@WildBaboons said in L&L Options?:
I ran the Daes dae'mar (great game, political stuff) for a WoT game for a few years and mostly what I found was that people are just terrible at political maneuvering but think they're awesome. hamfisted maneuvers are thought to be great sweeps of intrigues and people get really upset when people point out that what they did was actually really dumb with negative consequences.
For me that I don't see the connection between L&L and high adventure. In my concept for L&L those tend to be opposite, unless you're looking for the idle rich who can use their copious downtime to adventure.
This is actually a peeve of mine on political games. You sometimes see where someone puts in a political action, and the ST goes, 'well, that's stupid politically' and the person gets dinged for it (or the converse, where the ST thinks it was a good move and it works out well for the person).
The thing is, we don't run combat by fiat. The ST doesn't get to say, "Yes, throwing a punch here is better than a kick, so you win," and I'm of the opinion that political RP should be the same way.
There should 1) be systems that players can manipulate and then 2) How well they manipulate it should come down to their sheet and their rolls and 3) When a player is way off base, but is playing a character that is supposed to be savvy, then the ST might want to step in and let them know that they're not going to succeed at Task A until they've done some more ground work to prep for it.