Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6135255">I'm sure Luke wasn't the only jedi-born who had great natural talent.  I'm sure that someone other than Frodo could have handled the ring.  But the game isn't about "those other guys" doing "that stuff" over there.  The game is about YOU and the adventurers you're playing.  If the game was about the exploits of some other adventurers, we'd be reading a book, not playing D&D.Are there?  I mean why are we assuming there are?  Because our players are there?  Certainly there may be soldiers, knights, mages and other people with classes, but there's no guarantee that they're as skilled as our players.  I mean, if those guys could stop the Lich, then the players would likely have never come to the town in the first place.  I mean, the whole reason players go to a town, story or no story is that there is usually some kind of unresolved problem that is available for the players to solve.If the townsfolk could take care of their own, we wouldn't need adventurers!  And by the suggestion of "what if they don't think they can win" or don't care, well, it's not like I'm throwing them up against something I don't feel they can handle, but it seems to speak to a desire not to be challenged.  I'm not going to simply provide trees full of kittens to save all day.  If that's what the players want they're welcome to run that game, but it holds no interest for me.  As far as them "not caring", I usually simplify plot events to a dice roll.  Powerful monster vs place the players didn't want to save.  Depending on how strong I set that place up to be it's just a nice modifier.  Maybe the Lich wont win.  But the reason the Place seeks aid is generally because they're outmatched.  Again, if the town could handle things, we wouldn't need adventurers.As much as I endeavor to create a living world, the actions of my table are the focus of the game.  If the players have chosen a less confrontational approach(suberting the Lich's plans, invading the sancurary of his phylactery, etc...) then those are the things we're going to focus on.  When the Lich moves to attack Placeville, he finds the land consecrated, graveyards dug up and burned, and feels a shiver up his spine as the players approach his hidden sanctum.  The guards of Placeville fend off the Lich(which I simply mention as an aside if the players efforts were up to par), but we focus on the players actions in the now dungeon-delve to reach the Lichs phylactery.  I do this.  When players choose not to deal with the "epic problem" of the world, it either overwhelms the world, or someone else comes along.  There's no guarantee of either(though it can depend on my mood) and yeah, I do emphasize that "Your desire to fight kobolds for days on end meant *insert evil name here* the demon-dragon to devour *places and people*, but he was brought down by an intrepid group of warriors who then raided his lair for incredible riches!"  I say it a little better, but yes I do that.  I don't want to railroad my players, but when there is a story that they follow, I feel it should be more difficult to hop off the train the closer you get to end.  The world begins responding to you more and more, and okay; you CAN do it, but it's gonna take some serious effort to lose all the friends and foes you've made.Fortunately, I don't have these kinds of players.  I have folks who enjoy that big, epic, super-story stuff.</blockquote>

Verification