The role of organizations in RPGs

[thanson02]

Hey folks.

I recently got into a conversation with a bunch of gaming friends and we had talking about player characters being involved in organizations which got me thinking. Different game systems have a tendency to approach this particular topic in their own ways, but I found myself asking why.

What motivation do player characters have being involved in organizations within gameplay? I can see if the organization provided a particular benefit that the player was unable to provide for himself or if there were particular benefits that he would get by being involved in the organization that he couldn't get in other areas, but whenever I take a look at organizational structures that different systems and campaign worlds bring up they just seem to fall little short of doing things like that, especially when there's magic involved in the campaign setting. Although I can see setting up your own organization to help take care of back ground elements like room and bored, food, etc, but other than that, I'm failing to see why player characters would be involved with such things.

Have other people found good reasons to have player characters being involved in organizations and if you have, what sort of system was used, what was the campaign environment like, and what mechanics are used to help express that interaction? If not, why?

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How useful or not organizations are depends somewhat on system...but mostly on the GM.

In general, I've found them to be a way to handle access to certain mechanical resources- spells, gear, healing- or to roleplaying nuances of political favors, underworld contacts and the like. And some organizations may provide several, while others, only a few.

 

[pogre]

I'm largely in the same boat as the OP. I have rarely seen organizations play a large role in my games. I actually found/find the FR organizations pretty silly and was a bit annoyed by their inclusion in such a prominent way in the starter box. Covens, thieves guilds, merchant guilds, secret evil-god worshiping cults - I use these as a GM, but my players don't join them.

I guess it goes to my GMing style as Dannyalcatraz pointed out above.

 

[Imaculata]

My players are currently in the process of forming their own organization. Their goal is to build their very own pirate base on an island. But in order to do that, they need labor. Building a base takes time, and of course the players don't want to stop and build stuff. So they hire a work force, and they hire guards to protect that work force. The island they want to build on isn't exactly safe, there are cannibals to worry about. So they need to have enough armed guards to guarantee the safety of the workers on the island.

They are also trying to organize the various pirate factions into one unified fleet. This requires a lot of work, time and diplomacy. This is related to the main premise of the campaign: A foreign fleet is approaching to wipe out all the pirates, so they need as many ships as they can gather, to confront this threat. Basically, their organization is now the driving force behind the many adventures that my players go on.

They have just defeated a rival pirate captain in a glorious sea battle, captured him, and plan to deliver him to an ally of theirs, to gain her military support. And if they succeed, this means more ships that join their fleet, and a powerful ally for their organization.

So yes, I'd say organizations have a purpose. They can drive a campaign.

 

[Derren]

Organisations are (sadly) mostly only questgivers or dudes you fight.
Sometimes PCs are members of one but only when that gives you a bonus without any serious obligation.

 

[SwivSnapshot]

Deus ex machina

Organizations are convenient ways to introduce information and other resources to PC's that would otherwise require substantial game time to acquire.

Who would James Bond be without M or Q?

 

[Celebrim]

In general, I prefer to handle all social interaction in a very system light manner and deal with the consequences of player success in social situations in a manner that is logical (or at least reasonable) rather than system dictated. The general problem being that social interaction is such a complicated thing, that any system for tracking resources within it would quickly break down.

So, for example, in 3e I got rid of the 'Leadership' feat entirely. If a character wants to be a leader, all he has to do is convince NPC's to follow him by some means. He's not limited in any fashion by arbitrary out of game mechanics like 'level'. A 0th level character could have mighty followers if he can convince those persons they have a reason to be loyal to him. As the PC's acquire wealth, power, and fame they can naturally leverage this into social status, influence and personal loyalty - particularly if they are charismatic and offer reasonable and persuasive arguments. I don't try to limit that by some arbitrary idea of what would be 'balanced'.

An 'organization' is just a group of people with some sort of common interest or purpose. They exist in a campaign setting whether you highlight that or not - mercenary companies, families and clans, mercantile corporations, businesses, cults, nations, guilds, bandit bands, colleges, and various secret orders devoted to all sorts of esoteric pursuits.

In general, the key idea of an organization is that if you achieve membership in an organization, other members of the organization will tend to begin with a friendly demeanor toward you with all the benefit that implies. Those benefits can include lack of hostility toward you, greater willingness to be persuaded to assist you in endeavors related to the group's purpose, willingness to assist you in ways that cost them little or nothing, and reduced expectation of payment when assisting you in ways that involve risk or cost to themselves. In return though, they generally expect you'll treat them with the same regard.

One basic question that applies to judging social interaction is, "What would the players do if the situation was reversed?" NPC's will tend to behave like PC's of similar personality, alignment, and motivation.

 

[Lanefan]

I've always just assumed the existence of things like Thieves' Guilds, Magicians' Guilds and so on; if for no other reason than they provide a simple in-game means of both training existing characters and supplying new ones. Clerics already have temples (Monks and Druids have their own versions), and it's not a big stretch to think that militia-types and adventuring Fighters would form some sort of Mercenaries' Guild. You'd also expect merchants' guilds, craft guilds, trades guilds etc. and there's loads of real-world examples of these. (the city of London was for a long time run by its guilds, centuries ago)

The only class that really doesn't do organizations well is Ranger.

And having some of the campaign's bad guys organize into some sort of Mafia-like setup can provide all kinds of interesting fun. Local/regional/national governments of whatever form are also a source of organizations, either in their own right if decent or the focus of organized resistance if they're not.

As for other types of formal organizations such as FR's Harpers or PF's Pathfinder Society...meh, whatever...take or leave.

Lanefan

 

[LordEntrails]

As you noticed, I think it fantasy systems, organisations are less well used. In future/sci-fi, they are a more impactful/useful/needed tool.

I think this comes from the inspiration for the system sources. In future sci-fi games, orgs are intricately woven into the systems and the play, because in the movies, books and shows that inspire and set expectations organisations are fundamental.

Star Trek, Star Wars... organisations (Starfleet, Jedi Temple...) are intricate to the way the world (reality) works. So players and GM's weave orgs into their settings and their play.

In fantasy, this is not the case. The movies, books, etc are predominantly about the lone wolf/pack struggle against the BBEG. For example, the King Arthur story works just fine without the Round Table. The org is incidental, not fundamental to the settings.

Therefore, our games (usually) reflect this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hey folks.

I recently got into a conversation with a bunch of gaming friends and we had talking about player characters being involved in organizations which got me thinking. Different game systems have a tendency to approach this particular topic in their own ways, but I found myself asking why.

What motivation do player characters have being involved in organizations within gameplay? I can see if the organization provided a particular benefit that the player was unable to provide for himself or if there were particular benefits that he would get by being involved in the organization that he couldn't get in other areas, but whenever I take a look at organizational structures that different systems and campaign worlds bring up they just seem to fall little short of doing things like that, especially when there's magic involved in the campaign setting. Although I can see setting up your own organization to help take care of back ground elements like room and bored, food, etc, but other than that, I'm failing to see why player characters would be involved with such things.

Have other people found good reasons to have player characters being involved in organizations and if you have, what sort of system was used, what was the campaign environment like, and what mechanics are used to help express that interaction? If not, why?

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

I really like codified organization rules, like those in Star Wars Saga Edition. I think 5e could use a mix of the reputation rules, blessings, and feature like those in background to do organizations justice.