this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
18 points (95.0% liked)

Ask Game Masters

875 readers
1 users here now

A place where Game Masters, Dungeon Masters, Storytellers, Narrators, Referees (and etc) can gather and ask questions. Uncertain of where to take the story? Want to spice up your big baddie? Encounters? That player? Ask away!

And if you have questions about becoming a Game Master you are most welcome with those as well!

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hey everyone! Let's try to get some more activity in here. I was wondering what kind of rulers you have all created. I realize most medieval settings will probably have a monarch rule the lands, but this does not have to be the case. So, what kind of governing systems have you created in your worlds?

I'll start off as I am making the post. My players are in an archipelago divided into five inhabited sections. One of them excersizes a system I have dubbed "Elected Sacrificial Monarchy." Bit of a mouthful, but the principle is simple. The people elect a mostly absolute ruler who will rule for five years. They can be granted two additional years in a re-election if they are popular enough. When their term, extended or not, ends, they are beheaded in public after a new leader has been chosen. There are clauses that can give exceptions in dire cases (defensive war or some other disaster), but they are rarely invoked.

The principle of this is that only those who wish to better their nation and are prepared to pay the ultimate price to do it will put themselves forward as a candidate to rule. It is by no means a perfect system, but I'm pretty happy with how it turned out. So, what about all of you? Did you have any unique governments in your settings? Tell us about it :)

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TugOfWarCrimes@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm quite proud of the system I have for the Orcs of my world. Essentially they live in tribes with a clear leader who sets all the rules and expected behaviours for their tribe known as traditions. Tribe members follow the traditions without question most of the time. But there is a cultural expectation that if any tribe member feels a tradition is wrong or no longer necessary, they must call this out and be ready to stand by their ideas. The leader must provide the tribe member time and opportunity to gain followers to their traditions and then gift them resources to start their own tribe. In this way the tribes with the best traditions tend to grow and the tribes with poor traditions either die out or are absorbed by larger tribes.

I like the idea that a new player coming to my games will be able to make assumptions about orc culture based on preconceptions made from other depictions of orcs over the years, and it would be fairly accurate for my world on a surface level, but there's so much more to it.

[–] Blubber28@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

That is quite a cool system, and definitely something that I feel fits Orcs quite well, given their general emphasis on survival of the fittest. With this system, it is simply extended to a population rather than an individual; the tribes with unpopular (or popular but bad) ideas will eventually die out. It's very cool!

[–] foyrkopp@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I usually just copy paste historical (flawed) stuff I find interesting.

While I like goofing around with stuff like "modeling functioning government", I believe it distracts from the PC's stories (and leads to ideological discussions at the table.)

[–] Blubber28@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I think that it could distract in the forefront, certainly. However, the ideological discussion it sparked in character was a great moment for everyone to roleplay according to their differing values and cultures between them and the locals and between each other. Therefore, in our case, it worked quite well.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This isn't strange; 'sacrificial kings' have existed in many cultures. To quote Wikipedia, 'The king might be designated to suffer and atone for his people, meaning that the sacral king could be the pre-ordained victim in a human sacrifice, either killed at the end of his term in the position, or sacrificed in a time of crisis (e.g. the Blót of Domalde).'

[–] Blubber28@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It certainly has a basis in real-world history, I simply feel it is underutilized in fantasy worlds, especially for a society that is deemed civilized, as these rituals are typically used by societies which are depicted as "barbaric." In this case, the country that uses it is the richest one in the region, and has very distinguished high, middle, and lower classes like in 1700's/1800's Europe. Not a society typically associated with those kind of rituals, which made it extra interesting to me.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Ah, I see. I've actually read a rather sarcastic take on this idea in one of the Discworld novels, where the people of Fourecks (fantasy Australia) elect a Prime Minister and then directly put him in jail, since they'll have to eventually send him there anyway.

[–] AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Probably the time the party descended into the mind of a genius madman. What governed the world(s) was entirely his thoughts. Kind of like Through the Looking Glass. But there was a method to the madness, and they were able to eventually destroy what was causing his madness, and thereby free him to save the real world.

[–] Blubber28@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Descending into a mad god's mind to save the world is a very cool adventure hook indeed!

[–] AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 8 months ago

I'm not sure it's very strange or creative, but I liked what I had for the little city state of Bass Lake.

There had been an absolute monarch. He was an evil man, and the people overthrew him. There was a dramatic final showdown on the top of the keep and everything.

Afterwards, the people who had lead the revolution didn't want to set up the same kind of system. They declared themselves a sort of commune. Shared property, equality for all, etc. Very idealistic.

However, most of the people didn't really get that. They kept referring to the head of the revolution, Lucas, as the king. And he'd be like no, not the king, an equal like everyone else. And they'd be like oh right sure. And then later be right back to calling him King. It was very exasperating for Lucas. The neighboring states also didn't like it at all.

The main plot of the game was tied into some counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore the old king to the throne. They weren't happy being "equals". They wanted to be on top. To be the boots on the necks and to be able to push people around with impunity. Well, and one key character just blamed Lucas specifically for his family dying, so he threw in with the counter revolutionaries.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months ago

I wouldn't say creative, but a soulless corporatocracy is our current ruling group. On an interstellar scale, it's all about minerals and stealing knowledge from others.