So i have campaign idea for a faction based campaign and had some ideas about how to do that and wanted opinions on my mechanical ideas. 

The basic lore for the game would be players are residents/council members or whatever of a border town (faction yellow), between factions green and red who want to fight for control of the region.  If Red or Green get too powerful they will take over the border town in some compacity, which isn't strictly a bad thing but that's beside the point.

My idea for how to work this is to have a points system where the players will go on quests (after an introductory quest to introduce the faction leaders) to give one faction or another a point or take away a point from a faction and first faction to get three points gets to go a potentially game winning quest and end the campaign risking two points in the process.  Green and Red start with one point.

Now obviously there are some kinks  here.  While I am not opposed to the players speed running the campaign on going all in on Red or Green as soon as they can, since that is still like three months of gaming, i don't quite know how I should interfere with the players plans.  My first thought is for them to run a defensive quest  when their favourite faction gets two points to slow them down. 

My big concerns are; 1. should I give points to a potential enemy faction without player input to balance things out, I don't know if that's necessary, the points don't make the factions overwhelmingly stronger, it just represents the factions having X number of advantages in a potential war and it does propose an interesting scenario should the party switch sides in the late game. and 2. is this whole thing points thing weird.  I think it might excite the players to have a tangible view of where they are at but I don't know.

EDIT: the factions aren't big, this whole thing involves maybe 2 thousand people total in an isolated part of the homebrew world.  A lvl 5 adventurer would be a pretty big deal in the context of the campaign.  The party is the main character in the story of this town that either has to pick a side or gain power for themselves if they want to stay independent and the players can do either of those if they want. 

Quote from ironpacifist >>

Now obviously there are some kinks  here.  While I am not opposed to the players speed running the campaign on going all in on Red or Green as soon as they can, since that is still like three months of gaming, i don't quite know how I should interfere with the players plans.  My first thought is for them to run a defensive quest  when their favourite faction gets two points to slow them down. 

You should NOT interfere with what your players choose to do. If they pick a faction they want to support, it is your job to make it happen and make it entertaining. It's called player agency. It's the part where the actions of the PCs are up to players. As the GM, you should not force them to decide one way or the other.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from ironpacifist >>

Now obviously there are some kinks  here.  While I am not opposed to the players speed running the campaign on going all in on Red or Green as soon as they can, since that is still like three months of gaming, i don't quite know how I should interfere with the players plans.  My first thought is for them to run a defensive quest  when their favourite faction gets two points to slow them down. 

 

You should NOT interfere with what your players choose to do. If they pick a faction they want to support, it is your job to make it happen and make it entertaining. It's called player agency. It's the part where the actions of the PCs are up to players. As the GM, you should not force them to decide one way or the other.

" Interfere with" in the sense that there will be monsters in the way or the opposing faction will take an action against them.  It's part of making an adventure, if you'll recall.  The antagonists also gets to take actions if they about to lose.

I don't get it.  There's a contest between factions and you don't want the players taking sides from the get go?  Then just offer them jobs by the various sides randomly or per a script you want to run.  Give them exposure to the factions _then_ make it clear there's a power struggle and the PCs allying with one may tip the scale then allow choices.  I mean if you're "scoring" and the PCs aren't supposed to be that involved with the game to really exert influence ... you're sorta only playing the game with yourself, so to speak.

I want to say a few of the published adventures have sections on "politicking" factions.  Rise of Tiamat definitely does, not sure about others.  I wouldn't reinvent the wheel on this.

It sounds like what was clasically the type of things you would become embroiled in at higher levels. 

I don't know if you are starting your players on a level to reflect this, but one key piece of information is kinda missing - which is how many points are required to trigger certain events? E.g. if your party earns 2 points for a faction - how much is that relative to the "global" conflict between the two factions. If it only takes 5 points for all out war or dominance, then it might be a short campaign if they side with one faction early on. On the other hand, if the players are an influential, but not all deciding force in the "game", then you should definitely have additional events/rumours etc that influence the balance (e.g. if it's to reach 100 points for example, it might be worth constructing some roll tables that affect faction scores a bit randomly to allow for excitement).

It also depends on the style of the campaign in many ways. If the party starts out as the heroes of the realms and they are absolute centre of the events at all times, then you should probably just let it flow the course of their choices. If you want to instil that they are part of a much bigger set of events, other factors will almost inevitably impact the balance as well. 

EDIT: the factions aren't big, this whole thing involves maybe 2 thousand people total in an isolated part of the homebrew world.  A lvl 5 adventurer would be a pretty big deal in the context of the campaign.  The party is the main character in the story of this town that either has to pick a side or gain power for themselves if they want to stay independent and the players can do either of those if they want. 

Quote from overchord >>

It sounds like what was clasically the type of things you would become embroiled in at higher levels. 

I don't know if you are starting your players on a level to reflect this, but one key piece of information is kinda missing - which is how many points are required to trigger certain events? E.g. if your party earns 2 points for a faction - how much is that relative to the "global" conflict between the two factions. If it only takes 5 points for all out war or dominance, then it might be a short campaign if they side with one faction early on. On the other hand, if the players are an influential, but not all deciding force in the "game", then you should definitely have additional events/rumours etc that influence the balance (e.g. if it's to reach 100 points for example, it might be worth constructing some roll tables that affect faction scores a bit randomly to allow for excitement).

It also depends on the style of the campaign in many ways. If the party starts out as the heroes of the realms and they are absolute centre of the events at all times, then you should probably just let it flow the course of their choices. If you want to instil that they are part of a much bigger set of events, other factors will almost inevitably impact the balance as well. 

i added an edit to the main post, but address this specifically.  The factions are small, think the scale of like a western and the players are John Wayne types where everyone in the script realizes they are important to the story.  

Also as I stated in the original post i'm fine with a four month campaign.  1 point per quest 1 quest equals 2 to 4 sessions.  lvls 5 - 9 at least

1.) Are the quests the same no matter which faction they're working for?  That is, no matter whose team jersey they're wearing, it's the same work?

2.) Are you planning on having the community exist in its present sense of de facto limbo while the factions fortunes rise or fall depending on the players actions?

I don't know if I'd do "points" resolution.  I'd be much more comfortable with "If then" logic trees.  "If party takes up question 1 for X and succees, then this happens; if fails then this happens, if success for Y this happens, and fails then this happens."  And tree down from there (you got the plan/prep time to "branch out" given the time your quests take).  Things would likely initially be cosmetic of the bragging rights sort, but as the game's stakes rise the PCs will become more aware (and possibly more accountable) for their actions.  

I mean if your factions were more numbered than a binary (and maybe I'm mistaken and there are more than "red" and "green") if/then thought experiments I think are a better format than point awards.  Forgotten Realms based games do do more a "points" or "levels of favor or hostility" matrix when all the factions are in the same room together (which come to think of it happens A LOT in the FR, it's sort of like all the factions are basically a subfaction of the Forgotten Realms Illuminati, "It don't matter whether you got a harp, or a stag or a winged serpent tattooed on your clavicle, you all meet in the same secret throneroom to address yet another crisis...."), but that's five and it makes more sense to gamify abstract out that way when it would be harder to map out with binary story logic.

1) I wouldn't "gamify" this. At all. Let the party do what they want, decide how the other faction will react, and keep the balance going between the factions as long as it's useful for the campaign. Don't tie your hands with some arbitrary points system

2) What you are doing is constructing something like a Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo/Red Harvest scenario. I'd make sure you've at least watched one of those movies/read the book to get a handle on how introducing a new force into that kind of power struggle can play out, and what "winning" might look like to each side -- including the players, if they aren't backing either faction and instead decide to try and get the town out from under the thumb of both factions

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

1.) Are the quests the same no matter which faction they're working for?  That is, no matter whose team jersey they're wearing, it's the same work?

2.) Are you planning on having the community exist in its present sense of de facto limbo while the factions fortunes rise or fall depending on the players actions?

I don't know if I'd do "points" resolution.  I'd be much more comfortable with "If then" logic trees.  "If party takes up question 1 for X and succees, then this happens; if fails then this happens, if success for Y this happens, and fails then this happens."  And tree down from there (you got the plan/prep time to "branch out" given the time your quests take).  Things would likely initially be cosmetic of the bragging rights sort, but as the game's stakes rise the PCs will become more aware (and possibly more accountable) for their actions.  

I mean if your factions were more numbered than a binary (and maybe I'm mistaken and there are more than "red" and "green") if/then thought experiments I think are a better format than point awards.  Forgotten Realms based games do do more a "points" or "levels of favor or hostility" matrix when all the factions are in the same room together (which come to think of it happens A LOT in the FR, it's sort of like all the factions are basically a subfaction of the Forgotten Realms Illuminati, "It don't matter whether you got a harp, or a stag or a winged serpent tattooed on your clavicle, you all meet in the same secret throneroom to address yet another crisis...."), but that's five and it makes more sense to gamify abstract out that way when it would be harder to map out with binary story logic.

 

 

1.  the quests are not necessarily the same, some might be i haven't gotten that far.  But the point of the point system is so the players are aware of what is the status of the campaign is for them and so they can easily see who is winning and for them to have no-nonsense gauge of what they need to do.  I might have logic tree in mind but that isn't helpful to the players who want to know if they are going to lose or not.

2. Sort of, less limbo more of there will be war between green and red soon and they are both getting ready to fight that war.  At 3 points they would be ready to go to war, if they try with less they will not win.  My issue is at what point should factions that the party is not helping gain points which are at the end of the day a metaphor for having something that can help them win (three points might be for example, gaining the support of a dragon, having a powerful artifact and having a spy in the enemy faction) when should an unfavoured faction gain to gain a point.

3. There are no other factions besides what i've listed.  This is an isolated part of the world far from proper civilization

Quote from AntonSirius >>

1) I wouldn't "gamify" this. At all. Let the party do what they want, decide how the other faction will react, and keep the balance going between the factions as long as it's useful for the campaign. Don't tie your hands with some arbitrary points system

2) What you are doing is constructing something like a Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo/Red Harvest scenario. I'd make sure you've at least watched one of those movies/read the book to get a handle on how introducing a new force into that kind of power struggle can play out, and what "winning" might look like to each side -- including the players, if they aren't backing either faction and instead decide to try and get the town out from under the thumb of both factions

 1. no, you see the players are essentially assigning the points if they complete a quest, the players get to do whatever.  A point is just the players gains or giving someone an advantage for the forthcoming war, so i'm wondering at what point i should give a potential opposing force a point(advantage) without player input if at all, so they don't seem like they are sitting on their but while the players hand out or gain power.

2. The finale arcs of the campaign can absolutely be beating up two factions.  I have at least three possible final bosses in mind.

Quote from ironpacifist >>

1. no, you see the players are essentially assigning the points if they complete a quest, the players get to do whatever.  A point is just the players gains or giving someone an advantage for the forthcoming war, so i'm wondering at what point i should give a potential opposing force a point(advantage) without player input if at all, so they don't seem like they are sitting on their but while the players hand out or gain power.

That's what I mean -- why do you need to assign "points" at all? I think you'd be better off just judging the success and impact of each mission/adventure as it happens, and having the other side react in an appropriate manner. Coming up with a points system just seems like an unnecessary step in the process

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from ironpacifist >>

1. no, you see the players are essentially assigning the points if they complete a quest, the players get to do whatever.  A point is just the players gains or giving someone an advantage for the forthcoming war, so i'm wondering at what point i should give a potential opposing force a point(advantage) without player input if at all, so they don't seem like they are sitting on their but while the players hand out or gain power.

 

That's what I mean -- why do you need to assign "points" at all? I think you'd be better off just judging the success and impact of each mission/adventure as it happens, and having the other side react in an appropriate manner. Coming up with a points system just seems like an unnecessary step in the process

 It's not even a step! This is not at all complicated, i can keep track of this entire system in the corner of 1 page of my notes.  All i've done is concretely say, if you successfully do three quests for one faction you get to fight a final boss and y'all have made this basic three column chart out to be grand wizardry and the act of gauging the story totally by feel to be as easy as breathing.  Which yeah it's not hard necessarily, but i thought it might be a little player friendly to have an incredibly basic chart to let players where they are at and maybe give myself a fun art project.

All I asked was if it would be fair or interesting to make the a faction stronger without player input in response to the party doing stuff.  Yes the chart is technically unnecessary but i think it could be fun.

If it works for you, awesome

I guess my concern is that your players will end up 'playing the chart', if you will, and doing missions simply to give points to one faction or the other, rather than doing missions for story reasons

In terms of your question, of course one faction will respond to the other's successes, without direct player intervention. That should be a given in that sort of scenario

There's also another reason I had a hard time wrapping my head around the points idea, and that's if you're up front with the players about how many points a mission is worth, you're removing the opportunity for them to run missions where they don't actually know who it'll benefit -- whether it's a townsperson who's secretly in league with one faction, or a mission intended to benefit the town but which might inadvertently help one side (i.e. those orcs in the mountains are hitting the town's supply lines, but they were also pinning down a good chunk of Green's forces)

Yeah I don't think keeping a tally of points is the controversial thing here. It's actually a great simple way to track things that can increment or decrement towards a resolution. Angry GM calls it The Whatever Stat. It's also the main mechanic behind 4e's Skill Challenges, which are a great framework for noncombat conflicts at a larger scale.

The part I'd reconsider is exposing this point system to the party. The mechanic loses none of its utility and gains a lot if you keep it hidden. What sounds like a more interesting goal, to "unseat the corrupt Baron" or to "gain three points for my faction?"

I assume you intend to show consequences of the point system anyway. Let the consequences do the talking. It's more impactful and just feels more like D&D than scoring points. Keeping the tally hidden also introduces some tension with the party not knowing exactly when things will come to a head. It also lets you fudge the totals a bit - not in an unfair way, but I've found that these kinds of systems rarely work perfectly on the first try, and being able to adjust as you go to make for a better game can be the difference between a fun campaign and a chore that you want to get through so you can try a new version of your system with what you've learned.