinated, then you've got my successor right here").

Good luck QL. Sounds like an interesting scenario.

Thanks! First adventure is tomorrow.

As Jack7 states communication and espionage/counter espionage are major factors that will influence events, and their difficulties change over time. The bigger the rebellion becomes the easier communication should become but it will also become harder to spot infiltration by the authorities due to the increase in membership.

Thanks Mesh Hong, I'd completely neglected the possibility of moles among the rebels. That's something I'll have to work in.

Information gathering by the rebellion should ideally come from at least one inside source, an informant or sympathiser close to the Prince (either a courtier or even servants who work in the Princes household). Members of other reputable organisations should also be exploited, e.g. members of the church who may have access to the Prince or his associates, local magistraits who can try to reduce convictions and pass on information that could be used to rescue captured allies etc.

Absolutely. I've got a couple NPCs who will serve this capacity as "inside men/women". Cadeyrn is a dissatisfied redcoat captain who, as the campaign progresses, will be more and more swayable to the PC's side as the evils of the Prince become apparent. Another NPC is a herald who can help get the PCs into a tournament usually restricted to nobility.

I think this could be an incredably fun enviroment to play and DM in. But personally I would approach this with a general background, a bunch of generic stats (as you have already done - human minions thread) and a bit of serious thinking as to the morals and motivations of the main protaganists. Then just react in character during sessions, and plot and scheme between sessions But as to having the whole thing mapped out I think it would hurt the campaign freedom as well as your own sanity.

Haha Point well taken. It's always a fine line between improv and prep. I have several events I think would be fun, but haven't committed them to a structured sequence or map of any sort. For example, the PCs could be in a besieged city which just declared itself a freehold (once the Prince makes a bid for the throne), but trapped inside the walls with them is a ravaging werewolf...the PCs must find a way to sabotage the siege and find out who the werewolf is and stop them.

No one has yet mentioned the effect of outside agents. Other nations, even those far away will of course be paying very close attention, and probably trying to fund / persuade / coalign activities and factions to their own causes.

Great point, green slime. While I might give hints of inter-kingdom collusion or treachery, I agree with Mesh Hong in saving that for paragon-tier (if the campaign continues that long). For example, I have a religious/economic conflict on the western border which features foreign crusading paladins... the conflict is fueled by the Prince's agents because the fighting helps to evoke an external threat. Actually that's #1 on Naomi Wolf's "10 steps to fascism" list , which has helped me organize my thoughts about the campaign.

This is why I love DMing. You take a simple situation then start to extrapolate to the nth degree, and before you know it you have a beautifully complex and realistic situation that is so far away from any sort of control (or maybe even comprehension) that your players (let alone your PCs) have no idea what is going on, and important events start to happen off screen that your players have no chance of ever finding out about or predicting.

Personally, I am often guilty of this sort of behaviour .

I'd join that 12-step group. DMA. Dungeon Master's Anonymous.

The natural resource would of course be a great target for the rebellion to disrupt or close down, hampering the Prince or making him look weak. One possible side effect of this could actually be a loss of support if the rebellion actually starts to cost normal people their livelihoods.

Yeah, that would be a risky move. I mean, would the people blame the Prince or the rebels for their woes? Still, I love the idea. One possibility I'd considered which ties in well with the background for our eladrin swordmage is an enchantress whose rituals provide the Prince's troops some benefit...so it becomes a classic "stop the ritual" mission.

An external influence might be a good additional short scenario. The Prince could be looking to external forces or specialists to eradicate his trouble makers but this would require some diplomacy. The rebellion would have to disrupt that diplomacy.

For some reason my mind went immediately to the Mariachi movie, or the remake with Antonio Banderas where a team of assassins are brought in to take him out. Hmm. I agree it might make a fun side trek...the kingdom to the east is a magocracy run by tyrannical mages so I'm sure I could come up with some tenuous foreign allies for the Prince.

In other words if rebellions and large scale "change movements" gain success and influence of their own, 'ware the wheel pilots and captains, even if you think your waters calm. The storm is soon upon you after nightfall.

You've summed up how I imagine neighboring rulers would view the situation... like a cauldron ready to boil over.

The more the big bad tightens his grip, the more villages slip through his fingers.

Nicely said. That's how I view the first couple levels. Before the PCs it was a chokehold, but the PCs create just enough breathing room for people to stop and question what's happening and take a stand.

 

[Noumenon]

Would it be a good idea to make a rebellion where the PCs might find themselves wanting to help either side? Or is that like trying to make a Star Wars movie without deciding whether Luke is going to join the Dark Side or not?

 

[green slime]

Would it be a good idea to make a rebellion where the PCs might find themselves wanting to help either side? Or is that like trying to make a Star Wars movie without deciding whether Luke is going to join the Dark Side or not?

I like those kind of scenarios myself.

I prefer the set up where it isn't immediately obvious who is the "bad" team, or that both sides have pros and cons. I know some prefer to have their Morgoth or Sauron to rail against. I prefer a more less obvious, subdued threat (at least to start with). Preventing an evil may mean a temporary alliance with an abomination.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I like those kind of scenarios myself.

I prefer the set up where it isn't immediately obvious who is the "bad" team, or that both sides have pros and cons. I know some prefer to have their Morgoth or Sauron to rail against. I prefer a more less obvious, subdued threat (at least to start with). Preventing an evil may mean a temporary alliance with an abomination.

And on that note, rebellions are PERFECT for throwing in some good ol' moral greys! Not everyone joins a rebellion to be a passionate and righteous defender of the people. Some do it just to set buildings on fire. Others do it because the chaos means THEY can do some particularly nasty things themselves. The PCs find some very powerful allies doing some very horrible things. Do they weaken their own revolution though a culling? Or try to ignore it and tell themselves it's for the greater good? What about the allies that they choose from the start - smugglers and big head criminal masterminds can make for some potent allies in such a situation, but where do you stand with them once the revolution is over? Do you even let them join your rebellion in the first place, knowing how much they'd help - and how much they'd hurt?

I think it's just too easy to just turn it into REBELLION GOOD, EMPIRE EVIL. Most townsfolk probably want nothing to do with the rebellion until things get REALLY hectic - they just want to be safe in their homes. And once the rebellion actually is in full swing, your hardened revolutionaries can so easily turn into animalistic looters and pillagers - and the captain of the Prince's guard states that anyone, regardless of who they are, is deemed a criminal if they're out of their house and not in a guardsman uniform.

Situations like this, I believe, empower players far more then any number of GOOD VS EVIL conflicts, because in grey morality situations, they have to make a much more emotionally charged decision - and when that decision comes to fruition, they have that much more personal emotion put into it.

 

[haakon1]

Exactly. I'm trying to map the Prince's push-back to various PC actions.

You might want to get a third party to role play the Prince for you. In complex open-ended scenarios like this, I find that's interesting way to remain the "referee", without being tempted to have the enemy be either omniscent about the PC's plans, or giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, you could always just ask the community here: "What would evil prince do?"

Two other random revolutionary thoughts:
(1) People generally assume it's the poor who lead revolutions, because they are oppressed and can't take it anymore. That's completely wrong. It's the upper middle class or low end of the upper class who are revolutionaries.

Think of the American Revolution's Founding Fathers: scientist/polymath (Franklin), aristocrat/surveyor/military officer (Washington), Harvard graduate/lawyer (John Adams), aristocrat/polymath (Jefferson), lawyer (John Jay & James Madison), college student (Hamilton).

Some other revolutions:
-- English Civil War (first modern revolution): Oliver Cromwell is described by Wikipedia: The social status of Cromwell's family at his birth was relatively low within the gentry class.
-- French Revolution: Robespierre -- illegitimate son of a country gentry lawyer
-- Russian Revolution: Lenin -- son of a province's director of public schools
-- Vietnamese Revolution: Ho Chi Minh -- son of an imperial provincial magistrate for the French

No outsiders, no downtrodden poor . . . don't buy the "Les Miserables" version of who revolutionaries are. Think Aristocrats and Experts (in 3.x terms), not Commoners.

(2) There's a great Shakespeare quote about rebellions:
"Treason never prospers, and what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."