Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

[PaulofCthulhu]

Power without responsibiity is a "Power Fantasy".

I've seen D&D referred to as "a power fantasy for people with a love of maths" on more than one occasion - true or not, it's not an uncommon conception.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

Even if he dosn't have to do all the bean counting himself, the president dosn't have much time to go slay dragons. Apparently we also have a different interpretation of how involved it is to implement public policy.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, power without consequence owuld be nice sometimes, but I generally like my games a bit more realistic than that. My characters are generally heroic, downright rude and err on the side of violence.


Great fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Even if he dosn't have to do all the bean counting himself, the president dosn't have much time to go slay dragons. Apparently we also have a different interpretation of how involved it is to implement public policy.

If that won him votes, President Obama would probably be out there in full plate with a flaming sword RIGHT NOW.

It's less about the potential for drama and action, I think ('cuz there's some), and more about the lack of autonomy, however. No one wants to be told what to do in a game where you can do anything you imagine.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

It's less about the potential for drama and action, I think ('cuz there's some), and more about the lack of autonomy, however. No one wants to be told what to do in a game where you can do anything you imagine.

Oh, no matter what the campaign there will likely always be NPCs who will tell the PCs what to do.

In my experience, the fun part begins when the PCs realize that they don't have to take those orders or suggestions. After all, these NPCs are likely neither all-knowing nor all-wise. And some of them might not have the best interests of the PCs in mind - or those of the country, or the world.

To me, that's part of what responsibility is all about - making one's own decisions, weighting them against one's conscience, and then dealing with the consequences of those actions. And allowing the PCs to make such heavy decisions has lead to some of the best role-playing I've experienced.

 

[Ginnel]

Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

No.

Is it a rules system to reflect actions taken in a swords and sorcery universe?

Yup.

.....expands a bit

The rules don't say you have to play a campaign in a certain way make your players commanders, make them chiefs, make them whatever, then you use the rules to help figure out what happens when they do stuff : )
Make them a band of Ne'er do wells raiding the countryside Make them Dragons deciding the fate of the land, Elemental Lords deciding the fate of the planes.
D&D makes your character neither responsible of irresponsible, thats partly the GMs choice (to give you the option) and partly the players choice (to take the option)

 

[gizmo33]

Even if he dosn't have to do all the bean counting himself, the president dosn't have much time to go slay dragons. Apparently we also have a different interpretation of how involved it is to implement public policy.

If there were dragons, then they'd eat all of the televisions, which would free the president from having to pretend to do stuff (riding helicopters around to look at broken things, shaking hands with people that you don't know, etc.). That would leave him more time to slay dragons. Other than televisions and helicopters though, a president is probably just like a king.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I don't really see why a campaign centered on rulership needs to focus on the most boring aspects.

I mean, does a police drama series focus on the paperwork? Or does a WWII movie center on the all-encompassing boredom that afflicted most soldiers who weren't actively at the front line?

Or in a conventional fantasy campaign, does the DM really describe every single mile of the an overland journey?


No, the boring aspects can and should be glossed over, while the fun and interesting parts should be focused on. And isn't that the case with all role-playing campaigns?

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't really see why a campaign centered on rulership needs to focus on the most boring aspects.

I mean, does a police drama series focus on the paperwork? Or does a WWII movie center on the all-encompassing boredom that afflicted most soldiers who weren't actively at the front line?

Or in a conventional fantasy campaign, does the DM really describe every single mile of the an overland journey?


No, the boring aspects can and should be glossed over, while the fun and interesting parts should be focused on. And isn't that the case with all role-playing campaigns?

Well the problem with this is that the more you gloss over, the less important it becomes.

When boiled down, such a level of "responsibility" becomes nothing more than having a big hat, a bigger name, an even bigger house, and saying that NPC X will now do Important Job A. Occasionally you get to say that NPC Y will now do Important Job A, because NPC X can no longer do it. At such a point, it is almost inconsequential.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Oh, no matter what the campaign there will likely always be NPCs who will tell the PCs what to do.

In my experience, the fun part begins when the PCs realize that they don't have to take those orders or suggestions. After all, these NPCs are likely neither all-knowing nor all-wise. And some of them might not have the best interests of the PCs in mind - or those of the country, or the world.

Well, that's part of it. You have the freedom to take or leave various missions. This is part of what can be a problem with railroading (though it's not always a problem): saying "You HAVE to do this." Political power is a responsibility to a lot of NPC's telling you what to do, with less leeway to refuse -- you have a commitment!

To me, that's part of what responsibility is all about - making one's own decisions, weighting them against one's conscience, and then dealing with the consequences of those actions. And allowing the PCs to make such heavy decisions has lead to some of the best role-playing I've experienced.

It kind of depends on the player and the campaign style. D&D errs more on the "medieval vigilantes" style. Most characters are responsible only to themselves (and, occasionally, some distant church or deity or entity that never appears). You can get some heavy decisions and weighty RP out of that, though it is necessarily very personal. Saving the village becomes not something you HAVE to do, but something your character WANTS to do, for glory, blood, or goodness. Freedom is very individualistic, very self-interested, very capitalistic in a sense. In general, giving up that autonomy in order to serve the town or kingdom or world-spanning empire isn't something most players (and therefore most characters) really want to do.

I think D&D could easily accept a "capstone" system for rulership that is abstract and simple and filled with potential awesome, but I think the demand for such a system would be fairly low. Responsibility is for NPC's.