Powerful people vs high-level characters

[Li Shenron]

How do you create the important people in your campaign? People such as the leaders, kings or rulers of the world: political rulers, uber-riches, military chiefs, aristocrats and sages for example. Basically how do you make the "powerful people", which are "powerful" in a meaning of the world similar to the real world?

I'm asking this because I've always seen DMs and published material tie this "power" to character level, and frankly I think it often sucks. Why should a king necessarily be a high-level character? Chances are that he is quite capable, but why should he be e.g. the highest-level character of his kingdom? That kind of assumes he got his kingdom by fighting, and that's not so commonly true.

This came to mind while preparing an upcoming campaign, and casually reading some D&D material. I noticed that in some old adventure (one from the WotC site) the leader of the enemies wasn't always the highest-level character. For example it could have a henchman, bodyguard or spy who is much higher in level, but doesn't have the leadership to be in charge (or simply misses the will or the opportunity). But otherwise in all 3ed books I think I've every single time seen that the "boss" has the highest level or CR... such as if you have a group of creatures, not necessarily oriented towards war or combat (thinking of the Celestial Lords in BoED), always the leader must have the top CR.

Do you follow this habit or not?

 

[shilsen]

Not me. Unless the group has an internal reason why the leader should be the most powerful where game mechanics are concerned, then there are many people who are higher level than the leader.

Eberron is one of the settings which does this right, IMNSHO. I'm currently running an Eberron game and there are kings and queens and socially powerful individuals that my PCs have interacted with who they know are mechanically weaker than them. But the NPCs are much stronger and more influential socially due to position, acquaintances, influences, etc.

 

[DragonLancer]

IMO most rulers are simple 1st or 2nd level characters, unless they have (for some reason) been involved directly in a conflict of some kind.

The problem you have then however (and this might be why NPC rulers tend to be high level) is that once players get a few levels under their belts they get the "I'm better and more powerful than you so I don't care what you say" syndrome.

 

[Undead Lincoln]

The system actually requires that they be high level because of max skill ranks. A powerful noble may have to be good at politicing (diplomacy), seeing through others (sense motive), and subterfuge (bluff). Yes, they could just hve the title and be incompetant but that rarely fits in with what is wanted for the campaigns. A sage must have knowledge skills. A general, although he dosn't need to be able to fight, must have the appropriate skills to manage strategy, tactics, and logistics.

In order that they be competant, they must be high level or they just won't have the skills to do what they do in the world. In earlier editions skill was not tied to level nearly so much and it could be done. In 3.0 and 3.5 it can't be done nearly as easily.

 

[hong]

How do you create the important people in your campaign? People such as the leaders, kings or rulers of the world: political rulers, uber-riches, military chiefs, aristocrats and sages for example. Basically how do you make the "powerful people", which are "powerful" in a meaning of the world similar to the real world?

I'm asking this because I've always seen DMs and published material tie this "power" to character level, and frankly I think it often sucks. Why should a king necessarily be a high-level character?

Because that lets you stage cool fights when the PCs overthrow him, a la Luke vs the Emperor, Broken Sword vs the King of Qin, etc.

 

[Ibram]

It depends on the nature of the character.

If the king is a decadent fop who spends his days debauching the local maidens then hes not going to be very high level. If said king is a brilliant general known for winning against impossible odds then hes going to have some serious levels.

As a rule of thumb any situation where you have to put forth effor to become the boss (leader of a merchant guild, assassin cult, or millitant knightly order) then the boss is going to be among the hightest level characters in the organization, though not automaticly the top. If its a hereditary thing, or something that can be gotten through family connections then the guy may or may not be high level.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Many leaders have gone through years of formal education in diplomacy, combat, several knowledge fields etc. You also have to remember D&D is a fantasy world and the same laws of reason do not exist there. I would think that royalty is shrouded in protective magical items, otherwise a single mid level enchanter could come in and make his will to mush. In all honesty, I can't think that most positions in a D&D magic world would not be filled by powerful magicians. After all they have unusually high intell and diverse power. If they wanted to rule, they would. It is always something I have struggled with when creating or working in high magic worlds.

 

[feydras]

The system actually requires that they be high level because of max skill ranks. A powerful noble may have to be good at politicing (diplomacy), seeing through others (sense motive), and subterfuge (bluff). Yes, they could just hve the title and be incompetant but that rarely fits in with what is wanted for the campaigns. A sage must have knowledge skills. A general, although he dosn't need to be able to fight, must have the appropriate skills to manage strategy, tactics, and logistics.

In order that they be competant, they must be high level or they just won't have the skills to do what they do in the world. In earlier editions skill was not tied to level nearly so much and it could be done. In 3.0 and 3.5 it can't be done nearly as easily.

Agreed. This is just one of many, many problems with d20. I just finally went to the trouble of exploring GURPS and it easily allows for high skill ranks on weak combat characters. GURPS also deals with magic, armor, and a host of other things better. After years of house rules and variant systems plugged into my D&D game I think GURPS just does it better. If you're unhappy with any of D&D's silly problems you should check it out.

Too bad it lacks the plethora of support D&D has.

- feydras

 

[reanjr]

How do you create the important people in your campaign? People such as the leaders, kings or rulers of the world: political rulers, uber-riches, military chiefs, aristocrats and sages for example. Basically how do you make the "powerful people", which are "powerful" in a meaning of the world similar to the real world?

Levels in aristocrat are better for ruling than levels in Fighter. That said, it depends on how you look at it. An inherited ruler rules because he inherited his position. He needs no high-level to rule well, just a high Wisdom, with smatterings of Charisma and Intelligence to improve his standing and long-term thinking. A ruler taking over a realm or creating a new one often does so through military means (high level fighter or warrior is appropriate in this case) or through political ones (high-level aristocrat is good for this).

There is a problem with the system not allowing skill points to be earned without also earning HP, BAB, etc., but you can always just ignore the rules like any good DM and give a 1st level aristocrat or commoner 300 skill points with no maximum rank.

But what I actually do? I don't stat them out. What's the point?

 

[Henry]

Too bad it lacks the plethora of support D&D has.

Side note: GURPS is not a system I think of when I think about "lacking support." I used to read GURPS supplements for fun years ago.