Why keep adventuring?

[KenSeg]

Many of my characters have personal reasons that they adventure beyond fortune and glory. My current fighter is half devil as his mother was a succubus in disguise playing the political game as his father is a well known baron. Once he found out, he is undertaking a quest to expunge the taint of evil in his soul due to his devilish heritage by performing a series of "good" deeds which will culminate in him destroying his mother in hell. That will be the natural end to our campaign and we will move on to our next characters.

My next character already is planned for motivation as his family still worships the memory of a long gone god and he will seek to discover what happened to this patron.

 

[marune]

Maybe your party has established their stronghold and control so many square miles of land. Unfortunately, the area is dirt poor and your group decides that relieving the next door group of dwarves of their platinum mine is a worthy endeavor. Now you could send your pcs or their cohorts after the dwarves and fight it out, but instead you decide to procure the note on the mine held by a neighboring bank or rich guy. How you get that note can be the basis of the campaign for a few sessions and doesn't necessarily mean having to lay out the combat grid and roll initiative.

In fact the "Epic rules" don't go in that way at all, so if your "epic" games are about kingdom management your aren't really playing D&D anymore.

 

[JDJblatherings]

PCs keep adventurign in my campaigns becasue of the "gunfighter syndrome", building stongholds and "oops did we do that?".

There is always some upstart that thinks they can take on the legendary veteran or some old score that was never really settled that can't be ignored.

If you build it they will come...to steal your stuff, to kidnap the princess to topple your walls.

"Hey guys remember that "spirit" we accidentally let lose 2 years ago...well it turns out it was a fragment of the demi-god Shothgra and she is almost whole again..."

 

[painandgreed]

What you'd prefer they be wimpy peasants that can't hold a sword then?!

Other direction I would think. Make them minor nobility, or from fairly rich and influencial families, which is sort of a given considering they have training in class levels and equipment, and make thempreform their duty to their families and community. Fa ily holdings need to be protected. Ravaging orc bands need to be stopped. Wandering monsters need to be killed. Undead that rise up from old crypts will need to be put down. Evil clerics that infiltrated the villages need to be uncovered. Fueds with neighbors need to be settled. The land finds itself in a war and they are called upon to participate. As the party grows in power, so will their sphere of influence and the challenges they'll be called upon to deal with, just so they can occationally sit back and rest in their own house.

 

[rgard]

In fact the "Epic rules" don't go in that way at all, so if your "epic" games are about kingdom management your aren't really playing D&D anymore.

Sure you are.

You can add kingdom management, but when it comes down to diplomacy checks, bluff checks, saving throws (for the sneaky enchantment stuff) and the occasional combat where you have to kill the rival kingdom's aristocracy, you are still rolling D20s.

Now if you define D&D as only rolling D20s and damage dice then the roleplay part at Epic levels may not fit your definition of D&D. I don't define D&D as a series of combat actions. For me it's combat actions plus roleplaying.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Gez]

'Cause they've got something to do. They don't adventure, they quest. The first few levels, yeah, they're adventuring -- they're relatively meek and poor, and they need to do something, even something dangerous, if they want to afford the next bed and breakfast.

But, since they're lucky, they always find more than bargained for and they end up aware of some sort of nefarious activity. Because they're heroes, they set out to try to stop it. And the plot sets its course.

Once the crisis is averted and the campaign is over, though, well, it's over. If it was relatively short, something new may happen, based on loose ends or unresolved side plots, but otherwise it's time to crank out the "and they lived happily ever after" epilogue.

That said, that's the ideal scenario. In my experience, the DM hits a hiatus long before that point, drops the campaign, and starts a new one. Regardless of who the DM is. (Even me!)

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I like the implied character progression in original DnD where you could reach a maximum of level 36. As the characters became more powerful, they also became sought out by local rulers and found themselves entwined with political responsibilities and power struggles. This made you very concerned in protecting your new lands/town/castle/tower/henchmen from ever increasing threats. After reaching a certain power level you started to become interested in artifacts and godhood.

I'm not as keen on the idea of a group of adventurers continuing into high levels if all their doing is acting like maurading mercenaries in search of the next unplundered dungeon.

 

[Eric Tolle]

In fact the "Epic rules" don't go in that way at all, so if your "epic" games are about kingdom management your aren't really playing D&D anymore.

I always thought that the epic rules were useless, and this confirms it.

Traditionally, after a certain point D&D HAS been about kingdom, or at least stronghold management. So if epic D&D isn't doing that, then AFAIC it isn't D&D any more. (Still annoyed at the lack of strongholds as a benefit for hitting a "Named" level)

 

[Korgoth]

I always thought that the epic rules were useless, and this confirms it.

Traditionally, after a certain point D&D HAS been about kingdom, or at least stronghold management. So if epic D&D isn't doing that, then AFAIC it isn't D&D any more. (Still annoyed at the lack of strongholds as a benefit for hitting a "Named" level)

Agreed. Stronghold/realm management was presented as a staple of high level play in previous editions.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I always thought that the epic rules were useless, and this confirms it.

Traditionally, after a certain point D&D HAS been about kingdom, or at least stronghold management. So if epic D&D isn't doing that, then AFAIC it isn't D&D any more. (Still annoyed at the lack of strongholds as a benefit for hitting a "Named" level)

True indeed. One of the biggest diference between 3.x and earleir editions is that barony/kingdom/domain building aspect of the game.