Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

[gizmo33]

IRL IMO positions of leadership bring with them greater opportunity and powers - but not in DnD. Make running a kingdom as useful as owning a +5 sword and more people will want it. IME of how most DMs run this sort of thing, leadership just winds up being a drag because all of the benefits and opportunities that you would get IRL for owning a kingdom's worth of resources get nerfed by the DM. IME you can't take armies into dungeons with you.

AFAIK king's went hunting and partying whenever they felt like it. They went on crusades (the "adventure" of the time) when they felt like it. Haroun al-Rashid, was ruler of a huge empire and, at least according to legend, was fond of sneaking out into Bagdad at times just to experience adventures and see what was going on. The caliphate didn't go collapsing around him because he wasn't around to sign papers.

IMO DMs who want their PCs to value leadership should set them up as king with a ton of money, golf-bags full of magical swords, and a bodyguard of fanatics that they can take into dungeons with them. The first few times they are able to effortlessly send former rivals to the executioner I think they're discover that it's good to be the king. In fact, if you want to be true to the genre then I would think being king should be a source of free feats and new quasi-magical powers (or at least charisma bonuses).

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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?

Who says that they can't be? They will likely have seen more of the world than most people, and they are less likely to get killed in a court intrigue just because they are tough and have a finely honed sense for danger.

And in the Middle Ages, the ones who ruled were the ones who could project the most force. I rather suspect the same to be true of most D&D settings.

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

Then maybe you haven't done it right yet.

Why should the lives of rulers be about bean counting when (especially in an RPG setting) it could be about much more interesting stuff? Courtly intrigue! Arranged marriages! Espionage! Larger countries countries trying to absorb smaller ones! And, of course, war!

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.

But what if they did sign up for something like this?

Really, this abdication of all larger social and political responsibility seems something peculiar to modern-day D&D - other RPGs have integrated such aspects into their system.

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.

So you'd rather put all power into someone who can easily get killed or mind controlled by the next villain to come along - or who is so physically weak that none of the local warlords will take him seriously?

 

[Zaruthustran]

Short answer: no, D&D is not about having power without responsibility.

Long answer: each campaign is different / each campaign determines what, for those players, D&D is "about". Alone, D&D is nothing more or less than a system for character creation, advancement, and determining success or failure (in combat and otherwise).

Personal answer: in all my campaigns over a quarter century of playing D&D, each campaign eventually dealt with the responsible use of power. At low character levels it was typically toppling an evil power, and at high levels it was about establishing good power.

Original D&D even had rules that assumed your character clears land and establishes a stronghold. I vividly recall hours upon hours of mapping out castles, spending the loot from a captured dragon's horde to hire soldiers and construct fortifications. The OD&D rulebooks had tables for such things (of course), and as a gradeschooler my pals and I would spend recess coming up with monthly budgets for the construction, outfitting, and maintenance of these keeps on the borderlands.

These days, the campaign I'm running is fundamentally about the responsibility of the players to use their great power wisely: the gods have been murdered by the Primordials, and it's up to the players to repopulate the pantheon before all of Creation is undone. They have to figure out a way to become gods and/or help other powerful entities ascend to godhood. In the words of an ancient dragon turtle with a city on his back: "Even the most evil tyrant god is better than an absence of gods, for without gods there is no Creation."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IMO, power without responsibility is a big part of the game.

I find fantasy settings easier to run and play in than any other type of setting, especially future. We're all (probably) at least vaguely familiar with medieval western Europe and don't need a lot of hand-holding, tedious explanations or massive books on setting lore, unless you need to do something complicated like ... run a barony. All of a sudden you're not really adventuring. Worse, you can't adventure with your party, since an entire adventuring group being put in charge of a feudal territory is pretty unprecedented. Also, now you're tied down to an area, so leaving isn't really an option (or at least the entire group can't leave at once, not for long).

In the Eberron setting, you see more of this. Dragonmarked invididuals are rare; not only are the feats often seen as weak, but you're seen as being under the thumb of the House. Without a clear idea of what your responsibilities are, players often assume the worst (eg you'll get orders that prevent you from adventuring with the rest of the party) and so the players avoid having D'marked characters.

Also, adventuring is fun. There was a thread several months back about mid-level PCs being defeated by a dragon, then being told to divest themselves of magic items, and it'll let them live. They attacked it anyway (and died). Of course they did; if they gave up their items, they'd no longer be adventurers and would have to retire. (This was back in 3.x where items were crucially important, and weren't even "balanced" (they gave a much higher required defensive boost) so you couldn't just adventure as if you were a few levels lower.)

As for higher level NPCs "giving orders" I don't think that's a problem in of itself. I had big problems with old FR with the ridiculously high level good-aligned NPCs, but the problem wasn't them showing up and giving orders. That's a problem with the campaign, not the setting. Those high level NPCs give quests, hopefully respectfully. (They do that in World of Warcraft, and I don't hear complaints about it.) The problem was the NPCs would deal with the real important parts of the setting by themselves, not just due to their high levels, but also due to the abilities they demonstrated in the backbone novels (sometimes raw power, but sometimes just the kind of incredible intelligence that having several months to write a book can give you, extremely esoteric knowledge like knowing how to move portals, and having deities act as bodyguards, etc).

IME you can't take armies into dungeons with you.

Of course you can't. The game doesn't give you those tools. The game suddenly takes a lot longer to run just due to all those extra characters (extra die-rolling, figuring out where they are at various times, etc) and it doesn't help the players any since said soldiers are going to be a lot weaker, don't have 1/4th of them being healers, etc. Before you know it, they're killed the moment you look away, or right in front of you (by something that can't distinguish between an adventurer and an ordinary soldier ... or maybe by something that doesn't want to fight the big dogs) or they get turned into shadows and then turned against you.

Red shirts really shouldn't be adventuring, and if the adventurers are, say, 9th-level, their 3rd-level retainers are red shirts. And I say the exact same thing towards 1e-style followers (eg the noncombatants who carry your baggage and what not... who wants those mooks tagged on when they your fun?).

Obviously that's all my opinion. I hear there were fun 1e games with retainers, but I can only see the negatives to that.

Who says that they can't be? They will likely have seen more of the world than most people

The wider perspective can help, but someone with formal training in administravia (the son of any lord, one would hope) who also did some part-time adventuring is probably presenting a superior package.

and they are less likely to get killed in a court intrigue

Being badass won't save you from court intrigue. A powerful adventurer can be "driven out of office" by being set up in some kind of scandal; it doesn't matter if assassinating them is enormously difficult.

just because they are tough and have a finely honed sense for danger.

Those are valuable qualities in a warrior leader. Otherwise, you can use ex-adventurers as bodyguards. Their skills and inclinations probably lean more in that direction (except for the wanderlust, of course).

And in the Middle Ages, the ones who ruled were the ones who could project the most force.

Generally these people were successful military leaders, not just because they could fight. (Sometimes, they were pretty lame at it; Toyotomi Hideyoshi, I'm looking at you.) The warlord class is one of the first classes in DnD I've seen that can maybe handle that (they're still missing a lot of off-the-battlefield tools) and that still does little for the high priest, spymaster (ex-adventuring high level rogue) etc.

Then maybe you haven't done it right yet.

And maybe most DMs aren't capable of that. It's a game, not a sport.

Courtly intrigue! Arranged marriages! Espionage! Larger countries countries trying to absorb smaller ones! And, of course, war!

Many of these things don't involve the tools available to the players. Arranged marriages are something I'd find boring; either I accept a loveless marriage (and so accept the first person presented to me, regardless of their appearance, intellect or general personality, while having one or more affairs) or go unmarried. (If I'm the king, I get to pick my own heir.) Or be absurdly lucky and find the right political and romantic choice, but then that's not under my character's control.

Espionage is, again, something the lord himself can't deal with directly (people know what he looks like, he probably doesn't have the skills for it, etc), and warfare generally isn't constant, plus involves lots of mooks doing some of the fighting for you, people beg the king not to fight at the front of his armies (and the king says "screw you, I was killing dragons only a decade ago!") and, of course, there's a lack of mass combat tools anyway.

But what if they did sign up for something like this?

Some players do. I don't think the game supports this though. A very skilled DM can handle this, but for most of us, DnD is just a hobby.

So you'd rather put all power into someone who can easily get killed or mind controlled by the next villain to come along - or who is so physically weak that none of the local warlords will take him seriously?

I'd rather put power in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

I've been reading a book about Frederick (the "Great") of Prussia/Brandenburg; I'm about 40% of the way through it. (It's a very long book.) He was the eldest son and got all the training, even though his father thought he was a wimp. Frederick turned out to be a more-than-competent ruler, and his lifestyle was nothing like an adventurer's would have been. I don't see ruling a kingdom, or other such high responsibilities, as being a "beginner's" project. Taking an experienced, wise adventurer and putting them into a completely different circumstance that they don't have the skills for can easily end in disaster.

 

[Rechan]

My experience with this is the opposite. I played in an Exalted game for two years; Exalted is a lot like D&D, in that you advance in power, naturally. There's no personal responsibility built into the game. The one real big difference in terms of tone, however, is a sense of entitlement - the game basically tells the PCs, "By Godly decree, you should be ruling the world. But you're not; you're a scapegoat. Have fun."

But at the beginning of the game, the GM told the group, "I expect you all to have goals for your character, and the game will be you working to succeed at your goals. I don't care what the goal is - my job is to challenge you as you try to achieve it, and have the world respond appropriately." He was very player empowering. One of our PCs' goals was to be the greates general who ever lived, so she needed an army, obviously.

So we built a nation. We didn't topple one tyrant and settle down - we toppled a dozen despots, and had their nations swear allegiance to us. We negotiated with neighboring states, made deals, etc, and built a big fat bloc. We worked to acquire magical power, a good standard of living, and amassing more political power. We created a safe haven for others like us (who, in the setting, were hunted like dogs by an empire), and made a lot of good happen. I left the campaign after a point, and hear that the PCs went after the big bads of the setting in one big giant battle royale. The whole game was built on making a Change in the setting, based on what we wanted.

I'd say we spent 3/4ths of the campaign as rulers. And to be honest, that was the most enjoyable period of the game, for me. I had a great time with the micromanagement of "How can we improve these people's lives? How about a Pony Express? What ways can we shore up our diplomatic front?" There was some delegation, but that delegation was, "I dispatch a spy to go there" "I tell a sorcerer to research this"; time consuming, slow moving stuff.

It also made sense for us to "adventure" ourselves: in Exalted, the PCs are Solars, which literally are demi-gods. There just was no one else who could tackle the threats we faced, because mortals are weak little things. Not to mention that the adventuring itself is personal - sending someone else to travel to the underworld to find the soul of the one guy who mastered the Epic Badassery Kung-Fu doesn't work, because you want to learn the Epic Badassery Kung-Fu, so it should be you who goes down there for the tutelage.

There's a reason people periodically post on these boards asking for mass combat rules: they want to run armies. So, you can't take your army to the dungeon, but you can take your army and shoot it at enemy armies.

As to the "It doesn't make sense to go adventuring when you're the ruler", well, two things to that, actually. One: Your kings and generals of old usually went into battle with their armies. Granted, they sat in the back for the most part, but the precedence is there. You can also have issues of duels, honor, etc. Secondly, take Star Trek; here you have the captain and his first officer doing all the adventuring, as opposed to specialized members of the crew. That's right, the guy IN CHARGE is doing the recon and investigating. So, at least there's precedence there, too, if you're willing to allow some belief suspension.

 

[Rechan]

All this talk of "PCs can't be in charge of anything and adventure", I advise you to pick up the book "Powers of Faerun".

That book is all about campaigns designed with PCs in charge of things.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always felt "adventure" had little to do with "Go out and find a dungeon". I've ran several city campaigns. Adventure can be had in a single location - granted, it's going to require more work, and more establishment, but the adventures barely involve dungeoncrawls, and are still fun and rewarding.

But, now that I'm rubbing two braincells together, it would be easy to establish adventures for PCs if they are rulers. You just have to have the adventure come to the PCs, rather than the other way around: assassination attempts, moles in the court, the city under siege (and thus, defending/marshalling the defense). X happening to the King while he's on a hunting trip. A portal/plague/natural disaster occurring in the King's city, thus panic and action and escape and suchlike.

What about a Barbarian king? Where "Might makes Right", and the king of the barbarians is supposed to be the baddest dude around, who has to show how awesome he is with feats of strength, and contest rivals in single combat? What about Argamemnon of the Battle of Troy - who personally went to get his wife back? What about King Arthur, who was The adventuring King?

 

[Ariosto]

This is a bit more of a built-in factor in recent versions of D&D.

Previously, attaining "name level" (9th-12th, depending on class, in AD&D) marked a shift in two ways. First, the improvement of hit points slowed. Fighting ability and saving throws reached their limits at 17th-21st level, spell-casting no later than 29th. Once a magic-user reached five spells in a spell level (at 13th for spell level one), the sixth came no sooner than 26th level.

Second, the opportunity (or even requirement for advancement in some classes) of taking a leadership role in some society was explicitly presented. In the old campaign context, a player who became a lord possessed resources of consequence. There was no presumption that he or she should be prevented from wielding them simply because some other player preferred a vagabond's career.

 

[Umbran]

Who says that they can't be?

Did I say "can't"? I don't see where I said "can't". I'm noting that it is unlikely - they don't have the training. A career of beating up ogres does little to prepare you to run a nation. Honestly - do you think somehow a prize boxer, winner of the Ultimate Fighting Championship is somehow fit to know what tax laws to put into effect?

And in the Middle Ages, the ones who ruled were the ones who could project the most force. I rather suspect the same to be true of most D&D settings.

As I said earlier - put the king on the front line, the king becomes a high-profile target. I mean, honestly - every time the Evil Tyrant Emperor goes out at the head of his Ghastly Legions, the PCs kill him! Why on Earth (or Oerth, or Toril, or wherever) should the players expect that this should change?

Then maybe you haven't done it right yet.

Thank you for insulting my imagination and abilities as a GM.

Dude, you asked why people would not want to do such stuff. Rather than accepting reasons presented, and working with them, you are trying to spend your time telling me I am somehow wrong. May I suggest that this is not a constructive way to go about this?

Why should the lives of rulers be about bean counting when (especially in an RPG setting) it could be about much more interesting stuff?

Because if you fail to count the beans, your country's economy collapses.

People will grumble, and you'll institute controls to keep the peasantry and minor nobility in line, growing every more strict as the kingdom's purse empties and your ability to meet needs declines. Local humanoid bands will begin raiding, as you can no longer afford to keep up a standing army to patrol properly. Eventually, some upstart with a magic sword and a bard-friend who knows a good rhyme scheme will paint a picture of you as a tyrant, and fight his way through the castle, cut your head off, and replace you.

The irony that this is what happened to your predecessor will not be lost on you in your last moments.

But what if they did sign up for something like this?

Well, then they wouldn't be resisting it, and the problem you posit goes away. Clearly, the question is about is trying to get people who didn't sign up for it to do it.

Really, this abdication of all larger social and political responsibility seems something peculiar to modern-day D&D - other RPGs have integrated such aspects into their system.

Yes, and they generally do so poorly (from a simulation perspective), with plot holes you can fly your floating castle through. My players are smart cookies, and will wonder why their kingdom works so well, when they spend exactly zero time running it. They'll begin to wonder if they are necessary... and so will their subordinates.

I can get all the plot elements you suggested into game without making the PCs the rulers.

Which, interestingly, brings up a major issue - monarchy (and most governmental systems) is about having one ruler. I, however, have a group of 4, 6, maybe 8 players. Only one of them gets the goodies, or I split the party up across the continent, making them each rulers of their own lands.

So you'd rather put all power into someone who can easily get killed or mind controlled by the next villain to come along - or who is so physically weak that none of the local warlords will take him seriously?

Not particularly. But then, if sheer durability were the key to rulership, I should make a large boulder into Emperor for Life, now shouldn't I? Or maybe the largest diamond I can find - that way it'll gain some respect for being so valuable!

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

My experience as a player has been that a lot of people run games to simply "kill stuff, get loot" while following some fantastical storyline that has little if any permanent effect on the world around them. From the opinions I read often on EnWorld, I find that people much prefer this sort of gaming style. To me, this is really no different than playing World of Warcraft while sitting around a tabletop.

The game I run are a far cry different. To me, players do have a sense of responsibility for their actions and the world around them conforms to the choices they make within their microcosm of influence. I find that a lot of people that pride themselves as world builers (as Jurgen, myself and rare others seem to do) tend to look at courtly intrigue and politics as the thrust of a campaign. While this style of play isn't preferable to a lot of people I know, it works for me and my group.

Now, I'm not necessarily preaching that tabletop monster slaying in the big, bad dungeon that floats in the sky is badwrongfun - it doesn't really appeal to me. However, I believe that the crux of Jurgen's complaint is that the PHB D&D world, core conceits for world building and mechanics seems to elude to an almost "base" assumption for PC's role in the world. I personally feel that a lot of this is supposed to rest on the world builder's shoulders, and requires a group of competent, mature roleplayers who're looking for the same.

Ultimately, It's up to the players and the game master to work within the rules to turn the game into what they want out of it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Really, this abdication of all larger social and political responsibility seems something peculiar to modern-day D&D - other RPGs have integrated such aspects into their system.

Someone whose only skill is being really good at killing things with an axe doesn't have any political responsibility, no more than the average person anyway.

The only games I've seen that give PCs a place in society are from Chaosium - RuneQuest and Pendragon.

So you'd rather put all power into someone who can easily get killed or mind controlled by the next villain to come along - or who is so physically weak that none of the local warlords will take him seriously?

At no point in history has being able to take a knife to the gut and not die been seen as a necessary or desirable feature in a ruler. I don't recall any mention of it during the US presidential campaign. Also that assumes people in the game world know about hit points, which are supposed to be abstract and not represent pure physical toughness. And anyone can be killed in their sleep, no matter how many hit points they have, with a coup de grace.