Is D&D About Having Power Without Responsibility?

[Rechan]

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.

While I don't disagree with the meat of your post, I feel the need to add a caveat here.

While certainly the GM and players should try to use the rules to make what they want... if the system just does not support the type of play they want, then they're up a creek without a paddle.

Wealth in 3e/4e D&D is built purely as an arbitrary system of balancing what magical items are balanced for your level. The minute you try to apply that system to anything else, it falls apart, because the wealth system doesn't make sense for that. The same with "I want courtly intrigue", when the non-combat social rules breaks down to just single rolls of Bluff/Sense motive or Diplomacy vs. DC. You might as well use just use Paper/Scissor/Rock; it's just as robust.

My point is that if the system doesn't support the play the group wants, then it's unfair to assume it's the group's responsibility to make it work with the rules they're given. There is only so much you can do before it's a square peg/round hole situation.

 

[Spatula]

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.

I have to agree with others who have suggested that maybe the rules were following the trends in this case. The groups I played in never used the 1e/2e stronghold & followers rules, except to say, "OK I have a stronghold and some followers somewhere (because the rules say I do) which will never be used in the game."

I do think that there should be support for that style of gameplay in the rules. But I certainly don't think that it should be level based - rather, it should be something that arises naturally out of the story.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Ummm......No.

I suggest that you go back and read the original Conan stories by his creator, Robert E. Howard. Perhaps you are unaware that the only novel length Conan story takes place after he is king?

EDIT: Or read the Kull stories, by the same author, in which the title character is the King of Atlantis. In all of the stories.

RC

 

[Minicol]

I have to agree with others who have suggested that maybe the rules were following the trends in this case. The groups I played in never used the 1e/2e stronghold & followers rules, except to say, "OK I have a stronghold and some followers somewhere (because the rules say I do) which will never be used in the game."

I do think that there should be support for that style of gameplay in the rules. But I certainly don't think that it should be level based - rather, it should be something that arises naturally out of the story.

I would agree a lot with the last sentence, it should be story-played.

However, count me in as a very frustrated 1e player, since I could never use the castle I had lovingly built and designed out of my hard earned gold, due to a nasty DM throwing a "save the world from a horde of demons" campaign before I could even finish digging the basements ...

Still have the blueprints, though.

 

[Ariosto]

I think Kull ruled Valusia, having been exiled from Atlantis. Although the stories have a theme of his attempts both to understand his subjects and to change their customs, they are not lacking in fantastic adventure.

 

[Mircoles]

 

[gizmo33]

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

Can you provide a single historical example of the nobility counting beans in order for their lands to keep from collapsing? There are plenty of instances of the reverse - in fact the seperation of fief's made it almost essential that the various manors in Medieval Europe be able to function without input by the rulers since they actually can't be physically present to make most decisions. It wasn't unusual for them to ride around and collect the surplus, administer some justice (when the King's sherrifs weren't doing it) and move on.

As I said, partying, hunting, and fighting in wars seemed to be the chief occupations of these folks. IMO they certainly would have been slogging through dungeons killing monsters and collecting treasure if there was any such thing as dungeons.

What your saying AFAIK is not historical and certainly not fantasy. Granted, you could establish such a thing for your fantasy world, but I see no grounds for a general statement. I can't think of a story where King Arthur was balacing the books. If there's something of substance that has contributed to your opinion here I really would be interested to know what it is.

 

[mlund]

I don't know if the lack of responsibility really factors in. Responsibilities can add a ton of depth and value to a game.

The real trick is that games are supposed to get you to the Good Stuff (TM) without the tedium.

In mundane life "responsibility" is almost synonymous with "tedium."

In games "responsibility" is supposed to imply "drama."

- Marty Lund

 

[Ariosto]

One has castellans, clerks, marshals, seneschals, stewards, et al., to attend to such minutia of accounting as might be beyond the book-learning of a barbarian baron.

In the feudal system, an enfeoffed noble's first duty was military service to his liege. A knight who did not live to fight could scarcely be said to live as a true knight at all. In a D&D setting, it seems natural that some foes should be of the same fantastic nature as those to be found in dungeons -- and indeed, the wilderness encounter tables in old editions offer good sport for high-level figures and their retinues!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think Kull ruled Valusia, having been exiled from Atlantis. Although the stories have a theme of his attempts both to understand his subjects and to change their customs, they are not lacking in fantastic adventure.

D'oh! You are correct, of course.