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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 5827592" data-attributes="member: 40166">Why is that the world as it ought to be run? In most D&D worlds, I would expect that people would know that Conan and Raistlin are out there, and the simple fact that they're lower-class doesn't mean they can't single-handedly take out most of your army, not to mention your throne room. The rules change.But that's a DM's choice; you could equally say if they choose not to murder the merchant they run across on the road, that's fine, but they'll miss out on the rewards. You're punishing people for not enjoying their characters kowtowing to nobility; that's not something you can foist off on the world.And frankly, if the king needs higher-level characters, the king needs them. He may not deal with them in open court, or even directly, but people with needed skills can get away with being a little eccentric.And vice versa, though. DMs seem to get all annoyed when the game is set in a world with superpowered characters, and said characters decide to explain to the nobility that people who can cast Timestop and Meteor Swarm are people to respect too. Why should the DM set up a milieu in such a way that his players will be unhappy? Why is consistency a greater value then player fun?I'm not saying this isn't complex, and that there aren't cases where a player drags the game down by making a fuss about it. But obsequiousness to nobility is hardly universal in the real world and there's good reason for it not to be in a D&D world.And so often it just seems to be a proxy battle for power. The player wants to play a character that doesn't have to kneel to anyone, and the DM wants to show the player that he can force his character to kneel.</blockquote>

Verification