So what's gold gonna be for?

Doug McCrae said:
So we're not sure what this game, Dungeons & Dragons, is all about. Romance and relationships? Power and politics? Murder mysteries?

Perhaps there's a clue in the name. Perhaps Dungeons & Dragons is about going into dungeons and killing the dragons that live there? Kind of a weird idea, I know, but I just throw it out as a suggestion.
See, that's part of the game's enduring brilliance. Everything you mentioned is D&D.

In the campaign I run, the PC's are currently 12th level. They've been through exactly one dungeon and fought precisely zero dragons. What they have done is live the made-up lives of adventure story protagonists. The players seem to like, as do the readers of the Story Hour based on the campaign. As strange as it gets, it's still recognizably D&D.

"Back to the dungeon!" was wonderful marketing flack... but it's far too reductive to serve as a kind of motto for running D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Doug McCrae said:
So we're not sure what this game, Dungeons & Dragons, is all about. Romance and relationships? Power and politics? Murder mysteries?

Perhaps there's a clue in the name. Perhaps Dungeons & Dragons is about going into dungeons and killing the dragons that live there? Kind of a weird idea, I know, but I just throw it out as a suggestion.

I don't know. In my campaign dating back to 2e, the PCs have only been in 4-6 dungeons and have only encountered three dragons. None of the dragons were encountered in a dungeon and one would have killed the party without blinking if they had attacked it. Most of the encounters have been above ground (often in towns or cities) and involved dealing with undead, cultists and wizards.

Oh, there have also been entire sessions dealing with romance, relationships, politics, and murder mysteries.
 

Dr. Awkward said:
That's not a question of advancement speed. It's a question of why everyone isn't being an adventurer.

Really, that's something that goes pretty deep into the assumptions of the game world. Why settle for being a warrior or expert when you could be a fighter or wizard? Why be a commoner when you could be a rogue? Even if you're stuck being a warrior, why be a guard, when you could find some other guys with swords and go loot a dungeon? Certainly, if you become an adventurer, you're going to get powerful pretty quickly. However, you have to be one first. Why isn't everyone.

Presumably, not everyone *can* be a PC class. But the original question still holds even if you restrict it to PC classes, or still further to "adventurers": why aren't most of them 20th level? "Because 99% of them die permanently before they get that far" is a valid answer, but doesn't bode well for the PC's prospects (though Eberron seems to have a workable variant, "They were all recently killed off in a big war").
 


gizmo33 said:
At the simplest I'll just do what I do now, hand out 50% of the recommended XP totals (or whatever the magic number winds up being).

Been there, doing that. As I expect you've noticed, if you don't cut down on the treasure, this will tend to make your PCs become vastly over-equipped for their levels (compared to RAW expectations).
 



Kraydak said:
For an average american, yes. For practical purposes... no, Rochester doesn't really count unless you are willing to foot the bill for air travel :lol: (writing on a Mac, so no VTT for me :( )
Hey, it's the same state! :)
I feel that that works for the minimal political effects deriving from the power of HLCs in a butt-kicking campaign, but likely not for a deliberately political campgain... I'd like to be proven wrong, but it sounds unlikely :\
Well, to begin with, people who have the personal, financial, and magical power required to change the world (like HLCs) are not going to generate "minimal political effects" unless they're deliberately trying to stay in the shadows. Numerous examples abound in fantasy literature; Gandalf, Sparrowhawk, and the like can't help but change their worlds through the pursuit of their own (sometimes more esoteric) goals.

That said, since my personal campaign anecdotes are likely to be less convincing to you (you don't know me), I'd encourage you to read the C/M module series for a published-module example of how high-level characters can be the levers in a political campaign... and those modules (especially CM1 Test of the Warlords and M1 Into the Maelstrom) are all about politics on a world-shaking scale. I ran a hugely political campaign around that module series that was a whirlwind of intrigue and ended with the empire-builder PC (the other three PCs being the kingdom's general, its chief loremaster, and its queen/empress) ruling a vast swath of the Known World and building a gigantic empire into whose future he was forced to travel in order to save it (and the world) during the reign of his great-great-granddaughter.

Another campaign I ran had the PCs establish a small realm centered around the town of Glister (in the FR) and eventually sweep out into a vast kingdom across the northern Moonsea. Tons of intrigue involving the internal and external machinations of Zhentil Keep and Mulmaster, the merchant-lords of Melvaunt and Thentia, and the greed of various autocratic factions in Hillsfar, as well as monstrous kingdoms, disaffected ogres with spelljamming connections, raiding drow cities, etc. I ported over the dominion and combat rules from BECMI (though I would have preferred something more complicated), and players got very, very into how the crops were doing, whether one of their vassals had been the victim of espionage or corruption, and the like. I even ran a second campaign after that one in which the PCs were spies of the former PCs' kingdom's Archmage.

[EDIT: If anything, the problem with running empire-building campaigns is the same one as running campaigns involving endless dungeon crawls: Some players may be turned off by the style of play. Players may WANT freedom for their PCs, and the ability to run around and explore the gameworld without being forced to look in on their kingdoms.]
 
Last edited:

Mallus said:
See, that's part of the game's enduring brilliance. Everything you mentioned is D&D.
QFT. IMHO, there is no one playstyle encouraged by the rules; where 3e shines is in having further developed a number of the rules governing non-combat options (social skills, Craft rules, Leadership, etc.). Likewise, BECMI shines for its introduction of rules to cover dominions, wars, etc. (Some third-party d20 stuff also does a good job of this; Fields of Blood comes to mind.)
 

Remove ads

Top