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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9519819" data-attributes="member: 18">This is something I've idly thought before but never really engaged deeply with like this article does.I completely agree though - democracies or quasi-democracies like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanistry" target="_blank">tanistry</a> are way more gameable and more prone to intervention from the players than most monarchical systems. They're potentially a lot more long-term interesting as they require more "maintenance" as it were.Palace intrigue only really works as a plotline with unstable or vulnerable monarchies, which is not typically how they're presented in fantasy. Sure, if there's a council or parliament almost as strong as the monarch (or stronger!), or if the monarch is sick, or really hated by the people, or a child and there's a regency or the like, palace intrigue and palace politics can be cool. But so many just simply aren't presented that way. Indeed I think it's common for monarchies in fantasy settings to actively be written as not having intrigue of that kind, especially in RPG setting books.Contrary to [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] I don't think the main reason monarchies are so prevalent in fantasy RPGs is to give a specific person to conflicts and the like (though they can be used that way), as in fact many settings have distant and poorly-detailed monarchies in very stable and largely conflict-free situations, where the monarch (usually a king) is at most a quest-giver. I think it's mostly lack of imagination/lack of research/lack of knowledge and the sheer cultural inertia of the Americanocentric idea that in Ye Olde Dayes we had monarchs, and in Modern T1m3z we have democracy, when in fact democracy and quasi-democracy and council electing people and so on goes back to practically the dawn of time and probably far beyond recorded history.I actually wonder if the issue isn't worth now than it was say, 30 years ago, fantasy setting-wise. 30+ years ago fantasy settings more often tended to be built on interest in and knowledge of actual history/historical cultures, but now we see a fair number of fantasy settings and campaigns which are sort of, built on top of fantasy tropes rather than history, and seem to be far less interested in the rulers of societies, who tend to break down to good kings, evil kings, and useless councils and not much else. If you're real lucky there might be like one "good council" in some notably progressive protagonist-nation.</blockquote>

Verification