Why is it so hard to change a world?

[S'mon]

Smon,

This just illstrates the differences in some places as well as people's feeling on god killing. For me, it is a case by case setting. I mean if someone wants to kill Vecna,I say go for it. If however they wanted to kill "God" in Testament...might be a tad more difficult.

I wouldn't let them kill God (in that setting) but if they wanted to pour water on the Burning Bush, or wrestle with God like Jacob and kick him in the nads before he can do it to them, go for it.

 

[Nightfall]

LOL! Yeah well I think I could handle that too. Just so long as they don't try to play around with the messiah or knock off Judas. That would be a bit much for me.

 

[LuYangShih]

Ravenloft was fun to DM, but generally long term campaigns were hard to keep going because players got frustrated at being unable to really do anything about the evil permeating the land, from what I saw. Exercises in futility are, as a rule, not engaging and enjoyable.

 

[Trainz]

Trainz,

While I don't mean to start a fight, I do think there is something to be said about a "static" world. Just ask the people that play in Kalamar. No matter what they do, they can't kill off the Hobgoblin Empire. I mean yeah your players CAN...but all that means is it only happens in your campaign.

That's obvious Nightfall. It will always only happen in my campaign. I'm sure nobody expects me to write WotC and tell them:" Well, guys, 'got good nooz and bad nooz. The good news are, one of my players just got a whole bunch of X.P.'s. The bad news are, he did so by killing Mordenkainen. So, could you please update the Greyhawk errata and cross him out, because he's dead. I'm sure the gaming community will understand."

Guys, anybody remembers Waldorf from a long ago Dragon Magazine ? It was a guy that wrote a letter to Dragon saying that his character, Waldorf, destroyed the city of Greyhawk with some atomic explosion spell and that he's now some 300 odd levels and that Greyhawk is no more for all intents and purposes... they printed it and gave the whole gaming community a huge laugh for years to come.

 

[Nightfall]

Lu,

That's kind of my point when I compare Ravenloft and Dming with your problem and the Dms in Midnight.

 

[LuYangShih]

Trainz:

LOL


Nightfall:


Ah. I thought you were using Ravenloft of an example of a campaign world which successfully used this setup. It was a great world, but the lack of change led to stagnation and boredom for the PCs.


By the way, as for inspiring others to heroism, that is fine. I do not judge people who choose the lifestyle of the Bard, that is their business. Seriously, the PCs should be the focus of the game, for the most part, not cheerleaders for the NPCs who are the "true heroes".

PS

The Mithril Golem. Defeatable in your campaigns?

 

[Dirigible]

I mean Ravenloft is the perfect example. While there might have been power struggles, and the PCs might have PUSHED things on occasion, most of the time the place stays the same.

God, I hated Ravenloft. I once had to spend three real life hours killing a smegging vampire, because it needed a CERTAIN ritual performed JUST RIGHT. So very frustrating. The whole setting seemed to be an exercise in "making the players your biatches".

If I ran a game in an Orwellian universe like Blake's 7 or Paranoia I'd never tell the players "No, you can't defeat the Federation/Computer", I'd let them try and 99% they'd die trying, but you never know

S'Mon, you are my new hero. Your GM-fu is strong beyond words

Getting back to Midnight and the Night Kings, as examples, I really dislike the stance that certain DMs take that equate to "Your character never can achieve the great deeds or status of characters like these". Why can't the PCs be just as heroic/wicked and great as the prime NPCs of a campaign? I can understand if it is difficult, or even nearly impossible, but the possibility should be there.

*Phew* We're on the same side then.Good. I can stop arguing with you.

 

[Darkness]

Why is it that no matter how great the quest, how noble the deeds, or how impressive the party may become, DMs will not let you change the campaign world in any meaningful way?

Play Exalted. I think you'd like it.

 

[Henry]

In response to the original post:

It's a phenomenon I can understand - If the DM doesn't want to, or they don't have time to do a LOT of work creating a believable campaign after the PC's have succeeded in world-changing changes, then they don't give the PC's the option to change it. However, if that's the goal the players set, they become very disappointed to find out they never had a chance in the first place. Very few people like tilting at windmills.

If the DM has the drive to let it happen, however, and the resources to create a consistent world in which the players will play in AFTER the changes, then they do their players a disservice just because it would "change the flavor." It is, after all, there for everyone's enjoyment, not just the DM's. The published campaign wouldn't change one bit, and the only people who care about this alternate history would be the players and the DM. The DM has every right to set the bar high, but to be fair, it should be attainable.

But from a standpoint of not feeling capable of it, or not having the resources to do it, I can understand.

 

[Desdichado]

This seems like a silly complaint to me, no offense intended. Do you have a problem with a particular DM? Take it up with him. Do you have a problem with the philosophy in general? OK, fine, but realise a lot of people will disagree with you.