Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

[Hereticus]

Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

It sure as heck is, D&D is an escape from the mundane word of school and/or work.

I get to accumulate lots of gold by killing people and creatures I don't like, and spending it to make me more powerful so I can kill and loot more effectively in the future.

Lots of power, very little responsibility...

 

[CapnZapp]

Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

Welcome to the hobby, Jürgen!

 

[Plane Sailing]

If this is a pattern, it is a change in the way D&D is played (and perhaps reflects changes in the rules). In OD&D/1e everyone aspired to get their keep or castle, start managing the land, getting involved politically. The rules supported that first rung on the ladder and inspired all the gamers I knew then to see that as the obvious next step - one which was eagerly anticipated and worked towards. Although I never saw the "basic-advanced-companion-etc" set, I understand that in the higher level sections they had rules on this kind of thing too.

One of the things that disappointed me about 3e was the elimination of all that aspect of gaming from the rules. It was 'back to dungeon' for your whole adventuring life, which I found bland and disappointing.

Since we've now had 10 years of D&D rules which don't even suggest that there is a whole 'dominions' game to be played, I'm not surprised if large numbers of people haven't developed any interest or anticipation of the prospect of role-playing the ruling of a nation or whatever.

Trends follow rules IMX.

Cheers

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If this is a pattern, it is a change in the way D&D is played (and perhaps reflects changes in the rules). In OD&D/1e everyone aspired to get their keep or castle, start managing the land, getting involved politically. The rules supported that first rung on the ladder and inspired all the gamers I knew then to see that as the obvious next step - one which was eagerly anticipated and worked towards. Although I never saw the "basic-advanced-companion-etc" set, I understand that in the higher level sections they had rules on this kind of thing too.

One of the things that disappointed me about 3e was the elimination of all that aspect of gaming from the rules. It was 'back to dungeon' for your whole adventuring life, which I found bland and disappointing.

Since we've now had 10 years of D&D rules which don't even suggest that there is a whole 'dominions' game to be played, I'm not surprised if large numbers of people haven't developed any interest or anticipation of the prospect of role-playing the ruling of a nation or whatever.

Trends follow rules IMX.

Cheers

Or it could be a Chicken & Egg thing? The rules changed because it turned out that not that many were actually interested in the politilcal stuff? I have no basis for comparisions or development here, though.

Lots of games I played lack rules for "social" advancement of this type.

I think Torg has the closest I remember to having something like that. There are rules for stabilizing an area and allowing the not possiblity rated people to recover from a reality highjacking earth, returning them to their original form without killing them.
I've never seem these rules in play, unfortunately. But I never was in a regular, long-running campaign either. And it would still have been just my group.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

Back in the 1st Ed AD&D days the groups I played in all dreamed of getting Keeps and planning their character's retirement. The first 9-12 levels were the most fun to play.

It's very nice to play the edition you like, with friends of a like mind. I'm afraid these days I'm finding that rather difficult with D&D. Those who still play D&D (that I've encountered) seem to have different expectations of "what's right" at the table, as I found out last Saturday in a game of 4e. So not sure if trends follow rules or vice versa, but rules can easily enforce/heavily support a certain doctrine of play.

Such is the way.

 

[Mallus]

The rules changed because it turned out that not that many were actually interested in the politilcal stuff?

Bingo! Note the stunning success of the Birthright campaign setting .

For the record, I ran a long-lasting, heavily political campaign using 2e. I did it because that's how the particular campaign evolved, not because there was rules support for it, nor because there were shared expectations regarding the direction it would go.

 

[Dausuul]

I haven't found that my players are opposed to taking orders from NPCs. In fact, it's a pretty regular thing in our games - the player characters as elite soldiers and troubleshooters, taking orders from an NPC boss.

They are, however, opposed to taking orders from jerkass NPCs.

 

[WayneLigon]

it seems that many players are violently adverse about their characters getting ordered around by more powerful NPCs.

Usually, yes. I've never, ever seen that go well except in games where we explicitely went into the thing as part of a command structure.

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.

They also recognize that the moment that happens, they'll need to roll up new characters since the old ones will be too busy to adventure anymore.

I many cases it's more of a metagaming thing, but they also realize that responsibility and duty are the opposite of having a good time and just running off on another exploration/treasure-hunting/monster-killing/destruction-of-evil quest in the middle of the night. Same reason that people with jobs and families don't decide to drop everything and go off to Canada to hunt wendigos.

It's the same reason so many heroes in fiction or movies are orphans or see their non-adventurer girlfriends killed off to show how evil the villain is - can't be an adventurer with the ol' apron strings around your neck.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Personal power, not political power. Just because a cha 8 fighter can kill 12 men in 18 seconds, that doesn't mean he'll make a good ruler.

 

[Umbran]

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.

More qualified? Because an adventuring life brings on to the intimate knowledge of local and international politics and an acumen for economics and administration? Since when are adventurers ever really qualified to be rulers?

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).

I disagree. Those politics and administrative duties are not heroic, or usually particularly dramatic. They are merely stressful.

If the PCs become rulers, and the game continues in the frame of heroic fiction, you're talking about a turbulent time where the nation is probably always at risk of losing that new ruler. Not doing the people any favors, there. If the game does not continue in the frame of heroic fiction, it changes its nature into something the players probably didn't sign on for.

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.

There is a large difference between duty and responsibility. D&D characters are in the Spider Man mode - with great power comes great responsibility. But if your power is in personally beating the snot out of dangerous things, then your responsibility shouldn't be in politics and administration. At least, not in sane politics and administration.