Players: Have You Ever Asked, "Why Don't You Take Care Of It?"

[aboyd]

This is why I cannot DM the free module, One Last Riddle. The premise is that a ghost wants revenge on his enemies, and asks the PCs for help. The problem? The module stats out the ghost and his enemies -- the ghost is CR 12, the enemy is a level 8 kobold sorcerer. There is no good reason why the ghost isn't killing the sorcerer himself. He has nothing better to do!

As for why in general that high-level NPCs give out quests in the first place, I've always been fine with, "I'm busy." And I don't even think it's a cop-out! The CEO of SST, where I used to work, has a number of patents for microchips. He can design them himself. So why does he need engineers to do it for him? Because of scale -- he has 10 million other jobs he's supposed to do as the leader of the business. He can't do it all.

In my current campaign, the players were quested by the Fiend-Sage of Rel Astra -- an uber-powerful demon. The quest? Overthrow a rival city's government. That demon could, if he wanted, teleport down there and utterly decimate the entire rival city himself. Why doesn't he? Because aside from the wonderful deniability he gets from remaining uninvolved, he's also trying to run the biggest city on the planet, and he's overthrowing a dozen other rivals already, and he's really busy trying to usurp his own boss. To me, that's not a weak or lame reason at all.

The most finite and precious resource of any leader is time. This is not only true for the real world, but it keeps things highly plausible for a game world, too. Leaders need competent agents to get stuff done. The thing that will enrage those leaders the most? Incompetence that requires the leader to step in and spend time fixing things.

 

[Storm Raven]

I remember once playing a Warforged in Ebberon and we were on a quest to deal with some Goblins by either diplomatic means or by killing them. So we went off to kill them. Being only weeks old the subtleties of the situation escaped me, so I asked them why we were doing this.

I was accused (ooc) of being weird because we were adventurers and adventurers kill Goblins. One of the other players did mention in character a min or two afterwards (trying to get into it) that we were killing the Goblins because Gnomes has offered us money to kill them and this was more then enough reason.

In character the solution seemed obvious, I suggested we explain the situation to the Goblins and ask them if they wanted to pay more then the gnomes, either for us not to kill them or to kill the gnomes instead. My suggestion was ignored and I was told ooc to stop trying to derail the story. Suffice to say the first Goblin killed was the only Goblin to speak Common

Damn. I would love it if a player I was DMing for did this.

 

[noffham]

Never had this issue come up. In all my campaigns the PCs (and the players) know that the world is a big place and there are lots of things going on that the npcs and other adventurers may be involved in. Their little corner of the world is vital of course but with wars raging and dragons in the hills and the plots of evil genius Wizards going on, there is always something that needs doing whether they are available or not.

They also know that some challenges are too much for them and if they're smart, they'll retreat, report and get reassigned (or get some R&R and pursue their own goals).

 

[rogueattorney]

"Why don't you do it?" doesn't have to be an F-U to the DM. It's actually a pretty good information gathering question.

I had a local bailiff posting a bounty on a group of bandits. My players asked, "Why don't you take all your guards and go get them yourselves?" The bailiff had to admit that he thought there was a spy among the guards who was warning the bandits any time they went out to get them in force, and that he thought a band of bounty hunters might be able to avoid the detection of the spy. Good information for the pcs to know. It certainly changed some of their plans with regard to approaching the bandits.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think that it's the GM's job to create adventures and the players' job to create characters that will want to go on adventures.

Of course it's best when the adventures make sense and that's why I think the GM should have an answer to that question.

QFT... it is a two way street the DM has to set up the adventure and make it make sense, the Player must then go on saaid adventure...



As for the symbol thing in the realms... it was worse becuse I never herd of her, BUT the PCs started to head to her to ask for help...when I told them that a local ruler didn't have the power to appose thay...thing turned into an out of game arguement...

 

[pauljathome]

As a player, have you ever asked the GM in character, "Why don't you do it?"

I've definitely asked and, when I've asked, I've expected a reasonable
answer.

If the campaign is intended to be at least somewhat plausible and realistic
then I expect a decent answer to the question. Not perfect, perhaps, but
sufficient to allow me to suspend my disbelief.

In a vaguely plausible/realistic campaign the lack of an answer means 1 of 2 things.
1) The GM has screwed up.
2) The NPCs are screwing with us and the mission isn't realy what they say.

On more than one occassion I've said to the GM : "Is the fact that the answer makes no sense at all meant to be a clue?". If they say "no, ignore it. Just go along" then I'll happily go along.


And that is a standard that I try very hard to adhere to when I'm the GM.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

On more than one occassion I've said to the GM : "Is the fact that the answer makes no sense at all meant to be a clue?". If they say "no, ignore it. Just go along" then I'll happily go along.

And that is a standard that I try very hard to adhere to when I'm the GM.

I have heard the question asked a few times, and this has pretty much been how things went down. But then, we usually played in Points of Light games, long before WotC came up with the concept, so there usually wasn't any over-reaching Save the World plot for us to worry about. Just how to get through the next four or five hours of gaming.

 

[Jack7]

I've asked and I've had the question asked of me as DM.

Usually I just let the NPCs offer help, or the NPCs sometimes join in.
Of course we almost never play the "end of the world scenario."

More like, Empire to be invaded, or Emperor deposed, or big disaster, or plague, or so forth.

And it also depends on if the NPC has a personal stake in the outcome of the venture, is acting as an agent for someone else, etc.

As to how much help and support they offer, and what kind of support and help they offer.

Secret or covert aid works too, as does aid from a distance.

The Simbul doesn't need Elminster's help. She could probably beat him in a straight up fight. And she's defended against the entire nation of Thay at least 30 or 40 times.

This is something else I find hard to understand (not directed at you but at fantasy gaming in general). The desire to fight all of the time just because you are supposedly more powerful than someone else. Real fights are exhausting. Real wars are exhausting and draining. Of men, materiel, money, support, power. Conflicts consume, usually at least as much as they produce. Nobody in their right mind really wants to get into a "straight-up fight" you can avoid. Even when you win it usually costs you, and if you have more than one enemy, then the enemy who is not spent and exhausted usually knows you are. Because enemies observe that kinda thing. Straight up fights only invite more and more danger, for increasingly less and less reward.

Wise men, wise leaders, maneuver others into constant strings of straight up fights (assuming this needs to be done), they don't engage in them unless really necessary, or unavoidable. (Sometiems stright up fights are necessary and unavoidable, but most of the time they arise from a lack of proepr imagination on the part of one party or another about how to conduct a winning conflict.)

Any character or NPC I heard saying something like, "Well I don't need your help, I'm level 40 and my opponent is only level 32. I can easily take them man to man," I would think is a blooming idiot. If I'm supposedly the best knife fighter in the world about to get into a knife fight with somebody I've never met before if I'm wise then I take that other fella seriously. Even if he's only ninety pounds and looks like he's sixteen years old. Anyone can die under the right circumstances. And almost everyone who thought they couldn't possibly, has.

If I'm level 100 then I didn't get that way being stupid about underestimating the other fella. I also didn't get that way fighting every fight stupid, or fighting every fight just to be fighting.

 

[Saracenus]

I remember a table in Living Greyhawk where the party Wizard upon being dragooned/hired to take care of the NPC's business pulled out a folded sheet of paper and handed it to the DM. He told him here were a list of his rates for casting spells on behalf of said NPC (using the same NPC rates in the core rules).

The look on the DMs face was priceless.

Basically the player was tired of being hired to do the dangerous stuff for stupid NPCs and then getting charged for things like remove curse or remove disease when he came back after completing the mission.

 

[Rykion]

It's never come up in my games because the people sending the characters on a mission are usually less powerful than the party. The occasional powerful patron the group runs into is usually retired, crazy, evil, testing the party, or sending them on a mission far too trivial to be bothered with. I also don't send low level parties on missions to save the world.

I do remember thinking about over powered patrons when playing through Dragon Warrior for the NES though. The game starts with a king sending you to save his daughter from a dragon. He gives you a wooden stick and like 5 gold pieces if I remember correctly. The king has a huge castle full of soldiers with full armor, shields, and weapons. I don't think he was really that worried about getting her back.