Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5850594">Yes, but who's to say they WANT to?&nbsp; That's why both styles of play need to be available.&nbsp; Some people like becoming kings and leading armies, some people prefer more party-centric stories.&nbsp; Same stands for the DM, some DMs are fine with kingdoms, others aren't.&nbsp; Given that S&amp;S and EF don't really have a defined &quot;level range&quot; in any established mythology, both are equally valid ways of gameplay.Of course, we don't need to make things one way of the other, given that PCs are almost gods themselves in epic tier, they can easily have puppet-kings which are essentially alternate characters so they can both run kingdoms and fight gods.&nbsp; Especially given that battles between gods are often played out by their followers at the same time.Was there?&nbsp; Honestly there might have been in your games, but there never have been in mine.&nbsp; The Presumption GENERALLY has been to let high-level players decide their own course of action.&nbsp; This also depends on the scale of your world, if by 23rd level, you're the most powerful beings in the world, you're probably looking at a more god-fighting campaign.&nbsp; If by 23rd level, you're highly skilled, but there are at least a dozen people you can think of who are just as skilled, you're probably on a power plateau and will end up ruling kingdoms.Sure, but there are plenty of ways to influence the setting without beings kings and rulers.&nbsp; Many great kings have powerful beings at their disposal because a king is good at leading and their half-celestial knight is good at fighting.&nbsp; Personally, I'd rather be a great and mighty warrior than a poor ruler(I'd be a dictator in a heartbeat, tru fax).Aside from not actually establishing that this is a presumption for anyone other than yourself, this still doesn't necessitate the mandatory nature of your proposal.&nbsp; Should there be rules for this kind of content?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; But there should also be rules for a more S&amp;S, party-centric game as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 5850594"] Yes, but who's to say they WANT to? That's why both styles of play need to be available. Some people like becoming kings and leading armies, some people prefer more party-centric stories. Same stands for the DM, some DMs are fine with kingdoms, others aren't. Given that S&S and EF don't really have a defined "level range" in any established mythology, both are equally valid ways of gameplay. Of course, we don't need to make things one way of the other, given that PCs are almost gods themselves in epic tier, they can easily have puppet-kings which are essentially alternate characters so they can both run kingdoms and fight gods. Especially given that battles between gods are often played out by their followers at the same time. Was there? Honestly there might have been in your games, but there never have been in mine. The Presumption GENERALLY has been to let high-level players decide their own course of action. This also depends on the scale of your world, if by 23rd level, you're the most powerful beings in the world, you're probably looking at a more god-fighting campaign. If by 23rd level, you're highly skilled, but there are at least a dozen people you can think of who are just as skilled, you're probably on a power plateau and will end up ruling kingdoms. Sure, but there are plenty of ways to influence the setting without beings kings and rulers. Many great kings have powerful beings at their disposal because a king is good at leading and their half-celestial knight is good at fighting. Personally, I'd rather be a great and mighty warrior than a poor ruler(I'd be a dictator in a heartbeat, tru fax). Aside from not actually establishing that this is a presumption for anyone other than yourself, this still doesn't necessitate the mandatory nature of your proposal. Should there be rules for this kind of content? Sure. But there should also be rules for a more S&S, party-centric game as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification