Save the world? No thanks.

[Morose]

I've often wondered... why do so many campaigns have the player characters focused on "saving the world"? Is there really this adolescent need for roleplayers to be the "most powerful" heroes around? And if so... why?

This is something I've never really understood. I mean sure... it would be fun to play that sort of character once in a while, but it's so cliche and overdone that I find the concept awfully droll at this point. Why not make your DM work a little bit and actually find some kind of *believable* motivation for your campaign?

Save the world? No thanks. Save my family? Now there's something I can identify with and get into. It just seems to me like the whole save the world motivation is a lazy attempt for a plot. Come on DMs! If you want your players to really get into roleplaying, give them something they *can* get into.

Saving the world is easy... it's so huge, ridiculous, and impersonal that there's no real tension. Do some extra work in the beginning and come up with something new. Something that's not necessarily more realistic, but is easier for the human psyche to get invested in. Anyway... just something to think about.

 

[Psychotic Dreamer]

So since you don't like the plot of saving the world it is lazy? Quite often when people are gaming they want to be someone they are not and be able to do things they can not and saving the world is one of those things. Personally I try to use both. Having the characters save the world and have other smaller more personal problems come up.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Why not feed the troll...

I've often wondered... why do so many campaigns have the player characters focused on "saving the world"? Is there really this adolescent need for roleplayers to be the "most powerful" heroes around? And if so... why?

Please, sign me up to play an inconsequential character!

Why not make your DM work a little bit and actually find some kind of *believable* motivation for your campaign?

Yeah, because those high level characters are going to have no interest in saving the world from whatever threat.

Save the world? No thanks. Save my family? Now there's something I can identify with and get into.

Err.. isn't doing the former doing the latter?

Come on DMs! If you want your players to really get into roleplaying, give them something they *can* get into.

Come on Players! If you want your dm to offer you something to get into, then give us characters that have a *believable* motivation to go adventuring.

Saving the world is easy... it's so huge, ridiculous, and impersonal that there's no real tension. Do some extra work in the beginning and come up with something new.

It sounds like you are the one have the problem creating such a world.

My group is content with our campeign- I have filled it with threats, and they have decided which threats they are going to tackle. (As in- right now they are hunting down the Carnival Crew to recover all the children they stole from Freeport. I had no idea they were going to go after them, but they made the decision.)

FD

 

[Crothian]

On of the best campaigns I've played we had to open up a merchant carvan lane. THe lane was veryimportant because that's where the ale came in from.

So, it's about the proper motivation.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

When it comes to human interaction and drama, nothing beats living real life. Since a game doesn't simulate real life well, I'd rather play a game where I save the world.

I'll agree, though, that DMs should provide opportunities for personalized character hooks, so the PCs can start businesses and interact with their families along the way to saving the world.

 

[Morose]

I'm not trying to rag on folks for running a "save the world" style campaign. If that's what your players want, then that's fine. I just think it's become way too predictable and stereotypical a threat. Just trying to get folks to think about doing things in a new direction.

As for the question about signing up to play an "inconsequential character" I have to take issue there. If you are playing in a campaign that doesn't have the whole world in jeopardy, you could be the most important force in the entire campaign very easily without having to try and save the world. Like the gentleman above mentioned, sometimes it can be as simple as keeping the booze flowing! If you are the only ones with the skill or courage to do it, then I'd hardly think you are inconsequential.

I'm not against having the players be heroes at all. I think they *should* be heroes. But there are lots of types of heroes. Not every hero needs to be of the Superman variety... especially if they are in a game world without such supermen with whom they feel a need to compete. Anyway... flame away if you like. Won't hurt my feelings any.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

I'm not trying to rag on folks for running a "save the world" style campaign.

No? It seems you are being rather condescending with this quote:

Is there really this adolescent need for roleplayers to be the "most powerful" heroes around?

If you want your wisdom to be taken seriously, then try not to be insulting about it.

Anyway... flame away if you like.

I will be happy enough to treat you the way you treat me.

FD

 

[Psychotic Dreamer]

I mainly took offense at your refering to it as being lazy to run a save the world game. Running any game is not lazy. I've seen a few people tossing that word around lately about most anything and it was just starting to get to me.

In my opinion anyone who decides to run a game is not being lazy.


I do agree that not every game needs to be save the world. Usually I start a game dealing with the characters personal lives and such while at low levels and as they gain more levels the threats start to become more and more dangerous. Sometimes that involves saving the world and sometimes that can be a matter of saving a village or starting a merchant company and such.

 

[herald]

Don't like it fine. But don't show up at my table.

As far as I know, players are in less demand than DM's. While you may vote with your feet and leave a game like that behind, I would suspect that yourr space will quickly get filled.

 

[der_kluge]

Guys, you're being awful hard on Morose.

I can see his point. While I think "save the world" kinds of games are perfectly valid, I can see that sometimes a change of pace is a welcome change.

I played in a year-long campaign that was epic in proportion, and now we're playing another that while not world-impacting, is massive in scope, and involves empires, political intrigues and armies.

But sometimes, I make a player that just doesn't give a rat's a*s. And I have to take pause and say "You know, my character doesn't really care if this town gets overrun by orcs or not, since I'll just move on to some place more safe, but for the proliferation of the campaign, and since I'd have to make a new character if I did what this actual character would probably do in this situation, I'll just grin it out and do the best I can within the confines of the events and how my character would interact within them."

See, meta-gaming isn't so bad. We do it all the time.