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="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 3923013" data-attributes="member: 3820">Thanks! It's appreciated.Well, I wouldn't put it as negatively as that. Some DMs might want to "keep their players in line", absolutely. But there's also the question of whether or not a DM feels comfortable with that kind of implementing social change or not, and they might not feel entirely comfortable with that for some legitimate reasons (albeit ones that could be overcome). For one, there's the trouble of source inspiration. While there are definitely a lot of interesting works dealing with high-end politics and social engineering, they're not really escapist in tone, and a lot of folks tend to draw more from escapist works when finding inspiration for RPGs. Sort of why you find more people talking about Battlestar Galactica than the Biography Channel on gaming (and other geek) messageboards. A lot of fantasy epics have characters ascend to the seat of power, but don't actually depict the effort of government in interesting and convincing ways. Since this sort of subject matter is usually a bit more demanding, it's harder to outright show the reader/viewer why this sort of thing is cool. It's also a lot of work on the DM's part to adjust a world to take into account players changing it. This is kind of like the old superhero MO: it's easier to tell stories about defending the status quo than it is to show a world change and build and still keep it accessible. If the players manage to really clean up a country, that country becomes a little less exciting to adventure in for the next group of PCs, something that may affect the perspective of DMs who plan to use the same world for multiple campaigns. (I'm not taking sides, here, mind; just speculating. And admittedly the PCs who become vicious tyrants will pretty much provide a new campaign for the next group of PCs to overthrow them...)And it's not something DMs are really trained for. To make a plausible campaign in which players spend active screen time mucking around with the building blocks of society knowledge of those building blocks, improvisational ability, and of course the usual sense of dramatic timing. Teaching DMs how to manage this has never been part of basic DM training, more sort of an advanced opt-in system. And to opt in, you have to be interested in it despite the previous potential roadblocks. So you'll often see DMs who allow their players to reach high station and influence, but do so as closure to their careers and then start up a new swords-and-peril campaign, with the former heroes now NPCs. (And hey, the source inspiration does this too...) This is one of those things that's gradually changing, though, what with Exalted and REIGN and the like gaining purchase.It's a tricky business. I think the best possible evangelism for that kind of socially dynamic game is really just doing it, playing with a group who's willing to try it and finding out how good success is. I also think that it might be one of those play styles in which Rat Bastardy can be a bit more discouraging than encouraging, given the generally lower level of familiarity and comfort that players have with this kind of play. It really is a style of play which isn't for everyone. I definitely agree with you that it can be inspirational to build entire cultures, prevent wars,  rescue the local ecology and make things a better place instead of just putting regiments of bad guys to the sword. But sometimes people feel a little more comfortable digging a village well instead of working out a nation's aqueduct system, and it might not be just because the DM's a fascist.(I mean, more so than is necessary. Sometimes you need that fascism.)</blockquote>

Verification