A recent conversation with my brother turned into a full-blown philosophical debate on the nature of RPGs and I found the whole thing extremely interesting and would rather like to open it up to another forum. So here goes ...
In essence, the discussion arose from my brother voicing his concern over the higher levels of play in fantasy RPGs (we play both 4e and Pathfinder) and his feeling that playing at those levels becomes increasingly unbelievable and untenable. His point is that characters are called upon to deal with threats and menaces that are so powerful that it is hard to understand why they have not already overrun the local area, the nation, the world. You can see his point. A party of 18th-level characters (not even particularly high-level, see; not these days) might be called upon to deal with an incursion of demons or what-have-you. Those demons are demonstrably powerful (excuse the pun) and it does bring us to ask why they have not already overthrown the local regime and taken control of everything under the sun.
Or what about the player characters themselves? At high levels, these become extraordinarily powerful. Fantastically so. What is to stop *them* from taking over the world?
There is also the issue of why threats are balanced against the characters. Surely, in a more realistic world, the more capable (higher-level) heroes will be called upon to deal with any given threat. Assume for a moment that the campaign world is populated by dozens of adventurer types, if not hundreds (and the mere fact that the local tavern always seems to have two or three standing by whenever a party member gets himself or herself killed seems to suggest this is the case!). They cannot all be the same level, surely? So why not subscribe to 'shock and awe' tactics and send in your most powerful heroes to deal with threats at little to no risk? Why the brinkmanship of having these greenhorns do it, where there is clearly a risk that they may fail?
My own answers to all these questions and concerns can be summed up in just two words: "narrative" and "solipsism". The demons in question have not already overthrown the local regime because the heroes are entering the story at just the right time and should be able to prevent them from doing so; it is all part of the narrative. High-level characters do not (normally) carry out coups d'etat for a number of reasons, be it alignment, political/social involvement or mere disinclination. I have no doubt that they *could* but most never would. And who is to say that there *are* any adventurer-types of a higher level than the current party that could deal more easily with the current threat?
This last point, the solipsistic view of the campaign world, took hold in my mind and appeared, to me at least, to explain away all these concerns and issues. There is no threat other than the current one. Only the current narrative counts. There are no heroes other than the ones in the party (okay and some other story-relevant NPCs).
I should say, in defence of my brother, that he is not wholly disillusioned by RPGs and about to kick the hobby. He still very much enjoys playing and will do so for many years to come no doubt, not least because he has now recruited his children into it! His problem is really that his willing suspension of disbelief is more difficult to maintain at the higher levels of play. And even that is not to say that he *won't* play there, but he is reluctant to do so and will avoid it if possible.
This could all reduce down to a debate on GNS theory, of course.
Any thoughts?
In essence, the discussion arose from my brother voicing his concern over the higher levels of play in fantasy RPGs (we play both 4e and Pathfinder) and his feeling that playing at those levels becomes increasingly unbelievable and untenable. His point is that characters are called upon to deal with threats and menaces that are so powerful that it is hard to understand why they have not already overrun the local area, the nation, the world. You can see his point. A party of 18th-level characters (not even particularly high-level, see; not these days) might be called upon to deal with an incursion of demons or what-have-you. Those demons are demonstrably powerful (excuse the pun) and it does bring us to ask why they have not already overthrown the local regime and taken control of everything under the sun.
Or what about the player characters themselves? At high levels, these become extraordinarily powerful. Fantastically so. What is to stop *them* from taking over the world?
There is also the issue of why threats are balanced against the characters. Surely, in a more realistic world, the more capable (higher-level) heroes will be called upon to deal with any given threat. Assume for a moment that the campaign world is populated by dozens of adventurer types, if not hundreds (and the mere fact that the local tavern always seems to have two or three standing by whenever a party member gets himself or herself killed seems to suggest this is the case!). They cannot all be the same level, surely? So why not subscribe to 'shock and awe' tactics and send in your most powerful heroes to deal with threats at little to no risk? Why the brinkmanship of having these greenhorns do it, where there is clearly a risk that they may fail?
My own answers to all these questions and concerns can be summed up in just two words: "narrative" and "solipsism". The demons in question have not already overthrown the local regime because the heroes are entering the story at just the right time and should be able to prevent them from doing so; it is all part of the narrative. High-level characters do not (normally) carry out coups d'etat for a number of reasons, be it alignment, political/social involvement or mere disinclination. I have no doubt that they *could* but most never would. And who is to say that there *are* any adventurer-types of a higher level than the current party that could deal more easily with the current threat?
This last point, the solipsistic view of the campaign world, took hold in my mind and appeared, to me at least, to explain away all these concerns and issues. There is no threat other than the current one. Only the current narrative counts. There are no heroes other than the ones in the party (okay and some other story-relevant NPCs).
I should say, in defence of my brother, that he is not wholly disillusioned by RPGs and about to kick the hobby. He still very much enjoys playing and will do so for many years to come no doubt, not least because he has now recruited his children into it! His problem is really that his willing suspension of disbelief is more difficult to maintain at the higher levels of play. And even that is not to say that he *won't* play there, but he is reluctant to do so and will avoid it if possible.
This could all reduce down to a debate on GNS theory, of course.
Any thoughts?
