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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 3895434" data-attributes="member: 813">The problem is that politics is not fun for the general populace. If your players didn't start the campaign with the goal of being political movers and shakers, their characters will not work well at politics later in the game. Done correctly, you should have the PCs acting as pawns of some political entity by the time they are high level. Done really well, they should be unaware of their pawn-ness.Second, most RPGs are group oriented. Is the party going to rule the world as an oligarchy? If not, once you say one of the players is King, everyone else is suddenly second rate. The king sits on the throne. Makes the decisions. And he delegates everything else. Delegating is not fun RPG activity. How much XP do you get to sending someone to take care of the 40 orcs bandits terrorizing a small village?The day to day challenges of rulership are just not the kinds of challenges designed for taking on with the standard 4 party archetypes.OTOH, is the DM going to be able to generate hours and hours of petititons to parade before the king looking for help. Of course the hilarity of how the group solves problems might be amusing:Petitioner: "Sire, the merchants of Zenor refuse to pay to complete the bridge over the river Jores and we haven't the funds to complete it."Party Mage: "I know that bridge, hold on." Disappears. Teleports in, finishes bridge with Wall of Stone. Reappears. "Don't worry about it, the bridge is now complete."</blockquote>

Verification