I’d like some advice on faction handling – involving factions in order to advance is starting to feel artificial to me. We have a lot of little running threads which each player interested in different things. If you have one player over here dealing with a vamp gun runner who’s trying to push a local pack of thug wolves out of town, it’s fine to have to go to someone else for help, but to have to involve Mortality, Power, AND Wild in some way in order to chase advancement – it’s a little strained.
Some of this could be in how the underlying conflicts are setup (vamps vs wolves could easily have been vamps vs fae), but I don’t really think it’s fair to require that underlying conflicts always cross factions.
So I guess my concern is – if you’re in a situation where sessions focus on 1-2 factions at a time instead of the spectrum, how do you keep the players advancing without shoehorning in other factions in nearly non-sensical ways?
This was definitely a problem I faced to in play and one which really bothered my players. Curious to see how others handled it.
What do you mean? You advance by getting five corruption!
William Nichols funny enough, I think we’ve seen more corruption advances than normal ones!
The first one is kinda hard, but then its easier and easier.
Jason Martinez I don’t think my players care that much but it’s bugging me.
But honestly: Either advance through advancing your own powers and capabilities, while selling out a bit of what you are, or deal with the politics of the city. That’s always made sense to me.
And don’t forget, sometimes the information your players need about a faction or item or event is held by another faction. Power often has information it shouldn’t, Vamps have things caught in their Webs, Wolves sniff out a lot of shit, and don’t get me started on Mortal antiquities dealers. Hitting the streets and Place of Power really help to round things out pretty easily for our group.
Derrick Kapchinsky and Christo Meid – your advice is basically what I’m doing now, and is what I find artificial.
In the example vamp/wolf conflict, which is roughly a guns-and-gangs sort of conflict with the thuggish wolves on one side and the ritzy gun running vamps on the other, it’s not much of a stretch to involve the cops (Mortality) but trying to get Fae or Wizards involved in this almost cheapens the whole thing and makes it feel… wrong?
Other places where two Factions are at odds are easier to pull in a third, but a fourth always makes it feel sort of messy and unfocused.
I guess maybe “unfocused” is the idea I’ve been searching for here. If you involved 1 or 2 Factions in a story, it feels tight and focused, a lot like the source fiction. Pull in 3 Factions and it’s ok but a little all over the place, and pulling in all 4 and you got a pot luck dinner.
As advancement is based on involving all Factions, it feels like I’m doing the players a disservice with tighter stories.
Derrick Kapchinsky hmm then perhaps it’s the “draw other characters in” part that’s lacking. That certainly DOES happen, but it’s not every session, and it’s not always direct help – going to the Veteran to get something made in the workshop, for instance, or going to the Vamp to get an introduction to someone they need to talk to.
Maybe I’m not pressuring debts enough, and that’s the brick that’s making the whole wall wobble?
Each session averages 2-3 out of 5 players, and they go through maybe 1 debt each per session.
They tend to want to form a party – I can’t really get them at each other, despite them having opposing allegiances.
I might have to call in debts from those NPC allies specifically to put them against each other. They could be unwilling to PvP as they’re not used to it.
I still think our sessions run fine without directly working against each other. Like Vex in Lost Girl or Spike in Buffy, there’s people who are oppositional, but party up with friction.
Aaron Griffin Have you considered using four generic faction advancement boxes instead of tying them to specific factions? That way, the players could involve themselves with only two factions (or one) and still advance.
Maybe that would make advancement too fast, I’m not sure, but the four generic boxes thing is the solution that came to my mind.
Skip Olivares I’ve thought about that – it’s close to Sagas of the Icelanders in that you simply have to mark 4 relationships. This could mark any generic faction (lowercase) instead of an entire Faction.
Aaron Griffin maybe the wolves launder money through a mortals relative/friend/neighbour and the wolves territory is spiritually signifigant to the mages (they want it or bloodshed there will awaken something) maybe the fae have a glamour tainted drug trade through the wolves or they normally help veil some of their activities.
Other factions can often be involved via the NPCs. It’s a normal Night/Night conflict until the Tainted NPC makes a power grab by offering to help (in exchange for debts) the thug wolves. Of course, to maximize the chance they accept, he first calls in a debt with someone in Power to assault the werewolves posing as the Vamp.
In the city conflicts ripple out. The city demands it. And every conflict is a power opportunity for all the factions. Use the NPCS to call it debts from the players to try to force them into opposite sides of the conflict. It will drive them together.
Don’t forget that NPC A can be forced to transfer a debt to NPC B if NPC B calls in a debt to NPC A to do so. The PCs can end up in debt to people they’ve never met.
But remember, as a fan of the PCs, sooner or later you have to give them clear ways to strike back at the NPCS who who screwed them. But this puts them in conflict with the other factions as well.
Just my 2c.