Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

[Hereticus]

But if your power is in personally beating the snot out of dangerous things, then your responsibility shouldn't be in politics and administration. At least, not in sane politics and administration.

All throughout history, and even today, this is a model that we've all seen from up close.

 

[Hereticus]

Sure they are. They have a responsibility to choose a competent delegate. If the castellan screws up, the character is responsible for the mess. "The Buck Stops Here", and all that. Responsibility flows upward until it hits the person in charge.

Perhaps as ruler, I want to fail while bleeding the country dry of its resources?

It's not like I need a career, or I really care about the little insignificant people who love there. I'm in it for the gold and treasure.

 

[gizmo33]

... how is this responsibility? They aren't actually responsible for anything!

Ruler is not the same as an administrator or minister. I see them more as figureheads. An adventurer/hero is more likely to be ruler than some sort of minister with the appropriate technical skills to decide what the crop rotation or tax policy should be. He can be responsible for high level things like deciding which tithes to pass out to which gods. He can show up to the overlord's castle (assuming he isn't one himself) and show off his martial skills.

A nobleman's job is primarily combat (in the heroic period of my preference at least - a time period consistant with many of the other features of DnD), and a powerful reputation can be a deterrent and the bulk of his "responsibility". It's not like he even has to park himself in his lands most of the time (see below), just make people believe he'll be back and kick some butt if there are problems.

Here's an appropriate quote from the wiki entry for Richard Lionheart:
"While he spoke very little English and spent very little time in his kingdom, preferring to use it as a source of revenue to support his armies, he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects."

Replace "support his armies" with "buy magic items" and this sounds like a PC to me (why would he spend skill points to learn a friggin language!? If King Richard knew English I'm sure he would have used the term "sub-optimal build" while berating his knights.) Warfare and such atrocities had to substitute for the things adventurers do to get experience and gold because historical figures didn't have the benefit of unambiguously evil foes like orcs and dragons who sit on piles of loot. In fact, IMO they told each other stories about knights slaying dragons and getting loot because that's what they *wish* they were doing with their time, and wouldn't have let some pencil pusher try to guilt them into doing otherwise.

One of the funniest things I read pertaining this subject was a book (called "the Courtier" I think written in 16 c. Italy. At one point the author is ridiculing a knight for being a boor who wears his armor to parties and only talks about fighting. What this illustrates to my imagination is that many knights of even this rather late period acted just like PCs. Such an outlook IMO would have been much more common in an earlier time. To paraphrase a book on 1000 AD: "the nobleman of the time fought, and fought often".

DMs who want to reign in the jerky behavior of their PCs by making them responsible for things IMO have to contend with the fact that real life rulers were often bigger jerks than the PCs. And actual legends depict rulers with fewer administrative responsibilities than even that.

And as far as the kingdom collapsing because of their lack of fiscal savvy - don't forget that it's in a whole host of people's interests that the kingdom not fail. Skilled ministers, clerics, greater nobles, etc. all are at the top of the pecking order when they are in favor of the king. A calamity that brings chaos is in no one's interest. Of course there is the chance of infighting among subordinates, but IMO there's just as good of a chance that these things will shake out into a natural pecking order, reinforced by the king on those rare occasions when he does return home to spend some of his loot.

 

[Rechan]

DMs who want to reign in the jerky behavior of their PCs by making them responsible for things IMO have to contend with the fact that real life rulers were often bigger jerks than the PCs.

That's not limited to the past.

To paraphrase Burn Notice, "Every tin-pot dictator is just a spoiled rich kid with power."

 

[rgard]

From many comments I have seen on this board - most recently in the Forgotten Realms thread - it seems that many players are violently adverse about their characters getting ordered around by more powerful NPCs.

Yet elsewhere I have seen the sentiment that actually being the commanders - the ones who hold positions of responsibility for others - is equally to be avoided. It seems that many PCs, upon toppling a tyrant, would rather just install someone friendly on the throne than sit on the throne themselves, even if they are more qualified - since that would tie them down with responsibilities. And that despite the fact that being in charge doesn't mean less potential for good stories and adventures (at least in the hands of a skilled DM).

In other words, throughout their career as adventurers, player characters strive to attain more and more power (in terms of levels, magic items, and so forth) - yet they also strongly reject any explicit duty deriving from said power.

Now, I know this is not universal in all groups. But I think it might be a common trend. Do you agree with this? And if so, is this something particular to D&D, or is it common with all RPGs?

Alot of this depends on the DM as well. If the DM only has the time or inclination to craft more party type adventures then that is how the game will be played.

I've played characters to name level and beyond in 1e and to epic levels in 3e and I've only had one DM who could craft a campaign that was interesting for the folks who did build, steal or conquer a keep or something up to a kingdom.

Nothing worse than...

"On Monday a barn burned down. Your village sheriff there thinks it was probably due to an ember from the tavern's fireplace landing on the barn's thatched roof. What do you want to do about this?"

Thanks,
Rich

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now, I know this is not universal in all groups. But I think it might be a common trend. Do you agree with this? And if so, is this something particular to D&D, or is it common with all RPGs?

I think it's a common theme within humanity itself.

Freedom, man. Everyone wants more. A game like D&D lets us have a vicarious experience of freedom. D&D especially, with it's "what you imagine happens" ability.

This has a lot of secondary characteristics -- age and gender demographics, for instance. Alignment, for another thing. The rules themselves, in their better incarnations.

Of course, that's not the only pleasure to be derived from our little experience at the table, but I think for a huge portion, it's the major and defining one -- it's part of why people play D&D as opposed to other games. Freedom. To do ANYTHING.

Once you start putting NPC's in place who limit that ANYTHING, the appeal drops precipitously.

It could be characterized as irresponsible, but think of when D&D has the greatest appeal: in those teenage years when we're riding that precipice between expanded personal freedom, but also expanded personal responsibility. This lets us enjoy the former without much of the latter. People who continue to get a rush out of the game probably continue to get a rush out of expressing that freedom (I'm pretty sure that's my case, but I'm a dopamine addict. )

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Regarding adventurers not necessarily being qualified to make administrative and policy decisions, I'd disagree with that notion based on the examples of Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. They lived over three thousand years apart, but they were not only active in directing their armies as generals (and in Alexander's case, he fought right in the middle of battle alongside his soldiers), but also took the lead in actually running their dominions, making political decisions, and other stuff like that.

For an example actually derived from D&D itself, you can look at Bruenor Battlehammer in some of R.A. Salvatore's more recent novels. Bruenor is most happy when he's patrolling the lands around Mithril Hall and fighting in the thick of things alongside his troops, but his bodyguards constantly fret about his safety while the regular affairs of state still need to be looked after. Drizzt eventually suggests to Bruenor that he appoint a steward who can actually stomach the business of making policy decisions, while he continued doing what he was actually good at-namely, taking the lead in protecting the lands around Mithril Hall.

If a PC becomes a baron, count or something similar, he or she can just as easily contribute to the welfare of the people by fighting bandits and monsters, or dealing with any would-be conquerors or villains. In real life, whenever there's a crisis, people often tend to turn to their political leaders for guidance and want to know what they're doing to deal with the situation. Richard I, as previously mentioned, was beloved by his subjects because they saw him as defending their religious interests, even if he did little to actually run the country.

Same thing in a D&D setting-a restless adventurer who's become an aristocrat could probably do more for the welfare of his subjects by sticking to what he's good at, namely dealing with that pack of trolls that's ravaging the farmlands on the eastern border, rather than arguing over tariffs and how much money to devote to the road-repair budget. If he has a capable steward or castellan who can actually handle these things, let them worry about it. Even when they still made many decisions themselves, European kings from the Renaissance onwards were aided by many counsellors and prime ministers-Louis XIV of France actually broke with precedent when he decided to handle a lot of the affairs of state himself, rather than have the cardinals or another appointed prime minister look after it, the way his father had. The king/baron/earl/whatever still has the final say, but choosing the right person for the job is very important.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Thank you for insulting my imagination and abilities as a GM.

Well, you did claim that politics and administrative duties cannot be "heroic", and that they are "merely stressful" - which directly contradicts my own GMing experience, and so I couldn't let that stand.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Dude, you asked why people would not want to do such stuff. Rather than accepting reasons presented, and working with them, you are trying to spend your time telling me I am somehow wrong. May I suggest that this is not a constructive way to go about this?

I can understand why such games are not everyone's cup of tea. However, you seemed to be throwing absolutes in my way.

Because if you fail to count the beans, your country's economy collapses.

And the bean counting can be glossed over, be left to underlings, or be done with some minor dice rolls. Do you really think that (say) the American president does all the budget calculations by himself?

The people at the top make the policy decisions, and policy discussions is what I expect the PCs to do. And these can provide plenty of drama.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Responsibility flows upward until it hits the person in charge.

If only that were true. . . *sigh*

Power without responsibility? Yes, that is very much what D&D is about, by default. Not all about, no, but about? Oh yeah, and then some. One can only hope that this does not automystically lead to the spouting off of ****isms in any case whatsoall.

 

[radja]

not all adventurers are cut out to be a king. Just go and have a look at "The Beastmaster". Did Dar claim his rightful place on the throne as the lost heir? no. he kept quiet, in favour of his younger brother Tal who was raised to be king. great movie...