Seeking advice on a campaign

[Figleaf23]

Hello,

I'm planning a c. TL2 'Heroic' fantasy campaign (think pan-western mythology meets Conan in Lankhmar). The setting has homebrewed magic, cosmology and humanoid races. Gods are real, active, and constructed on GURPS mechanics attainable by PCs through earned CP. That is to say, people in the world can and do aspire to godhood.

I am planning for the PCs to enter play at just the level of personal achievement and glory that, in unhumble moments, they might entertain the flicker of such an ambition. I plan to use an iterative/tranched, partially blind character building process that will result in PCs with approximately this point distribution:

Total: 500
Attributes and mundane adventuring capabilities: 250-300
Fantasy and cinematic capabilities: 100-150
Social advantages: 100-150

My question today relates to the final item. I intend for the PCs to be leaders of people, opinion, tastes; figures of renown and intrigue; and have seats at tables where fateful decisions are taken. (But I want them to get into the action too, of course.)

Characters with this much social power will be new to both me and my player group, and I would appreciate any advice or comments people might have on how to make it work, where to find the gold, and what to avoid.

Thanks in advance.

[CousinX]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Hello,
[snip]
Social advantages: 100-150

My question today relates to the final item. I intend for the PCs to be leaders of people, opinion, tastes; figures of renown and intrigue; and have seats at tables where fateful decisions are taken. (But I want them to get into the action too, of course.)

Characters with this much social power will be new to both me and my player group, and I would appreciate any advice or comments people might have on how to make it work, where to find the gold, and what to avoid.

Thanks in advance.

I've been working on a somewhat similar game, where the PCs are both socially and personally powerful. What I landed on for social traits (and am still working on) is to create Social Lenses which bundle together the traits that are always found together, and then provide the players with a list of "general" social advantages (Appearance, Charisma, Voice, Clothing and Influence Shticks, etc) that are available to any character.

This helps you as GM to think about how the social order is put together (what forms of Rank are available? How do they relate to Status, Wealth, etc? What other social traits are available, and who can have them?), and it takes the guesswork out of character creation for PCs. So, a "Knight of the Realm" lens might look like:

Legal Enforcement Powers [10]; Status 2 [10]; Wealth (Comfortable) [10]; Duty (Liege, 9-) [-5]; Current Affairs (High Society -or- Politics) and Savoir-Faire (High Society), both (E) IQ [1]; and Heraldry (Coats of Arms) (A) IQ [2]. 29 points.

It might also be worth coming up with several pre-built 'sample' Allies, Contacts, and/or Patrons, if those are going to be important, so that the players have an idea of what's appropriate.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Hello,

Hey.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I'm planning a c. TL2 'Heroic' fantasy campaign (think pan-western mythology meets Conan in Lankhmar). The setting has homebrewed magic, cosmology and humanoid races. Gods are real, active, and constructed on GURPS mechanics attainable by PCs through earned CP. That is to say, people in the world can and do aspire to godhood.

I, too, have contemplated a similar game kind of a lot for a while now.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I am planning for the PCs to enter play at just the level of personal achievement and glory that, in unhumble moments, they might entertain the flicker of such an ambition. I plan to use an iterative/tranched, partially blind character building process that will result in PCs with approximately this point distribution:

Total: 500
Attributes and mundane adventuring capabilities: 250-300
Fantasy and cinematic capabilities: 100-150
Social advantages: 100-150

My question today relates to the final item. I intend for the PCs to be leaders of people, opinion, tastes; figures of renown and intrigue; and have seats at tables where fateful decisions are taken. (But I want them to get into the action too, of course.)

Defining general sub-budgets for things like social stats, combat stats, etc is perfectly acceptable, as is demanding that each PC be some sort of leader of men if you want. Just be specific about what you want. Some diversity is good, but if you specify 100-150 points on social stats without any specifics you're pretty likely to get at least one extremely rich guy, at least one actual king of a small, remote nation, one guy with a million Contacts, etc like in eg: The Odyssey.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Characters with this much social power will be new to both me and my player group, and I would appreciate any advice or comments people might have on how to make it work, where to find the gold, and what to avoid.

Avoid railroading with this game. The people who sign up for this are the ones who will enjoy at least some degree of self-determination. Conflicts should mostly come from active opposition by relative peers, if not superior-but-not-omnipotent beings such as Greek-style gods.

[ClayDowling]

As an homage to Tom Stoppard, might I at least suggest including some maidens seeking Godhead, and vice-versa?

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by ClayDowling

As an homage to Tom Stoppard, might I at least suggest including some maidens seeking Godhead, and vice-versa?

+1

OK, I like subtle puns.

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Hello,

I'm planning a c. TL2 'Heroic' fantasy campaign (think pan-western mythology meets Conan in Lankhmar). The setting has homebrewed magic, cosmology and humanoid races. Gods are real, active, and constructed on GURPS mechanics attainable by PCs through earned CP. That is to say, people in the world can and do aspire to godhood.

So far so good. Most of the gods in my campaign are former mortals. Of course, they are also selfish and self centered as heck. They use people for entertainment, but rarely help when the chips are down.

I am planning for the PCs to enter play at just the level of personal achievement and glory that, in unhumble moments, they might entertain the flicker of such an ambition. I plan to use an iterative/tranched, partially blind character building process that will result in PCs with approximately this point distribution:

I will build characters to a player's description, but my goal is to make the character as much their's as possible. In my experience, any Chargen that separates the player from the PC means less buy in to the game.

My question today relates to the final item. I intend for the PCs to be leaders of people, opinion, tastes; figures of renown and intrigue; and have seats at tables where fateful decisions are taken. (But I want them to get into the action too, of course.)

I can only tell you of my experience. I've never been able to make a game fun when the PCs were leaders. I don't know if it's me, my players, or the types of games I like to run.

[Figleaf23]

Thank you for the responses so far.

I'll reply in regard to some particular comments:

Originally Posted by CousinX

I've been working on a somewhat similar game, where the PCs are both socially and personally powerful.

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

I, too, have contemplated a similar game kind of a lot for a while now.

Cool. Id' love to hear more. Maybe we can keep in touch on this subject.

Originally Posted by CousinX

What I landed on for social traits (and am still working on) is to create Social Lenses ... and then provide the players with a list of "general" social advantages (Appearance, Charisma, Voice, Clothing and Influence Shticks, etc) that are available to any character.

This helps you as GM to think about how the social order is put together (what forms of Rank are available? How do they relate to Status, Wealth, etc? What other social traits are available, and who can have them?), and it takes the guesswork out of character creation for PCs. ...

This is a good point, but I don't want to confine their imaginations with lenses. What I might do instead is to make the social advantages of certain major, public NPCs explicit to them to model from.

Originally Posted by CousinX

It might also be worth coming up with several pre-built 'sample' Allies, Contacts, and/or Patrons, if those are going to be important, so that the players have an idea of what's appropriate.

The PCs will be in a situation where NPCs of similar stature and purpose will be known to them in detail, so I might as well give them (most) of the build detail for these individuals.

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Defining general sub-budgets for things like social stats, combat stats, etc is perfectly acceptable, as is demanding that each PC be some sort of leader of men if you want. Just be specific about what you want. Some diversity is good, but if you specify 100-150 points on social stats without any specifics you're pretty likely to get at least one extremely rich guy, at least one actual king of a small, remote nation, one guy with a million Contacts, etc like in eg: The Odyssey.

Avoid railroading with this game. The people who sign up for this are the ones who will enjoy at least some degree of self-determination. Conflicts should mostly come from active opposition by relative peers, if not superior-but-not-omnipotent beings such as Greek-style gods.

Good points, thanks.

I plan to share setting info beforehand, and ask for concepts that I will vet against it. That said, I don't want to pre-define character types too closely. They will all start in and have their primary interests within one 'state', and in some cases likely be known to each other before play begins. I think I will seek to ensure that they share socio-political objectives, but after that their choices will ideally be driven by 'organic' setting events.

Originally Posted by DangerousThing

I will build characters to a player's description, but my goal is to make the character as much their's as possible. In my experience, any Chargen that separates the player from the PC means less buy in to the game.

By iterative and partially blind, I mean they will get a series of point allocations for separate broad categories of spending, but they won't know how much more or for what is coming in the following iterations.

I can only tell you of my experience. I've never been able to make a game fun when the PCs were leaders. I don't know if it's me, my players, or the types of games I like to run.

Hm. That's ominous. What symptoms were you able to recognize?

I have been contemplating the idea of running a concurrent Shakespearean-style 'back stairs' campaign with the same players running PCs who are peons within the retinues of their other characters. Maybe that would be a solution?

[arnej]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Characters with this much social power will be new to both me and my player group, and I would appreciate any advice or comments people might have on how to make it work, where to find the gold, and what to avoid.

One thought that I had to help remind them of their roles as leaders vs adventurers would be to include in that social category some sort of Ally that focuses on those sorts of details.

• If you're a warrior, an aide-de-camp calling you "General" all the time, giving you status updates and asking for orders.
• A mage might have a lead apprentice or major domo.
• Merchants might have butlers, queens might have ladies-in-waiting.

My thought is that players might know what they want, but not how to get it/move toward it. If the merchant says to Jeeves, his butler/accountant, "I want to control the bacon market, so only my sandwiches can have bacon!", Jeeves will say "Very good, sir!" and get on it. Then you as the GM can have things happen off-screen, with Jeeves reporting progress every so often. "Sir, the country with all our bacon farms is under attack! All our investments will go for naught if it falls. What do you want to do?"

Face it - all powerful people have "people."

My $0.02,

arnej

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by arnej

all powerful people have "people."

Yes, and these people will be present whether the PC has an Ally or not. The reason the player might want to take them as an Ally is for the (mostly) guaranteed loyalty, a kind of plot protection for some key people.

[ericthered]

Hey. These folks can appear as fun dependants or enemies. The underling who wants you replaced. The royal brat you are supposed to train.