Basics for an Intrigue Campaign

Forgot to mention:

> setting is WFRP, but anything I can convert is going to be helpful

>>55073848
>but is there a "standard", "proper" way to do it?
Yes, it is to not do it and play something else.

Intrigue games center around players being able to pick and choose factions, on the basis of incomplete and often innacurate information about said factions capabilities, goals, methods, etc. In any game that doesn't give enormous amounts of worldbuilding responsibility to the player group, there is going to be a colossal imbalance between the information the GM has available and the information the players have available, such that making informed decisions, especially early when they are at their most free to choose, is difficult to impossible.

Furthermore, because of the lack of information balance, players often have a trust gap with the GM. There's no way of knowing whether the hidden twist about the group they're working for is in fact "honest", and built by the logic of the setting, as opposed to just being pulled out of the GM's ass to facilitate drama.

And that's assuming you have a perfect play group, which you probably don't. I've found enormous difficulty in assembling a group of 4-6 where everyone understands things like subtlety and discretion. Most people who pine for "intrigue games" don't really want to play them, they want to be Machiavellian masterminds in a cast of retards, endlessly backstabbing people without consequence. Intrigue games theoretically can be done well, but they almost never are, and the odds are way, way against you.

>>55073890

This is mostly a worldbuilding question, maybe I should have said it earlier. Anyway

> incomplete and often innacurate information about said factions capabilities, goals, methods, etc.

Pardon me but I can't really see the issue here. Why should my group of player have a crystal clear idea of everything going on in a city, realm or whatever place, like they are behind the scenes? It's not like they have to choose the winning faction from the start.
It's more like they have to - IF they want - work to make the faction they choose the winner.
Of course it's not going to be a misinformed choice, they will have at least some surface element to judge each faction and choose, but I guess that some mystery and some shadiness just adds to it.
Just to be clear, I'm not here to play lolgotcha! with my players and to backstab them, I just want to have a rich setting able to sustain an intrigue campaign.

> players often have a trust gap with the GM
Isn't that always a thing if there's a GM Screen, or even if we are playing an investigative adventure? There's always going to be an information inbalance because the GM knows who the assassin is, and the players do not. I think it's a basic premise of many things here, you have to accept it. Or maybe you have some examples where this does not apply?

>endlessly backstabbing people without consequence
Luckily I am really strict about who sits at my table and who doesn't. My players are long time friends and guests at my table, and they learned (sometimes the hard way) that nothing goes without consequence, good and bad. Murderhoboing is something I am proud to say never happened at my table, at least so far.

I don't know about the standard or proper way, but a nice way to get your players involved is to let them make up a faction or two. It gets them more involved in the world and gives you some ideas outside of your normal way of thinking.

>>55076014
yes I agree, letting the player do their part of worldbuilding is always good for involvement. I usually do this for the PC background phase.

Get the players involved and allow them to have choices that make an impact.

>>55077257
Thanks for the contribution friend, it's extremely valuable as an all-purpose advice during play, but what about creating an intrigue-friendly setting?

bump of desperation

>>55073848
Take everything said with a grain of salt, as I have run games WITH intrigue, but not campaigns specifically focused around it.

1) Information: Intrigue is about the difference between what is shown vs. what is hidden. Players are rewarded usually by piercing the veil and thereby being able to affect the situation better. To do this, they need a redundant set of clues to go from facade to reality. Three clues per difference is probably a good number because the players will miss the first one, misinterpret the second, and only get the third right.

It was mentioned earlier >>55073890 as an imbalance, which is true, but that is the structure of a game by default. The GMs job is to provide the players with enough info to get to the level of true understanding, which gives them a sense of mastery and agency. Leaving a redundant amount of clues will help.


2) Depth: In intrigue, finding out what is really happening in one case is often only the beginning, leading to another facade.

You find out from clues in the alley that this was no mugging gone wrong, but a premeditated murder because 1) The blade was poisoned, 2) The money was still in the wallet, and 3) There was no signs of force on the victims body.

This opens up another avenue of questioning, clues for which could be 1)The matchbook belonging to a particular club found on the victims body, 2) Questioning around identifies the victim as a known mob associate, and 3) The players hear the mugger has been caught and is being held by town guard. These clues lead the players to investigate the mob-owned club, hitting up their contacts for word on mafia activities, or interrogating the fall guy for the crime. At each of these points, there should be further clues leading to the other points, like learning at the club of its mob ownership or that one of their bouncers got arrested on a false charge.

Intrigue works if the players have the information to make conclusions.

File: diabolical laughter.gif (607KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 300x169px

>>55073848
>>55081252
3) Motivation: People do not make secret plans when they could not go for their goals directly.

Motivations of anyone important in an intrigue campaign should be rock solid, and usually based around something sinful or with consequences for being seen doing it. The mafia hitman does not want the other wise guys to know he is gay, so he kills his lover before they can find out. People acting to maintain the separation between facade and reality is a good motivation for intrigue. If you are going for a more political than mystery style intrigue, then it is not a total facade, but rather a facade built to defeat their opponent. Why would the congressman help his opponent to a senate seat? Because he is gunning for the presidency, that's why.

4) Systems: Intrigue depends on clear-cut systems of conduct

Senators are not allowed to kill each other to win a seat, so they go after their opponents character, redistrict around their voting base, and poach their sponsors. All these are intrigue to a degree, and require more energy than straight-up murder. People need a system to operate in for intrigue to happen, which is why cities with different power players work well for intrigue. All are within walking distance for the PCs, and the players define the system of operation overtly agreed upon, if not the covert means to get what they want outside the systems limits. Intrigue needs a reason to have a facade in the first place.

Summary:
TLDR: Intrigue needs a facade, a reality, justification for both, and effective means for the players to get from one to the other.

>>55081366
*when they COULD for for their goals directly
srry no grammar check