Monday, February 1, 2021

Factions (or Lack Thereof) In Castle Xyntillan

An altogether embarrassing length of time ago, frequent commenter and fellow Castle Xyntillan GM kaeru said:



My first reaction to this was to think, "Wait, I do?"

My ego quickly reasserted control, and I got to figuring out what sort of wonderful things I was doing. 

[CX Players, Go No Further, Lest the Grayl Guardian Miraculously Roll Only Crits]

Castle Xyntillan is bursting to the seams with many things, but factions aren't one of them. There's the Malevol family, which is internally divided among numerous faults. There's several residents of the castle, such as Louis the Swine King, who seem to live there in spite of the family. Surprisingly, there's no explicit tension between the town and the castle itself. Townsfolk and foreign mercenaries try to plunder Xyntillan all the time, but the Malevols mostly take this as an amusing sport. 

Add to that the enormous size of the family, some sixty-odd unique NPCs of varying influence plus miscellaneous dungeon residents, and you have a great deal of difficulty in creating coherent factions.

So I don't.

When I started my campaign, I hadn't read so much as half of the book. I didn't have a strong handle on most NPCs either, such that it took me a few sessions to realize that the Beast and the Blind Beast are two different characters. Luckily, I didn't have to. The party was only beginning to explore the castle, and only a few NPCs get introduced each session, mostly by direct encounter rather than exposition.

The party assumed the castle was filled with centuries-old politicking beyond their ken. As a result, I was able to let the chips fall where they may and improvise plot and character as the campaign required.

This began with the very first wandering encounter. After a few hijinks in the gatehouse garden, the party wound up burning down the rose garden. A few turns later, still near the scene of the crime, the great doors of the castle opened, and they encountered Adelaide Malevol. She had a neutral reaction roll, but I wasn't going to play this as her being totally uninterested in the party. 

Instead, I had her blackmail the party with the knowledge that they burnt down the rose garden. It belonged to the Beast, the second most powerful member of the family. They didn't know who that was or what he could do. But Adelaide knew, and her threat indicated that the Beast ought to be feared, so the party took on that assumption. I also let Adelaide describe some other heavy-hitters in the castle hierarchy, namely, the Count and Countess, and Aristide the lich.

The effects were tangible. Several sessions later, when the Beast appeared as a random encounter, the party ran like hell at the description of his castle-shaking steps. To date they've encountered him only twice: once at the wedding, once in his court, and they've been careful not to anger him. 

The lich Aristide looms even larger in their minds. They've never encountered him. Everything they know about Aristide is known by implication, and that allows the party to fill in their own worst fears. 

And of course, the effects of Adelaide's request to the party set up the wedding 'arc' of the campaign, which culminated in the first sighting of several major NPCs that the party would either ally with or kill in recent sessions. 

Only in more recent sessions did I need to think more deeply about real factions within the castle, and that as a result of the party uncovering a conspiracy. They discovered the Last Will and Testament of the aforementioned lich, which made Claude, a friendly NPC that the party had grown to like, the true heir to the Count's throne.

This was a big deal which totally changed the direction of the campaign. I was also totally unprepared. I didn't realize this item existed until a few minutes before the party found it. So I improvised using what I knew. 

First, Aristide the lich is the most potent creature in the castle. But he's also totally divorced from day-to-day life. Claude is disliked by the family because he's a do-gooder. So if Aristide wanted Claude to take the throne, there would be powerful interested to prevent this, enabled by Aristide's lethargy. 

I then had to figure out who was in on the conspiracy, and how different NPCs would react. I decided that the Beast is loyal to Aristide, and so would not be in the know. Since Maltricia Malevol, the vampire Countess, had been built up for some time as the party's nemesis, I decided she should be at the head of the conspiracy. I figured her right-hand woman, Serpentina the Succubus, would be in on it as well. Of course, Serpentina just sold out the Countess and allied with the party when she saw the tables turning. Yay politics!

But what about the legion of miscellaneous NPCs and family members, especially the large ghost population? Which of them know, and which side would each take?

Don't know. Doesn't matter. The great majority of NPCs are bit players. If the party takes a shining to one, like James the ghost butler, they can be more involved, but there's plenty that the party just hasn't encountered. Until the party takes an interest in them or they become useful to the GM, their faction status doesn't matter. 

That's about as much advice as I can give on the subject. If you're going to start a campaign of your own, skim through the Rogues' Gallery. Pay attention to NPCs with 6 or more HD, those are the ones most likely to have influence on the game. The rest are bit players. Some NPCs have obvious relationships, such as servitude, marriage, enmity. Others you can improvise as the campaign requires. 

---------------
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to comment below and follow the blog! Until next time, have an excellent week, and I hope to see you all here soon (especially that one Swedish reader who's been binging the blog. I see you)

6 comments:

  1. I suspected your approach would be something along these lines but it’s great to have you lay it out like this. Thanks a lot! This bottom-up, generative way of handling factions is not only very pragmatic, I think it also leads to a kind of faction play that organically matches the level of interest players have in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the way, there used to be a checkbox in the comment box UI for receiving email notifications of replies but that appears to have disappeared? Is that a setting you can flip back on on your end or did Google decide fostering blog comment conversations is something they no longer wanted to support with their blog platform?

      Delete
    2. The checkbox setting is still available in the desktop UI, but not in the mobile UI, alas.

      Allan.

      Delete
    3. Wow, you're right. By the way, on MacOS/Safari it also does not show up. But on MacOS/Chrome it does. Nice going, Google.

      Delete
  2. Well stated! Often, factions are used in a rigid manner, which is not satisfying, and becomes part of a checklist. I tried to avoid this pitfall in the module, instead going for an approach where going with the flow "reveals" details as the campaign moves deeper into the castle. In this way, relationships emerge naturally, and exactly to the degree they are actually needed in play. I do not think a complicated "relationship chart" would have been better. It would mostly be an obstacle people would try to memorise and get stressed over.

    Now, I also recognise this is not for everyone, but I think it is easier than many people believe. Trust in the flow, let the puzzle pieces fall into their place, and exploit interesting die rolls and lucky coincidences. Serendipity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Adelaide was so perfect as a first encounter that I thought there was a decent chance it was scripted.

    Similarly, interesting to know the book is light on factions; you did a great job of filling in the political details as well. I didn't suspect the details of the Will were your own either, but I think it makes a lot of sense as a good way to steer and customize the campaign framing.

    I kind of burned out from the Dolmenwood campaign I was running by trying to pin down the political (and metaphysical) situation in too much detail.

    ReplyDelete