Justifying adventuring when you're the Boss

[Rechan]

With RPGs, I really enjoy the "nation building" element; when the PCs are in charge of an organization (be it a Colony, a kingdom, a guild, etc) and part of the campaign is managing and developing the organization itself. (Yes I know this falls in line with Kingmaker most likely).

However, I have run into a snag when trying to run this type of game in the past. Players will say to me:

If my PC is in charge, why the hell should he be leaving to deal with Adventures/outside threats? He can't be away when he has duties.

Which really takes the wind out of my sails.

Thing is, I don't know how to reply to that. I don't know what to say in order to justify it. If I don't justify it, then the player (because they can't reason it out) will just choose to play someone who's not in charge, thus taking the nation building element out simply due to the logic problem.

But you see it in fiction. Case in point: Star Trek. Rather than the Captain sending out an exploration team, the most important people on the ship go on every single away mission.

What justification or motivation can refute or explain the Adventuring Leader?

Disclaimer: Yes I know the player is well within his right to not want to take part in it, or if he can't rationalize it he is well within his right to give up the PC. That is beside the point of the thread.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Rechan]

The most useful reason though, IMO,: Adventure finds Them. Bring the intrigue, plots, assassins, murder, monster attacks, war...whatever...to them, so they have no other choice but to deal with it themselves

The campaign I want/enjoy doing this with is a Colony. Where the PCs are in charge/make a colony on the Dark Continent. So there's a lot of exploration, and addressing threats that aren't just right there in the colony's face. If it required the adventure to "come to them", then it's going to just be defensive all the time, rather than any sort of 'Go out and Do things'. Which would really be a waste of the setting imo.

 

[Nightson]

1. The threat is dire. You can't send off a bunch of guards to take care of the problem, or even a division of the army. For the big threats you'll probably want to bring the whole army along.

2. Make it a tradition. It's simply what's done in the world, rulers leave their lands in the hands of competent people and goes around bashing in the heads of threats to the realm. Sure the people will understand if you grew up a merchant or something, but if you can fight and you just sit around the palace all day then rumors will start to fly about laziness and cowardice and why didn't you take care of that fire breathing dragon earlier?

And because it's tradition, all the institutions are built to function while the lord is away smashing up dragons.

3. Give the clear impression that the character does spend quite a bit of time running the realm. Instead of going from one adventure to the next, stick three months of downtime in between with a challenging choice for the lord to make regarding his land.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

That's a tough one, as it is ultimately the player's decision. But I can think of a handful of rationales, though other than "leadership" they're pretty weak, imho:

In cases involving the PC's leadership directly (eg, diplomacy, military campaign command, and the like) that's fairly straightforward to rationalize.

Other cases might include unique expertise (only the PC has the necessary skills/levels/class features to get the job done); or required secrecy (it can't be known that the task is getting done, as for an assassination, or when recovering an artifact weapon to conquer the enemy state, but a spy is suspected among his court, or the like).

Still other ones might be criminal activity (frex, being waylaid by bandits, assaulted by pirates, kidnapped by a demon, etc); or accident (lost or sidetracked while travelling), or even recreation (intrigue/danger at a ball or state dinner, or "holiday adventuring" similar to extreme sports or big-game hunting).

 

[Umbran]

There are two possibilities that leap to mind:

1) If the character is the leader in large part due to being high level, he's there because he's the most potent force to put on the problem, and the problem is high enough priority that risking the leader's hide is warranted.

2) The adventure is going to require policy decisions that affect the organization, and those decisions cannot be reasonably delegated to an underling.

This does mean that every adventure the character goes on has to be fairly important to his organization.

 

[Stoat]

The campaign I want/enjoy doing this with is a Colony. Where the PCs are in charge/make a colony on the Dark Continent. So there's a lot of exploration, and addressing threats that really just aren't right there in the colony's face. If it required the adventure to "come to them", then it's going to just be defensive all the time, rather than any sort of 'Go out and Do things'. Which would really be a waste of the setting imo.

The colony has to face threats which only the PC's can handle.

1. Bad guys are harassing the colony. The bad guys live out in the jungle someplace, and the PC's are the only colonists with enough firepower to find the the bad guys and challenge them directly.

2. The colony needs valuable resources. a) The jungle is dangerous and the PC's are the only ones powerful enough to go out and get the resources, or b) Only a skilled wizard/warlock/sorcerer/cleric/druid/whatever can recover the resources, and one of the PC's is the only whatever with that much skill.

3. Magmar, god of the volcano must be appeased. Only the rightful ruler of colony town can appease Magmar. As rightful rulers, the PC's have to do whatever it is that will make Magmar happy.

4. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. A powerful, mysterious something or other dares the PC's to undertake a dangerous mission.

It may also help if there are plenty of skilled NPC administrators capable of handling the day-to-day business of the colony while the PC's are out in the bush doing their thing.

 

[Skyscraper]

I've had a 10-year long campaign occur with the PCs being the adventuring leader type.

I think the answer to your question will differ from one player to the next. Here are thoughts:

- Ask the player why he feels that his leader should leave to explore or adventure himself. If they say "I don't know", then get his imagination working.
- In our world, leaders (e.g. nation leaders) are usually not combatants that can single-handedly defeat hundreds of opponents. In D&D and some other RPGs, they are.
- Have the PCs develop a trustworthy relationship with a few NPCs that they leave in charge. These NPCs can start by adventuring with the PCs and gain their trust over time.
- Ask the players why they feel that the adventuring leader makes no sense whatsoever in the gaming environment. I mean, at one point, if you're playing a fantasy RPG and you're not too inclined towards realism as a consequence, having the leader adventure is not that far-fetched IMO. Back to my first point: I'm sure they can find an easy solution to explain their adventuring envies. Think about this billionnaire (who's name I forget) who died a year or two ago while flying his plane across the Atlantic ocean (or something): he also went on boat trips, wanted to go into space, did extensive hiking trips, ... He was a bit out of the ordinary, why can't the PCs be too?

Sky

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Umbran]

The campaign I want/enjoy doing this with is a Colony. Where the PCs are in charge/make a colony on the Dark Continent. So there's a lot of exploration, and addressing threats that aren't just right there in the colony's face.

The basic thing to fix this might be:

The characters aren't actually the tippy-top bosses. It is assumed that the day-to-day operation rests instead with some Governor. The PCs are part of a ruling council with the Governor, and are there to deal with things a basic mundane administrator cannot.