Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 5673253" data-attributes="member: 25619">You can run your campaign that way if you like, but I don't think most people are gaming in a failed state setting like Somalia . . . non-failed states don't tolerate public murders in the middle of town.It's not about alignment or personalities of the individuals, it's about what makes a state a state.  A state that tolerates murder is like a landlord who tolerates arson -- he's not in business as such for long.I think much more common than a campaign world with a failed state is a campaign where the DM hasn't really thought about what his setting is like, or how to roleplay the reactions of the NPC's to the PC's action.There's two basic ways to DM: 1) Static NPC's who ignore most PC actions and don't think for themselves or act independently.  In this approach, the monster stays in Room 14 until the PC's come and kill it.  It doesn't matter what happened to their friends in Room 13.2) Roleplayed NPC's who act like people in their roles.  Which means, for example, the monsters in Room 14 might come help when their friends in Room 13 are attacked, or might run away, or set an ambush.  Or that a state will crush the enemies of the state to the best of its ability.I personally think approach #1 is boring as a DM or a player, but I've done it that way in the past, and I'm a player in a campaign that looks a whole lot like #1.  It's doable, and it's what some folks WANT out of D&D.I'm just advocating #2 because I think it's better DMing, and it's the approach the OP was looking for help with.You don't have to agree with this DMing approach, or with my assumption that the OP wants a setting that's not like a failed state.</blockquote>

Verification