Intrigue

Embarking upon a more esoteric form of game play, one often studiously avoided because of its difficulty for both the players and dungeon master, is what we may call strategic decision-making. This means something different in D&D than it does in war-based board gaming; here, it is the problem of decoding layers of uncertainty that arise from a world where intrigue and subtle currents of power affect the setting, whether this is an untrustworthy ally, a dangerous political swamp, or some non-player character's hidden agenda. Players will, in a full, rich world, bump against any of these, and many other like situations. The difficulty has two parts: the DM must be able to conceive of such plots and mechinations, to a degree that they can be presented as both understated and believable, and the players must be capable of realising that such a game is afoot, and be capable of piecing together clues in order to understand it.

If either of these necessities does not exist, then this sort of game play is next to impossible. For players to interpret clues, there must BE clues; which requires a DM to invent clues... and these must be of a type that can be interpreted, but not so easily that they're less clue-like than obvious facts. It also requires participants for whom deviousness and ruthlessness aren't wholly alien to their personal experience. Like the film detective who has become indoctrinated through experience in the darker sides of human nature, the players too must have some taste for this sort of fare. If not, if they are upset by it, or cannot conceive that someone would seize illegitimate power by hook or by crook, regardless of the necessary means, then such babes in the wood won't enjoy the raw seriousness such doings portend.

For those wishing to dive in, however, this aspect of gaming requires every bit as much design as the making of maps or preparing a working combat system. First, we must know the setting's inhabitants, as well as we know the characters from a pantheon of films and books that have depicted those who work outside the law for the last two hundred years. Intrigue and the quest for easy power can be defined as a personal shortcut for those who aren't willing to work and wait for their reward. They want the reward now, as quickly as they can achieve it... and normally, there are so many such persons in a life-like setting that they are competing with each other to get a bite of the apple, as they are getting a hold of the apple itself.

This multi-person set up produces a multi-layered engagement, made more complex by the simple fact that there are also good people pretending to be bad people in order to stop the bad people. Thus, a villain might surprisingly turn out to be an ally; an apparent ally, a backstabbing bastard. The players themselves may choose to play either side of the field, for there are no rules except what we impose autocratically to stop players from being the "bad guys" themselves. The mess and mayhem of all this, even though we have only gotten this far, already feels like it's up to our chest and ready to overwhelm us. We might ask, how in hell is this to be sorted, if we don't already know how to do so?

To solve the problem, we must think like a detective novel. This does not mean setting up all the events that are to take place well in advance, so that the players are reduced to characters in a book. What the characters do, what they say to others who are engaged in such affairs, must matter as much as their choosing which enemies to fight on a battle field or which places they want to go. However, in our engaging with the players, our goal as a dungeon master is to both dispense information and hoard it, just as any product of film noir or pulp fiction does.

For example, the players are told to meet with an individual, Salif. In this encounter, we must decide first, what does Salif actually know? Then, what is Salif willing to say at this time... and this we divide into what he'll say if only asked, and what he'll say if threatened? Then, finally, more tricky still, what things does Salif think that he knows, but in fact knows inaccurately. This last is all important, since we must always remember that the NPCs the players interact with are themselves operating within the same framework as the players. They only know what they've been able to learn; no one knows everything; and everyone's perspective is riddled with falsehoods and mistaken beliefs.

Again, for example, let us say that someone out there in the maelstrom intends to kill Salif. How do we play this? We can have Salif killed off "camera," as it were, which the party then learns about. Or we can have Salif killed in front of them, where the party can witness it. Or we can have an attempt on Salif's life that the party can either prevent, or fail to prevent. The way we present this information, or design the scene, allows opportunities for the players to interrogate the message bearer, or pursue the murderer, or save the victim. The information, over all, is dispensed out to the party in a way that empowers them a little further, while whetting their appetite for the next piece. If they save him, then Salif has all the more reason to dump everything he knows; if they don't save them, then we decide how much Salif can say before he dies.

This natural consequence based on the character's actions permits legitimate adventuring with the players retaining their agency. They decide whom to search for; they decide what questions to ask; they decide what apparently clues matter, and which are true. They decide if they want to go into dangerous places to learn what they're informed exists there. They have to trade for their lives, giving information they know to those who threaten them. They have to know when to gamble on the humanity of someone who appears to be an enemy; and when not to trust a friend who isn't. We may design the fabric of the conspiracy, but how the players interact with it is entirely up to them.

It is so easy, since we have all the information, to disregard the necessity of an adventure like this to be legitimately player-driven. This is especially made hard by the players themselves, who often fail to see certain obvious clues that we've put right in front of them, which would lead them out of the mess... a misconception which can cause a party to give up hope, to assume that every step they can take is the wrong one. Even that they might as well just quit the adventure and even the game, merely by making themselves blind to some important detail or through they're absolute mistrust of someone who has done everything they can to indicate that they can be trusted. It is the players who are the first to argue that we've rigged the series of events, even when we haven't. This is because most players don't THINK like a detective; they think like those who have never had to face something like this before, and as such, they automatically distrust everyone, on principle.

An intrigue-designed adventure cannot be played with paranoia. It must be played with the confidence that no matter how difficult the immediate situation, there's a way out; there's an ally ready to help; there's something we know that is of value to someone, who won't kill us because we know this thing. It requires players to trust that the DM hasn't rigged the game against them; that, in fact, we HAVE NO REASON TO DO THAT. Players who cannot adopt these perspectives, who possess an automatic, almost reflexive doubt to anything they're told, have no business playing on the dark side of the waterfront. In running these adventures, we want to give the players plenty of information that helps them make thoughtful decisions; but if all the player thinks is that we're giving them rope to hang themselves with, then we might as well not run these sorts of adventures.

We can, here and there, fiddle with small ideas. A single informant where all else is plainly obvious. A pantomime-like villain whose footprints might as well be cast in the white paint he stepped in before entering in his nefarious activities. The occasional uncertain bit of detail that can be thrown into the mix of a clear, upfront adventure. Perhaps, with one player in the party who is better versed in the genre, they might help the others understand how to play it. Otherwise, and until such time as players mature into those who can handle this kind of play, it's best to treat these elements of game play as decorative rather than as the session's foundation.