Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bryan Vining" data-source="post: 389945" data-attributes="member: 7628">Re: Re: How many Manshoons?Yes, you can say that they are just to busy doing other things.&nbsp; I've done that.&nbsp; It works for the players just fine.&nbsp; It doesn't work for me, the DM.&nbsp; Sure, some of these characters have political responsibilities... the Simbul comes to mind.&nbsp; (OTOH, she's rather fond of taking off to fry Red Wizards now again for little more than the mirth of it).&nbsp; That's all well and good, but that basically leaves for my players the not-as-world-threatening plot lines to follow up on.&nbsp; For my style of gaming, taking care of some orcs when the City of Shade is floating around is well, boring.&nbsp; Sure, someone needs to do it.&nbsp; But, for me, playing a fantasy RPG is partially about getting glory for your character and feeling like you've accomplished something meaningful.&nbsp; What's meaningful depends on context.&nbsp; It's meaningful to the local village that you got rid of the orcs.&nbsp; It's not so meaningful to most others in the world.&nbsp; Everyone has a stake in what happens with the Archwizards, though, albeit to different degrees.&nbsp; That's what wrankles me.&nbsp; If I'm playing a character, I don't want to be involved in fighting the 20th most-important problem in the world.&nbsp; I want to be involved in stopping the number one problem.&nbsp; So what if, in a &quot;realistic&quot; story my character wouldn't be powerful enough to logically involved?&nbsp; I don't play D&amp;D to be part of the mop-up team for NPCs.&nbsp; So, given all of that, I want to be involved in the &quot;big story&quot;.&nbsp; Now, every campaign world is going to have NPCs that are much more poweful than the PCs.&nbsp; That's good.&nbsp; And they are going to have to be &quot;busy&quot;, too, if they aren't involved in the &quot;biggest problem in the world&quot; at that point.&nbsp; So, we're in agreement there.&nbsp; The problem for me is that FR has SO many ultra-powerful NPCs that can deal with the world's biggest problems, that there has to be a level of constant threat to FR for their constant &quot;business&quot; to be believable that is, in and of itself, not believable to me.&nbsp; So, here's the thing:&nbsp; Either the party is involved in something less than one of the most important things threatening the world at the time or they are involved and I have to try to accept what is, for me, a largely unacceptable notion.&nbsp; Both of those are, for me, unappealing.&nbsp; Well, that's my take on it.&nbsp; I'll always have a fondness for FR, but I don't see myself playing in it very often in the future.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bryan Vining, post: 389945, member: 7628"] [b]Re: Re: How many Manshoons?[/b] Yes, you can say that they are just to busy doing other things. I've done that. It works for the players just fine. It doesn't work for me, the DM. Sure, some of these characters have political responsibilities... the Simbul comes to mind. (OTOH, she's rather fond of taking off to fry Red Wizards now again for little more than the mirth of it). That's all well and good, but that basically leaves for my players the not-as-world-threatening plot lines to follow up on. For my style of gaming, taking care of some orcs when the City of Shade is floating around is well, boring. Sure, someone needs to do it. But, for me, playing a fantasy RPG is partially about getting glory for your character and feeling like you've accomplished something meaningful. What's meaningful depends on context. It's meaningful to the local village that you got rid of the orcs. It's not so meaningful to most others in the world. Everyone has a stake in what happens with the Archwizards, though, albeit to different degrees. That's what wrankles me. If I'm playing a character, I don't want to be involved in fighting the 20th most-important problem in the world. I want to be involved in stopping the number one problem. So what if, in a "realistic" story my character wouldn't be powerful enough to logically involved? I don't play D&D to be part of the mop-up team for NPCs. So, given all of that, I want to be involved in the "big story". Now, every campaign world is going to have NPCs that are much more poweful than the PCs. That's good. And they are going to have to be "busy", too, if they aren't involved in the "biggest problem in the world" at that point. So, we're in agreement there. The problem for me is that FR has SO many ultra-powerful NPCs that can deal with the world's biggest problems, that there has to be a level of constant threat to FR for their constant "business" to be believable that is, in and of itself, not believable to me. So, here's the thing: Either the party is involved in something less than one of the most important things threatening the world at the time or they are involved and I have to try to accept what is, for me, a largely unacceptable notion. Both of those are, for me, unappealing. Well, that's my take on it. I'll always have a fondness for FR, but I don't see myself playing in it very often in the future. [/QUOTE]

Verification