Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

[Jürgen Hubert]

From many comments I have seen on this board - most recently in the Forgotten Realms thread - it seems that many players are violently adverse about their characters getting ordered around by more powerful NPCs.

Yet elsewhere I have seen the sentiment that actually being the commanders - the ones who hold positions of responsibility for others - is equally to be avoided. It seems that many PCs, upon toppling a tyrant, would rather just install someone friendly on the throne than sit on the throne themselves, even if they are more qualified - since that would tie them down with responsibilities. And that despite the fact that being in charge doesn't mean less potential for good stories and adventures (at least in the hands of a skilled DM).

In other words, throughout their career as adventurers, player characters strive to attain more and more power (in terms of levels, magic items, and so forth) - yet they also strongly reject any explicit duty deriving from said power.

Now, I know this is not universal in all groups. But I think it might be a common trend. Do you agree with this? And if so, is this something particular to D&D, or is it common with all RPGs?

 

[Morrus]

Well, we play to have fun. And "duties" aren't, generally speaking, seen as fun. I don't believe it's about power, specifically, but about progress; and the measurement of progress in D&D is pretty much quantified as "gaining levels".

That's not to say that progress can't be defined in other ways - plot advancement, characterisation, and so forth - but D&D certainly has mechanical advancement hard-coded into it.

 

[Lwaxy]

I've never run into this. From a game mechanics perspective, it can be a problem to have someone who is in charge of many people, as he cannot travel and go on adventures as easily.

We've had this problem in the beginning of our epic, where the young prince was just not free to leave when he pleased, or even learn much about magic as he wished to. Now at a later stage it is perfect, as about one third of the over 150 PCs in this campaign hold positions with responsibility and thus can really influence what is going on in the worlds we play on.

As for taking orders from NPCs - kinda understandable if you want to be the hero. I've not run into this myself because anytime I introduce NPCs in positions of power, their orders usually make sense to the players - if they don't, then it is probably an indication the NPC is one of the adversaries.

I think it all depends how a character is designed. The standard bunch of adventurers going for gold and glory are probably neither good for taking nor for giving orders. I encourage my players to stay away from this type of PCs though. It makes for much more varied adventures if the PCs either never wanted to be adventurers or become heroes due to their position in society (prince, commander of the army, high priest's offspring etc).

 

[Starfox]

It is also in the Sword-And-Sorcery tradition,. When Conan becomes king, his career is effectively over. He could have won a dozen lesser crowns on the way, but he avoided the responsibility. Finally he won the crown of Aquilonia - pretty much an "I Win" thing - and the campaign... sorry series of books, ended.

Sure you can have campaigns where the PCs are PCs are rulers, but its best if this is a part of the premises - most adventurers are anarchists at heart.

 

[ppaladin123]

From many comments I have seen on this board - most recently in the Forgotten Realms thread - it seems that many players are violently adverse about their characters getting ordered around by more powerful NPCs.

Well, if they get to order us around simply because they are more powerful as opposed to smarter/wiser/more knowledgeable then yeah I'd be opposed to that. I am opposed to that in real life too.

 

[FireLance]

I'd say that power without responsibility is a popular style of play because it is so simple: the players and the DM don't have to worry about the consequences of the PCs' actions beyond a purely personal level.

In order to make a position of responsibility more than just an empty title, the DM effectively has to plan and run a separate mini-game that has its own choices for the player and consequences for the PCs and the game world. While this is certainly do-able (the 2e Birthright setting is one example of this), it does mean extra work.

 

[Kinneus]

It's a little hard to justify running out of the castle to go mano a mano with a dragon every week. In fact, most people would consider that a pretty insane thing for a king to do. I mean, Beowulf only got to do it once, and we all know how that worked out for him.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Not too many gamers are ultra-powerful people in real life. It is nice to escape being told what to do.

Having a self-created set of morals and rules is a lot more fun than an imposed one.

Running a kingdom is hard work, and not a lot of fun.

You gotta kill and pillage stuff. You just gotta!

 

[ArghMark]

I've come to the odd conclusion that the game 'setting' interferes with this.

In early games (3e) my players found a series of interconnected, defensible tunnels. After clearing them out, they turned it into their main base and put an inn on top of it.

Later, after clearing a castle of its lord (A dragon) we busily settled in to start doing crazy stuff.

Both of those games died quickly after that happened. While the plot called for it, we were just expecting more 'adventure.'

Later we began an Ars Magica game. While our characters (well.. most of them) weren't directly involved with the nearby town, we spend seasons building up trade routes, magical towers, defensible positions and magical wards. The game ended on a high note - While our series of magical towers were destroyed, but we killed the annoying fellow who'd been chasing us for years.

Ars Magica has built into it its most important character - the 'covenant', or where the characters live. PC's deal with their own issues but they all work towards the covenant and often volunteer to do so. It changed as we built on it and did strange magical things to it, but as a general rule we liked it and wanted it to continue.

I think it may be because in D+D your entire skill set is devoted to 'adventuring'. People don't want to settle down that much because its not what they are expecting out of the game. Also D+D games in my experience tend to be fast paced. A regular occurence in Ars could be 'two seasons go by, you do nothing but research and nothing of extreme importance occurs.'

Playing D+D gives you players who want to kill stuff and save the day. Playing Kobolds Ate My Baby gives you kobolds who want to eat babies.
Playing forgotten realms gives you people who want to look and be as cool as Drizzle or Elmunster.

I think it has a significant effect. Also explaining to players what the story will be needing out of them is good; tell them 'You will be running a thieves guild' rather than they recieve it and think its a rather mixed blessing.

Also, the GM has to make it interesting.

 

[steenan]

I think the answer to the question posed in the thread title is obvious.

D&D was designed to cater to adolescent players. And what we talk about here is probably the most powerful adolescent fantasy - a lot of power and possibilities with no duties nor responsibility to tie you down. It would be extremely bad business decision if they wouldn't support and encourage this kind of play.

Not only that. When older players choose D&D, they do it mostly for the same "simple fun". There are better games for people seeking character exploration and moral dilemmas. Thus, when someone plays D&D, they, generally, don't want to care - they want to fight and win. And that is exactly what the game offers.