The case for democracy* in RPG settings

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I found this blog post to be really compelling and a great argument as to why RPG settings shouldn't include hereditary monarchies or empires.

What is not often a consideration when adding this type of setting detail is what system of government is most gameable. To clarify this question, I mean which system of government (1) gives the players readily obtainable information about who is in charge in the setting, (2) allows the players leeway in impacting who is in charge in the setting, and (3) makes it important to the setting who is in charge. If who is pulling the strings is a complete mystery (e.g., if the city is ruled by a council of anonymous masked lords whose identities are actually secret [so not like Waterdeep where IYKYK]), it doesn’t really matter who is in charge. If players have no ability to change who is in power (e.g., the invincible overlord is actually invincible no matter how much power the players accumulate), it doesn’t really matter who is in charge. If whoever is in charge isn’t really in charge (e.g., there is a monarch, but their role is largely ceremonial and everything is actually controlled at an extreme local level by random minor nobles of little importance who don’t give a rat’s arse what the monarch has to say), it doesn’t really matter who is in charge. This is just applying the Information Choice Impact doctrine to forms of government to see which promotes player agency, which in turn makes for the most engaging gameplay.

You should include democracy in your games for the sole reason of gameability. While any form of government can possibly meet this criteria (a monarch with open rivals that the players could ally with or against if they choose would be a classic), a government that is a democracy is almost certain to hit the mark. A democracy, as defined by noted government-knower Gary Gygax, is “Government by the people, i.e. the established body of citizens, whether direct or through elected representatives.” This definition elides a lot of the trickier questions about what is and is not a democracy that I’ll leave to the political mad scientists.

Under this definition, even a monarchy can be a democracy if every time a monarch dies all of the minor nobility (in this case, the established body of citizens) get together and vote on which of them will be the new monarch. If your setting has a democracy, the players know who is in charge (the relevant electorate), the players can more easily influence the outcome of who is in charge (more on this in the next sentence), and who is in charge presumably matters. If the electorate is massive, say in the hundreds of millions, it is difficult for the players to impact the government, so smaller scale democracies are ideal from a gaming perspective.

The player characters can then go about influencing the outcome of the elections either through legitimate means (campaigning [not the typical kind adventurers do] and attempting to persuade the electorate) or the more fun underhanding methods (bribes, blackmail, threats, misinformation). There is so much on the table when there is an election happening in your fantasy setting that isn’t typically the case with a mostly stable monarchy. A democracy is essentially a perpetually unstable monarchy and from the perspective of the players, that is a good thing. The monarch probably isn’t going to die every couple of years, try as they might.

Shifting the government from, effectively, an almost-unchangeable background element to something that motivated player characters (or NPCs) can influence is great, especially since, as noted, you can have monarchs chosen by lords, etc., and still have most of the trappings of traditional fantasy RPGs while still including dials and knobs for the players to get involved with.

And if the players don't want to get involved in all of this? No harm, no foul, games can run as they are right now. But the option is now on the table, where it wouldn't have been previously.

I normally shy away from anything that might resemble the real world (ugh, gross) too much in my fantasy games, but this actually has me thinking about the possibilities of ripped-from-the-headlines elements possibly showing up in a fantasy world, although obscured under rubber foreheads and such.

 

[aco175]

The article makes sense, but I can also see that most can apply to nobles and minor lords. They tend to not rule directly at the PCs level, so the PCs will come into contact with the working class of the government and the guild leaders who have aspirations and church who has their own aspirations to play in politics.

The monarchy always felt more core / medieval D&D over some sort of elected democracy. I know that D&D has come far in the last 50 years and a lot of it no longer looks like the old days of play, so anything can be placed into how the government works.

 

[prabe]

I found this blog post to be really compelling and a great argument as to why RPG settings shouldn't include hereditary monarchies or empires.


Shifting the government from, effectively, an almost-unchangeable background element to something that motivated player characters (or NPCs) can influence is great, especially since, as noted, you can have monarchs chosen by lords, etc., and still have most of the trappings of traditional fantasy RPGs while still including dials and knobs for the players to get involved with.

And if the players don't want to get involved in all of this? No harm, no foul, games can run as they are right now. But the option is now on the table, where it wouldn't have been previously.

I normally shy away from anything that might resemble the real world (ugh, gross) too much in my fantasy games, but this actually has me thinking about the possibilities of ripped-from-the-headlines elements possibly showing up in a fantasy world, although obscured under rubber foreheads and such.

I take it as more of an argument that D&D settings should include more democratic forms of government, because influencing them--changing them--is easier for PCs to do, easier to make mechanics for. I don't see anything in there arguing against a mix of forms. I don't have much in the way of stable monarchies in my home setting, but I don't have a lot of super-democratic ones, either, because I find it more convenient if there's like one person the PCs can talk to with authority relevant to the PCs' interests.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, he's not arguing for pure democracies, because that gets way too messy to adjudicate and PCs trying to influence an electorate of potentially millions of people isn't easy or as fun. (Also, it becomes depressingly too much like real life.)

But if a dozen lords or powerful merchants or something get to choose the next head of state, that's something PCs can get involved with if they want, in a variety of ways.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The article makes sense, but I can also see that most can apply to nobles and minor lords.

That's what he's arguing in the article, in my reading. (Also why I put an asterisk next to "democracy.")

 

[MGibster]

I've been working on a Cyberpunk 2020 campaign for a while now, set in Night City, an oligarch of corporations rules the city though it has council members and even a mayor. The campaign revolves around a heist, but part of what's going on in the city is that there's a demagogue running for mayor and he's blaming a minority group for some of the city's problems. The PCs are going to have the option of running missions related to the upcoming election.

Depending on what kind of campaign you're running, the government might matter. If I'm running a Call of Cthlhu game in the 1920s, the fact that the Arkham and Massachusetts both hold elections might not matter much unless I decide it matters. For a game like D&D, where most of the characters are itinerate adventurers, I'm not sure it really matters much what the local government is unless it's important to the scenario.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Interesting post!

I have two points to make.

1. I think that one of the reasons "fantasy" and "D&D" is so successful as a TTRPG is because it doesn't feature democracies. Why? Because fantasy worlds have autocracies (usually monarchies) that we can use without worrying about it too much.
And I think this gets to the heart of why monarchies and autocracies are so common in RPG games. The emphasis is on the game, on the conflict. And conflicts and stories work best with identifiable personalities.

Generally, people want to interact with a single point of contact- and rulers ... whether they are kings or queens, autocrats or generals ... they allow streamlined play and roleplay. They make the game easier to run, and for many tables, more fun to play. It's not just a trope of fantasy- it's a crutch of a lot of storytelling. It's easier to play when you're dealing with a small group of people or leaders, than it is with a sprawling democratic system.


2. I will note that GREYHAWK has all of the government systems, including various types of democracies. So if you're looking for political diversity, I have a setting for ya!

 

[payn]

Yeah, he's not arguing for pure democracies, because that gets way too messy to adjudicate and PCs trying to influence an electorate of potentially millions of people isn't easy or as fun. (Also, it becomes depressingly too much like real life.)

But if a dozen lords or powerful merchants or something get to choose the next head of state, that's something PCs can get involved with if they want, in a variety of ways.

Guess im way ahead of the curve on this as political intrigue has been my jam for sometime. Even Monarchs have politics that the PCs should be able to impact.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I can see the point in including politics in a setting if the characters (and players) are into it. We do it all the time with scheming lords and chancellors, why not having elections? Especially so when you get to describe baroque style of governement, that will really feel you're playing in another world -- I had one of my game feature a real gerontocratia, where the councellors held votes equivalent to their number of years, and it was among dwarves. And the players led a "young dwarves vs old dwarves" struggle.

But we don't need democracy for that. There is always a way to change a leader. A local noble can be replaced by a higher authority interfering. Or he can be... removed. Yay, a tyrant less. If we have democratically elected leaders, offing them as a way to solve problems becomes immediately problematic. If everyone voted for Szass Tam and he was hugely popular among his citizens, who is to say that removing him is right and his successor would certainly be leaning the same way if eliminated. Especially if eliminated (people tend to pardon their assassinated leader's faults). So, with regard to the argument of players having no way to change who is in charge, I'd say that when opposing a foreign power structure, the PCs have a stronger chance if this power structure isn't a democracy. At least, it would require an extreme change of method (from remove the orc chieftain to influence over the generation the orcs electors to choose a chieftain whose program doesn't proeminently feature eating his neighbours).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I found this blog post to be really compelling and a great argument as to why RPG settings shouldn't include hereditary monarchies or empires.


Shifting the government from, effectively, an almost-unchangeable background element to something that motivated player characters (or NPCs) can influence is great, especially since, as noted, you can have monarchs chosen by lords, etc., and still have most of the trappings of traditional fantasy RPGs while still including dials and knobs for the players to get involved with.

And if the players don't want to get involved in all of this? No harm, no foul, games can run as they are right now. But the option is now on the table, where it wouldn't have been previously.

I normally shy away from anything that might resemble the real world (ugh, gross) too much in my fantasy games, but this actually has me thinking about the possibilities of ripped-from-the-headlines elements possibly showing up in a fantasy world, although obscured under rubber foreheads and such.

I think it does make a great argument. However I wouldn't say one should exclude hereditary monarchy because it allows for a very particular kind of palace intrigue that has a lot of gameability. I think a solid fantasy setting should have a mixture. And I do think too many lean on hereditary monarchy when history is filled with so many other options. Two of my favorite locations in my own setting are different kinds of republics. And meritocracies are also interesting.