This may seem like a stupid question, but does anyone have any

File: 1423055142665.gif (106KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 512x512px

The point of a conspiracy is a simple task that can't be done the simple way.

For example: I want to corner the market on medical-grade optics. The simple way is to let the market decide my product is better and wait for the market share to roll in, but that takes effort and money.

So what can I do? Well, first I run a simple disinfo campaign, implying a competitor's product is entirely dangerous counterfeits. I then hire a few shadier street docs to manufacture stories about overheating power supplies slagging people's faces off.

This isn't good enough though, Lower market share doesn't make mine inherently higher, so I hire runners to redirect a shipment of a necessary bio-compatible polymer: Now I have the critical supply, so they will be forced to neck down production. Being the only game in town is useful for necessary implants but doesn't boost voluntary augmentation, so I have another group run to steal cutting edge UI firmware.

This seems really straight forward right? Just checking off boxes on "How to make the most money." but now we get to the fun part: Complication.

My hacker's figured my plan out, so he insists on a sizable cut. So I hire yet another team to murder him and take the data... Which treads on the toes of the internal affairs guy who's wondering why the hell I'm whacking people so now I gotta hire out of network, which means my fool-proof factory sabotage turns into a loud bunch of gangster who brag about all the cash they got for wrecking some corp gear, which means now I've gotta silence these guys... This is a lot of murder for what was just supposed to be getting my performance bonus

A good movie example is Fargo: All he wanted was to cover up some embezzlement, and look what ended up happening. Now scale that to multiple actors, and the whole thing naturally turns into a massive snarl, especially when plans start failing.

All good conspiracies can be summed up from the individual's perspective with "All I wanted to do was ___."

>>49036592

This anon has written about bad conspiracies, so I'm going to write about good conspiracies. Both types could be helpful

Create a bunch of organisations, give them agenda, and then put them in a realistic world.

The thing about conspiracies is they're really hard to pull off. Too many people to potentially leak the situation, and the real world is too volatile to truly control.

So a good conspiracy involves only a few powerful people.

Those organisations you made - there are a few people in each org at the top cooperating. At no point does the rest of the organisation get involved.

Like lets say a corporation is running a secret lab designing mind control chips to be used by the government.

The people in that lab aren't in on the conspiracy. They're probably making chips to stop seizures or something.

Only the project director at the lab knows there's something bigger going on, and he's probably not briefed as to the full intentions and isn't part of the conspiracy.

Rather than micromanaging every detail, the conspiracy is going to be "steering" things - the leading media conglomerate isn't giving orders to cover up weird corporate labs labs, but they're making sure no funding is available for investigative journalism in that area, and that there is a general editorial attitude that promotes certain kinds of stories.

This type of style works well for a few reasons.

One, it keeps things secret and stops the entire conspiracy falling to pieces the moment the players discover one part - sure the players discover a secret lab making neural chips - but all they've got is an email to the project director hinting at something more (the next plot point!)

Two, it just is less dumb. As the previous anon points out, the more people get involved in a conspiracy the less sense it starts to make.

Three, it gives the players a nice trail of breadcrumbs to unravel all the secret links between the various organisations

>>49036710
These types of conspiracies are at once both powerful and weak, which is great for the players to face.

They're powerful because they represent the leadership of incredibly powerful organisations - when threatened they can pull some strings and call in favours to make the players life hell now and then - but not too much - these guys don't have much power to micromanage except occassionally.

But they're weak because they're generally "steering", not controlling. If something they are doing comes under full institutional or public scrutiny, they have to cut that part of their project loose - they can't stop that process without it looking incredibly suspicious or having to make the conspiracy too large.

>>49036771

If the other anon doesn't mind, The "bad" conspiracies have the opposite problem.

Due to a lack of actual foresight or competence, serious threats can crop up from individuals who are not able or willing to maintain their plan.

You foil the mastermind's plan, he's going to scrap and repurpose his assets to his next plan, minimizing exposure and cutting any compromised sections.

You foil the moron's plan, and he tries to pull the whole thing down on top of you

>>49036793
Honestly, it's probably good, in general, to understand that "short-sighted and incompetent" is frequently a very different thing from "not dangerous."

File: oldmanshotgun.gif (2MB, 636x266px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 636x266px

>>49036793
Yep.

The danger from the "good" conspiracy is that you expose one part of the master plan, it gets cut loose, and the players are left looking like trigger happy idiots with delusions of grandeuer chasing mirages - possibly face losing their job, public profile, etc. Or the cops arrest them for trespassing, whatever.

The danger from the "bad" conspiracy is the Hot Fuzz style response. That town full of harmless old people you've been investigating? Now that they know you know their secret? Every single one of them is packing heavy weapons, and gunning for you

>>49036902

You'd be surprised how often your characters can survive the first one: Even vindictive criminal masterminds are typically smart enough not to risk leaving breadcrumbs just to attack the party.

But if you panic a herd of idiots...

>>49036812

Short-sighted and incompetent people are *way* more dangerous in the short term. That's the timeframe they're used to working with and they're more than willing to set their long term on fire to make the short term work, because they aren't thinking about the long term in the first place. That means unless you're hitting them after they've already thrown themselves off balance bringing the house down on someone else, they're actually very good at killing you *right now*.

On the other hand, once you've beaten them, you can pretty well rely on them to stay beaten. With the mastermind, you never know if there's another head on the hydra.

The whole point of conspiracies is that they operate in clandestine and roundabout ways.

"They are doing X and nobody even knows!"
"They claim they are X but they are really Y!"
"Nobody knows what they really do but they do X, Y and A. Why? To get Z!"

>>49036930

What if the criminal mastermind was smart enough to not only leave breadcrumb trails, but only leaving trails he deliberately wanted the PC's to follow? That mind control computer chip may be something, but right now the chief demands you look into this shockingly competent serial killing who is targeting public officials.

>>49036231
Jews+aliens+UN+vaccines+Alphabetsouporganization = conspiracy

OP here.

Thanks for some of the ideas guys. This should get me started at least.