D&D 5E (2014) Would you play or run a game if the party's members are not the protagonists?

[dmnqwk]

There's an episode of Castle on TV named 47 seconds. It has the usual team acting as support for the Fbi. This kind of play has the Pcs acting as instructed but still pivotal to the adventure.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

That would be awesome, although hard to implement.

A slight twist on that would be the classic, "Yes, Minister," variant ("Yes, Gandalf"). The party is always given orders and it is their job to skillfully ensure that the orders are not carried out.

Gandalf: Do you think it is a good idea to destroy the ring?

Party: Well, Gandalf, in practical terms we have the usual six options:
One: do nothing.
Two: issue a statement deploring the ring.
Three: lodge an official protest with Sauron.
Four: cut off aid to the orcs.
Five: break off diplomatic relations with the Nazgul.
And six: destroy the ring.

Gandalf: Which should be it?

Party: Well:
If we do nothing, that means we implicitly agree with Sauron.
If we issue a statement, we'll just look foolish.
If we lodge a protest, it'll be ignored by Sauron.
We can't cut off aid, because we don't give the orcs any.
If we break off diplomatic relations, then we can't negotiate with the Nazgul.
And if we try to destroy the ring, it might just look as though we were over-reacting.

Ah, yes, Briefings & Bureaucrats, a fine game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, some people say they play all gritty and realistic.

Let's put that to the test!

The tabletop version is a bit clunky, but the LARP version is where the game shines.

 

[Morlock]

1. Players are not the biggest heroes on the planet. In fact, they constantly operate in the shadow of the biggest heroes on the planet.

Mmm, not so much. I wouldn't rule it out, but it doesn't appeal, either.

2. Players are not the biggest heroes on the planet. But, they are the biggest heroes as far as the campaign is concerned. The bigger heroes are off minding their own business, or occasionally making cameo appearances.

Sure, that works. Seems just as viable as "the players are the biggest heroes on the planet," actually.

 

[Morlock]

On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of events that happen no matter what the PCs do.

Context is king, but I have absolutely no problem with events that happen no matter what the PCs do. E.g., the world turning, the sun rising, a great flood, an invading army, etc. I'd have more of a problem with them not happening.

 

[Corpsetaker]

These are the types of games my player's enjoy best and it's the types of games I love playing in. It's really down to perspective. Your group can be continuously engaged while still only playing a minor role in the whole scheme of things. I don't particularly enjoy always being the overall center of attention. Sometimes I like to be that PC that had a small hand in the overall goal.

 

[Pickles III]

Games where we played Knights of the Round Table are games where we weren't the Big Heroes. I've also had games where the NPCs were more important, like being the bodyguards of a prince. Those are fun for a few sessions, but then you hit a wall. You can't do this because it is X that does that, you can't kill X because it is Y who kills him, etc.

I had this playing Pendragon too & I did not like it, though it was one of many things I did not like & I quit. I'm not sure it would have been enough alone though but it's something I would avoid for a protracted game.

 

[Kramodlog]

I had this playing Pendragon too & I did not like it, though it was one of many things I did not like & I quit. I'm not sure it would have been enough alone though but it's something I would avoid for a protracted game.

I am fascianted by Arthurian myths and how they can be adapted to RPGs. My current diagnosis is that they can't be adaped to long term campaigns.