Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4797671" data-attributes="member: 2067">Well, that's part of it. You have the freedom to take or leave various missions. This is part of what can be a problem with railroading (though it's not always a problem): saying "You HAVE to do this." Political power is a responsibility to a lot of NPC's telling you what to do, with less leeway to refuse -- you have a commitment! It kind of depends on the player and the campaign style. D&D errs more on the "medieval vigilantes" style. Most characters are responsible only to themselves (and, occasionally, some distant church or deity or entity that never appears). You can get some heavy decisions and weighty RP out of that, though it is necessarily very personal. Saving the village becomes not something you HAVE to do, but something your character WANTS to do, for glory, blood, or goodness. Freedom is very individualistic, very self-interested, very capitalistic in a sense. In general, giving up that autonomy in order to serve the town or kingdom or world-spanning empire isn't something most players (and therefore most characters) really want to do. I think D&D could easily accept a "capstone" system for rulership that is abstract and simple and filled with potential awesome, but I think the demand for such a system would be fairly low. Responsibility is for NPC's. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification