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="Jack7" data-source="post: 4753455" data-attributes="member: 54707">I'm gonna concentrate for a moment on the PC Hope Principle.If the PC's truly are the hope in a war then why are they such a hope? Surely it won't be just because of "their powers." For sentence in a war, with so many forces at play, individual powers, like superhero powers, are not really tide-turning factors, unless these superhero, or in this case, fantasy powers, are directed specifically at vital, hard targets with some chance of success. in a D&D game "powers" give real tactical advantages, but against foes with real organizational military strength tactical advantage is not long-lived (especially when badly outnumbered) if it lacks strategic application. In other words a well armed and experienced army will quickly overwhelm and kill more individually powerful men who lack organization, numbers, resources, and a functional strategy. D&D parties are created for their abilities at the tactical level, their "powers" are far less impressive in a war campaign. So since war is a tonally different game than mere combat PCs have to become effective in a totally different way.If that is not the case, if the PC's cannot isolate or kill or assassinate vital targets with some chance of real success, then they must have some other vital function to make them the hope of the resistance. If they cannot be directly and immediately effective against strategic targets then they must be indirectly effective at a strategic level. You don't win wars by being good fighters, or trackers, or by throwing around magic spells. You win wars by the strategic application of power towards concrete and effective, realizable objectives designed to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy, and to amplify the strengths you possess. War is not about "powers" flashily employed, but about strategic power carefully and purposely exercised in the most judicious and efficient manner possible. Otherwise you merely end up in a war of attrition, and small, outnumbered, badly-organized forces almost never win wars of attrition. There is little hope in the war of attrition for the underdog unless the enemy simply gives up the fight. Some good tactical mission scenarios have already been suggested, but some good ideas about scenarios in which they could emerge as a real and strategic resistance hope have also already been offered, such as them uniting various fractions in order to provide a more unified and coherent and effective resistance.One thing I can think of is the political or military "turning" of various agents working for the chief bad guy (or his main commanders or advisors), so that at important moments his strategic operations, rather than just his tactical ones, are betrayed and/or sabotaged from within. The party could begin helping "to turn" the agents and operatives of the bad guy.But whatever happens the party will have to move from being just a tactical threat and enemy and become a very real strategic threat and enemy, if they are to provide a real hope of winning the war itself, rather than just assisting with the winning of a few scattered and isolated engagements. Their role will have to transform from that of being mere tactical agents to that of becoming strategic leaders.If they are to help win a war against a superior enemey.</blockquote>

Verification