Power and Responsibility

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For what it's worth, Jürgen Hubert, as a fan of the Authority (before Ellis seemed to get angry at his own series), I'd love to play in a D&D game where the DM was open to the players saying "OK, we're level 15 and the toughest guys for 1,000 miles. Let's go liberate some oppressed peoples."

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

For what it's worth, Jürgen Hubert, as a fan of the Authority (before Ellis seemed to get angry at his own series), I'd love to play in a D&D game where the DM was open to the players saying "OK, we're level 15 and the toughest guys for 1,000 miles. Let's go liberate some oppressed peoples."

I'm wondering: What DMs aren't open to that? I mean, the players are essentially handing him free adventure hooks, right?

What kind of DM objects to that?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I'm wondering: What DMs aren't open to that? I mean, the players are essentially handing him free adventure hooks, right?

What kind of DM objects to that?

Make the Oppressor an appropriate challenge for the party, give him plenty of tough cronies, maybe an even tougher power behind the scenes, and I think you could find most DMs would be open to it. Of course all that is just another case of the party facing bigger threats, to which you seem to have your own objection.

Make the 15th level party the toughest hombres is the land, the oppressor a 7th level aristocrat with an army of low-level warriors, and make the game one of political manuevering and consequences as the party single-handedly topples the nation, and I can think of plenty of DMs who would object to it. I am one of them. It just holds no interest for me.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Make the 15th level party the toughest hombres is the land, the oppressor a 7th level aristocrat with an army of low-level warriors, and make the game one of political manuevering and consequences as the party single-handedly topples the nation, and I can think of plenty of DMs who would object to it. I am one of them. It just holds no interest for me.

Why?

I'm not trying to be snarky - I am genuinely curious. Would you be bored by it? Or would it involve too much preparation for your tastes? And have you ever attempted something like this - or played in a game with such plots?

 

[shilsen]

I'm wondering: What DMs aren't open to that? I mean, the players are essentially handing him free adventure hooks, right?

What kind of DM objects to that?

As Thornir Alekeg indicated, lots of DMs might object to or have no interest in such a scenario. I love the idea, but that doesn't mean I expect every DM will. If there's anything ENWorld has taught me, it's that people play the game in all sorts of different ways, and what works for me doesn't necessarily work for someone else.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Why?

I'm not trying to be snarky - I am genuinely curious. Would you be bored by it? Or would it involve too much preparation for your tastes? And have you ever attempted something like this - or played in a game with such plots?

I have played in games with political intrigue and have enjoyed it. The thing is, the main reason the intrigue works is because there is something preventing the PCs from using other more direct methods to accomplish their goals.

What I have not done is play in a game where the PCs can pretty much do what they want because they are clearly more powerful than most anyone else and feel fully justified in doing it because they are changing things for the better. So, they have the power and the motivation, where is the challenge?

As DM I could create ethical challenges, but while I've found the occasional ethical dilemma can be a nice change to play, a constant diet of it quickly becomes uninteresting.

I can play up the challenges of building a government, but if the PCs are just going to have to deal with squabbles of low level NPCs and events like making trade agreements for food, what is the point of getting the PCs to 20th level in the first place?

The players need to be challenged. The challenge needs to be appropriate to their power level, or else it isn't a challenge (that's why 20th level PCs don't get XP for killing ordinary orcs). D&D provides a decent set of rules to help you determine an appropriate challenge for PCs, no matter their level. I don't have the time or interest in wracking my brain trying to figure out how to create a challenge for the 20th level party using a level 8 Aristocrat/Level 3 Fighter King and his people that the PCs cannot just walk over to, drop some spells and wield some weapons to effectively remove.


I am also not trying to be snarky and am curious. How do you keep the players challenged if you don't give them bigger monsters, and face bigger threats? I can easily envision the game becoming:
"We want to remove Evil King James and free the people of his land."
"OK, how?"
"We'll Wind Walk into the castle, I'll hit him with a full attack with my +5 longsword while the rest of the party laughs at the feeble attempts of the guards to hit us."
"OK, he's dead. The guards surrender, but the people are angry. What do you do now?"
"I take his crown and, since I cannot be bothered to run a kingdom, give it to his bastard child who, according to a Know Alignment spell, is Lawful Good."
"Great now what do you do?"
"We heard there was a drought in the kingdom to the south. Lets go by and drop off a few of those decanters of endless water we made last month and let the people revere us as saviors. After that, we'll go remove the Tribunal Rulers of Gothmarg, they are only 9th level and they allow slavery."

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I am also not trying to be snarky and am curious. How do you keep the players challenged if you don't give them bigger monsters, and face bigger threats?

I let them get creative with problems like these:

"The Guild system is corrupt and inefficient and holding back innovation and commerce. Yet the majority of city-dwellers belong to one guild or another - so how can we reform them without pissing off the inhabitants of our cities?"

"The antagonism between these two religions is driving our citizens apart, with more and more people feeling that they have to join with either side. How do we resolve this conflict without triggering a religious war?"

"To renovate the sewer system and build a new aquaeduct for the capital city so that it becomes a far nicer place to live than the capital of our rivals, we need about 2,000,0000 gp. Where can we get that money?"

"The nobles spend far too much time feuding with each other - yet we don't have enough trained bureaucrats to run the realm instead, and the nobles all have lots of armed followers. How can we get rid of them without triggering mass unrest?"

Basically, I describe them how the realm is now, and the player characters then decide what they would like the realm to be - and work towards that goal. Mind you, that doesn't mean there can't be any "boss fights" - but they are going to be a bit rarer than at lower levels.

Which is as it should be, IMO.

 

[Spatula]

While I'd be interested in running a campaign like that (although I'm not sure I'm clever enough to pull it off correctly), it does involve a lot more work in preparation and execution than throwing bigger & badder monsters at the party. Not every DM is going to be up for that, or find the subject matter engaging - not everyone is interested in politics. And like Thornir says, it does kind of call into question while the PCs bothered to level up in the first place. Being a 20th level fighter brings very little to the table (other than survivability) when your prime concerns are backstabbing nobles and international trade disputes.

 

[Barastrondo]

In my experience, there's "open to" and there's "enthusiastic about." I think my players would be open to a highly political game, and I've considered running a kingmaker-themed game where the PCs are essentially looking to take a corrupt emperor out of office and put a good man in his place. However, if there's some other campaign model out there that they and I are enthusiastic about, that wins over something we're just open to. The level of enthusiasm in a game tends to dictate whether it runs at station wagon or drag strip speed. If players aren't as enthusiastic about lobbying political agendas and drawing up plans of action to overhaul a kingdom's military/industrial complex as they are about fighting the living dead in a cemetery the size of a small town, then the fight in the necropolis is a really competitive option, and possibly the superior option.

That's why you may find that some people aren't even really interested in trying something like that out. It may be a really good experience, but if there's something else they could do that they're more enthusiastic about, even "really good" might not be enough when they compare it to what they think they could be getting. If a political game is like a good game of chess and an action-packed, low-consequences bloodbath is like sex, and the nature of RPGs is that you may really only have time and energy for one, well, chess is a good game, but...

And yes, perhaps the political game is more like sex for some gamers. I think most of those folks are already converts to that style of play, though, assuming they've followed their enthusiasm.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I let them get creative with problems like these:

"The Guild system is corrupt and inefficient and holding back innovation and commerce. Yet the majority of city-dwellers belong to one guild or another - so how can we reform them without pissing off the inhabitants of our cities?"

"The antagonism between these two religions is driving our citizens apart, with more and more people feeling that they have to join with either side. How do we resolve this conflict without triggering a religious war?"

"To renovate the sewer system and build a new aquaeduct for the capital city so that it becomes a far nicer place to live than the capital of our rivals, we need about 2,000,0000 gp. Where can we get that money?"

"The nobles spend far too much time feuding with each other - yet we don't have enough trained bureaucrats to run the realm instead, and the nobles all have lots of armed followers. How can we get rid of them without triggering mass unrest?"

Basically, I describe them how the realm is now, and the player characters then decide what they would like the realm to be - and work towards that goal. Mind you, that doesn't mean there can't be any "boss fights" - but they are going to be a bit rarer than at lower levels.

Which is as it should be, IMO.

The problems you listed above just don't do anything to inspire me to want to try this. The only one I can see my players doing anything about is the aqueduct problem, and they would chose to get the 2,000,000gp by going out and killing some big stuff for its big loot.

Well, as I've said before, I'm glad you and your players enjoy this kind of game. It doesn't sound like it is for me one bit. D&D is a fantasy game that I play to enjoy being a part of fantasy events. Give me the ancient dragon rather than the feuding nobles. I want escapism much more than I want simulation in my games.