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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Distracted DM" data-source="post: 9682435" data-attributes="member: 6894926">I can see why you'd ask this question, because most of the official published adventures have the PCs saving the world/setting/multiverse. I have a couple thoughts on it:This is very much like the question of "why can't the king just send his knights and wizard to fix the problem?" These adventurers are the ones here to fix the problem now; there might be other adventurers, but they're busy with their own paths.. maybe, even, the ones that were in the area already failed elsewhere.But to the question... why does every adventure have to risk the setting? Why can't the stakes be more personal, not world-threatening? Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are tasked with retrieving Death's cloak by some wizards. If they failed... well, the wizards just wouldn't have the cloak they wanted. The highest stakes I can recall were Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser unintentionally saving Lankhmar's nobility from a murderous cult. If the cult had succeeded.. well, there'd probably be some time of unrest, and then a new order would set in. But failure doesn't have to equal the end of the world.Now, as I say this, I have run plenty of DnD adventures. They often involve the PCs saving things of consequence.. so if you're gonna be running those adventures, fall back on the first reply: the party are the ones that are here to handle things. The other adventurers/minor deities/elminsters aren't available.</blockquote>

Verification