GMs have a lot of control in campaigns. They shape and evolve the setting. They frame the challenges. However, the trajectory of the story is controlled by the players; the more coherent the trajectory, the better the narrative. If you want your campaign to flourish, you need to be able to manage your players. This is especially true of political campaigns that require some or all of the PCs to have political power, which presents a number of potential complications because not all players are equal.

Players are different. They are not equal in terms of roleplaying or political skill. They are not equal in interest in political or strategic elements. They are not equal in their commitment to the campaign. GMs have to juggle these differences.

For example, let’s say you are running a sci-fi campaign where you want the PCs to have control of an important space station. You have five PCs:

#1 - This is a good role-player and strategic thinker who is very interested in political elements. The downside with #1 is very inconsistence attendance.

#2 - This is a good role-player and strategic thinker. The downside with #2 is disinterest in political elements.

#3 - This is a good role-player who is interested in political elements. The downside with #3 is weak strategic thinking.

#4 - This is a good strategic thinker who nearly always attends sessions. The downside with #4 is poor roleplaying skills and disinterest in political elements.

#5 - This is a good role-player who always attends sessions. The downside with #5 is poor strategic thinking and their PC is very passive. Let’s setup this sci-fi campaign.

The first question you have to answer is how political power is distributed among the PCs?

There are three options. The first is to divide political power equally between the PCs; perhaps they are the members of the five-person council that controls the space station. The second is to give primary power to one PC who hopefully will share that power with the other PCs; perhaps this one PC is the commanding officer or president of the space station. The third is you give a few PCs different sorts of political power that ideally compliment one another and that they share this power, or least involve, the other PCs who lack influence; perhaps one PC is the commanding officer, another commands the Imperial garrison assigned to the station, and a third is a priest who has influence with the inhabitants of the station. The challenge here is you want to empower your players while encouraging them to work together. This can be tough. I’ve had plenty of campaigns implode as the setup provided too few incentives for the PCs to work together.

Personally, I am very fond of the second option. You have one PC with most of the political power. This may sound counterintuitive for the troupe style of play associated with most roleplaying games, but a good leader in the party is sort of essential for success in a political campaign. The best campaigns I’ve run have had 1-2 key PCs in the party and 3-4 support PCs. I try to give every PC a story arc but if you have passive players who don’t pursue their own story arcs and instead want to support the story arcs of other PCs, don’t fight this. A lot of players like to be support characters. I have yet to have a group where all the players want to be the key PCs.

Let’s consider our five players.

#1 would appear to be first pick for a key player, but the problem is attendance - a massive downside. Political campaigns build from session to session. In a lot of RPGs you can run episodic with no problem but if the party is trying to defeat Duke Geoff’s bid to steal the throne, then every session is linked and the key PCs need to be present. I have learned that often while #1 looks like the best pick for a key PC the attendance issue is far more critical. Key PCs must have good attendance!

#2 is the sort of player I would probably start off as a supporting PC with the possibility of becoming a key PC. Generally, players may profess a disinterest in politics but once in the middle of a political campaign their interest will be kindled. It is important to be able to shift the key and supporting roles.

#3 is a great choice for a key PC as the only downside is weak strategic thinking, which will encourage the support PCs to step up and support this PC. Roleplaying skill is more important than strategic thinking.

#4 is a supporting character - roleplaying skills are a must for a key PC.

#5 is a supporting character as being passive is a massive detriment for a key PC. Passive players usually don’t want the burden of being key PCs anyway and the position should never be forced on unwilling, or reluctant, players.

I’ll probably talk more about players next time, but I want you to consider your current group - who are the key PCs and who are the supporting ones. Who made those PCs the key ones? I’ve discussed some of the thought process for GMs in deciding who is what, but sometimes the players decide this among themselves, often without any discussion - it just happens. As GM you need to understand why things fell into place the way they did. These dynamics are essential for you to understand in any campaign not just political ones.