|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another one of my goofy 'to incite discussion' threads here. So I apologize for rambling, or if its in the wrong subforum.
I've got a campaign setting. This campaign setting is old, its been around since Second Edition DnD and I've had a lot of campaigns run through it.
As one can expect, this has resulted in the campaign setting filling out, stabilizing in some parts and generally getting that nice lived-in feel.
However, its also resulted in situations where Governments, people and the environment in general has gotten to the point where they can handle things on their own somewhat.
The countries of the world are better described as nation-states, each with standing armies, they also keep higher level folks around generally to deal with the routine problems of a fantasy kingdom (griffon attacks, uppity giants, etc). Also, their leadership qualifies more towards the 'competent' as opposed to 'pants-on-head' style we usually see in fantasy settings. Instead they keep accurate records, have specialists, and generally try to quash problems before they get to 'ravening legion of undead.'
Presented with somewhat reasonable evidence of a potential problem, the Governments of the Nations of my world would send in people to investigate and then respond with what they feel is enough force to resolve the problem if they have it available. In short, they do their job of keeping their citizenry safe. They obviously can't be everywhere though.
The world economy is also closer to late rennissance with free trade, well fed people pretty much everywhere (that whole functional nation-state thing again), and taxes and bueracracy. There's only a few really malevolent nation states, one of them is basically an anarchy and only really is a threat to people living there, and another is an imperialist totalitarian society like a bastard child of imperial china, feudal japan and soviet russia, but while oppressive its not 0% percent approval rating oppressive and it really can't be 'fixed' by having a bunch of people storm in and kill the guy in charge.
Now I've had people in the past who have told me that I am 'quashing the players' and should adopt a more Elder Scrolls approach where the past player actions come to naught and improvements don't actually improve anything, and countries shouldn't be able to do things and should 'forget' things that should be blisteringly obvious to them, but that seems kind of like bad world design to me.
I've also been told that this sort of thing 'denigrates monsters' and 'diminishes the specialness of characters.' Apparently some find it offensive that griffons might be taken out with massed arrow fire, or dragons might avoid settlements for concerns over having cannons turned on them.
This being said, the real reason I'm asking is this...
Should the world require the PCs to function? Does the 'true' gaming experience require a world where the only people capable of fixing anything above CR5 is the PCs? Do we need to have kings and councillors who have single digit hit dice, and armies composed almost exclusively of people who consider taking Power Attack a capstone of their lives? Is it really so bad if the military knows how to deal with things in its world like dragons, legions of the undead, or the like?
And if so, why would anyone live in a kingdom that couldn't feed or protect them against the genuine threats in the world?
I assume by "PC" you mean "people with power/aptitude similar to your players' characters."
The way I look at my world, it's FILLED with PCs. Every king, every general, every maniacal wizard, (almost) every soldier is a PC. Well, PC-equivalent, anyway. A player could "jump into the shoes" of any of these people and play a riveting game. My players are not alone in the world. There are adventurers around them, killing dragons, stopping goblin armies, etc. The campaigns I run are just one story of one set of these adventurers. If my current party of PCs dies, the world will not crumble around them. The kings are leaders of nations. The generals are leaders of armies. They got to those positions by being skilled in those areas. Whether or not my PCs are there does not affect their functioning.
Sometimes they're in over their heads. A small nation has risen in the east, and the king was chosen not because he is an awesome force to be reckoned with; he's king because they had no one better. But he's about to be invaded by an evil wizard's army of demons. He stands no chance on his own, so he hires adventurers (PCs) to help him.
In short, my world would continue functioning just fine without PCs. That fledgeling nation will probably fall without PC intervention, but nations rise and fall all the time. Players should feel their actions affect the world around them, but they should be reminded they are not the end-all-be-all of the world.
I hope I interpreted your question correctly!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The world that doesn't have pC's is called Sim City.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you could have one of those organized nations send the PCs (and colonists) off to explore a New World.
Well, you could have a kingdom that protects its people through hiring parties of heroic adventurers.
It seems odd that the entire world should be like this; our own planet has plenty of problems. Think of all the things that could go wrong, leading to chaos; droughts, overpopulation, charismatic and ambitious dictators, corrupt bureaucracies, deforestation, financial crashes, peasant revolts, demonic invasions, undead apocalypses, aberrations rising up from below the sea, magic accidents, asteroid strikes, floods, holy wars, rulers replaced by evil doppelgangers, etc. And are all the nations human? No kingdoms of orcs or hobgoblins or frost giants at war with the world?
Anyway, if your players are happy, fine. If they're not, either invent a crisis to shake things up or start a new campaign setting.
I play in this campaign where everything pretty much runs on its own and that the world doesn't really need my character. I was tasked with walking to a shop and purchasing milk from the shopkeep. At the time, some baddie was causing a ruckus nearby but the town authorities seemed to have it well in hand. I walked back with my milk successfuly.
Are the people who are telling you about all the quashing, denigrating and diminishing the same people who play in your campaign world?
|
|
I assume by "PC" you mean "people with power/aptitude similar to your players' characters."
Thats how my world works actually. Countries have heroes and important leaders and the sort. None of the PC-class NPCs sit on their butts just waiting for a group to show up to fix things they can fix themselves, but political issues, or simple feasibility issues don't let say the 17th level wizard go cleaning out every group of rebel kobolds, or frying every Nascent Necromancer.
But in this case its been people saying that having anyone who is 1.) Not an opponent and 2.) not player controlled, over a certain level, represents 'quashing the specialness' or something. Essentially positing that unless the world is more akin to 'points of light,' it somehow renders the players moot.
That being said, there's no shortage of things for my players to do, or awesome actions for them to undertake. Essentially its a situation where if they fail though, the world is going to be in for a serious kick in the pants, but its unlikely it won't survive. Essentially them stopping the undead army today means that thousands of people don't need to expend their lives stopping it a year from now.
PCs /matter/, but I just don't see why the mindset exists that indicates that nothing can be accomplished positively /or even maintained/ without a player doing it.
And yeah, my players tend to be 100% ok with it because well...they still matter, its their story after all. They have things to do, and monstersr to fight and they don't object to the fact that other people in the world are chasing their own BBEGs or stopping their own apocalypses. Like me, they seem to believe (they've told me), that this just makes the world feel more alive.
But those on the outside looking in tend to kvetch about my world being 'anti-fun' or anti-specialness or something. I mostly wanted to see where that mindset might arise from (and bolster my self-esteem).
|
|
It seems there is a strong world-builder trend that crushes the story teller trend. When you start a game you focus on the world. The PCs are just people who inhabit it. Another way of doing it is thinking about telling a story where the PCs are the main characters. In this approach the world exists to be a story element. You can obviously mix the two if you have a strong existing setting, but if you can't find a place for a story in your campaign world then you should toss it or at the very least shake it up. If you have players who are used to an established way of things in the world in can be great to shake them up by changing everything. "Hey, the bar we used to hang out in is now in a demonic wasteland..."
A) Governments infiltrated - spy type plots with intrigue
B) Invasion from another world causes worldwide havok
C) Peace actually comes from insidious Mind Flayer plot turning humanity in to easily controlled cattle
In my case, the campaign world has grown due to player action.
PCs floating around from numerous campaigns over the years, helping people out, teaching things and so on have contributed to an overall cosmopolitan world. The world's got organizations, people and Governments that have lasted through various cycles of the World Ending Evil From Before style bad-guy that they sort of pay very, very good attention. Also while not malevolent, the nations generally aren't really...pals, with one another.
There are frontiers, pirates on the oceans, and bandits in places on the highway. Crime wasn't quashed out, but there's not really situations like 'we don't go into those mountains because there's a stone giant tribe,' rather the tribe gets taxed, gets citizenry, or gets itself locked up/wiped out. I've actually played this as resulting in civilization slowly 'defeating' certain humanoids (orcs are verging on dying out, kobolds are surging like crazy because of not dying to random monster related illnesses) and generally the kobolds or orcs you find in a cave are in the cave because they're atavistic (true orcs live in their own excrement and hit rocks!) or criminal (so no orc baby situations).
And there are smaller nascent states, which already have the bigger dogs baying at them. I introduced them specifically to give myself some small island states to play with, but I tend to play these up as being relatively new and for the most part over-grown towns as opposed to 'kingdoms.'.
Government infiltration is always a concern, the bueracracies needed to run the states are large, but the high level folks who float around actually care about them. I've yet to have PCs who don't 'become part of the system' be it in terms of merchant houses, joining royalty, or becoming high ranking church figures. And just like there are past high level PCs kicking around, high level NPCs are just as active.
Essentially thats another 'problem' the people who've said I'm 'quashing' have with how I run some things too. My High Level NPCs act and reason like High Level PCs.
The world that doesn't have pC's is called Sim City.
Which, appropriately, tends to crash and burn in the end.
lol I had a friend who gm'd a world like once. He ran 2 sessions in it simultaneously. Evil party ran on friday; good party ran on saturday.
Neither knew about the other group :P
Every once in a while I read something on here that blows my mind in the best possible way and I just yell out "FIFTY-FOUR!" like that dude in the sonic commercial
|
|
The evil campaign idea has been suggested, but I've never been a huge fan of the 'break stuff,' style PCs.
Also, I don't think it needs 'fixing.' :/
I'm still trying to understand why I was accused of being well, an evil quasher of fun just for having a world like it in the first place.
Its something I'm having trouble grokking.
|
Allot of settings have people who can settle problems, and many major cities can defend themselves I find its in shattering this perception, of a dragon who finds his or her way around the cities vaunted cannon fire that makes heroes feel heroic. Basically think along the lines of let them feel safe and secure as they deal with low level threats than when they least expect it absolutely shatter any sense of safety they have in the world as they know it.
Man srsly who are these people who are kvetching and accusing and such?
Are they just random folks walking by your table?
Are they people on this forum?
Are they players?
You keep talking about this static you're getting but I don't even understand where it is coming from.
If you are happy and your players are happy then there is no issue but you seem really unhappy about their opinion and what they think but we don't know who they are.
|
|
Man srsly who are these people who are kvetching and accusing and such?Are they just random folks walking by your table?
Are they people on this forum?
Are they players?You keep talking about this static you're getting but I don't even understand where it is coming from.
If you are happy and your players are happy then there is no issue but you seem really unhappy about their opinion and what they think but we don't know who they are.
Other DMs, other DM's players, people who've read my campaign world guide, or heard my players discuss it.
Its been a long term thing ever since the transition to 3rd.
Me and my players are content, so its an academic issue. I want to figure this out.
I find that many gamers feel differently about the scope of games. Some expect the entire world to hinge on the actions of he party, perhaps over and over again. Others have the opposite expectation, and can become annoyed when their characters pass by more mundane tasks and are constantly called upon to save the world. If a gamer who wants to be at the center of the world finds themselves in a setting like yours, they're likely to be unsatisfied.
Personally, I happen to like the scope of the adventure paths I'm currently involved with, Kingmaker and Skull & Shackles. In both, the PCs start out with responsibilities appropriate to 1st level characters, then slowly work their way up to being significant on the world stage, yet never to the position of "What are we saving the world from today, Tom?"
>>>-------------->
My experiences with ongoing homebrew settings is that the GMs who use them sometimes over-emphasize their favorite NPCs in a way that can make current PCs feel insignificant. I've certainly had the dubious honor of meeting many kings and wizened wizards with whom my GM was enamored, and rarely did it add to my enjoyment of a game. I don't know if you have that tendency or not, but there's an easy way to tell. The next time your players meet an NPC you feel an attachment to, ask yourself these questions:
- Who is in control of this scene, the NPC or the PCs?
- Who is talking more, the NPC or the PCs?
- In this scene, who is more impressive, the NPC or the PCs?
|
|
I find that many gamers feel differently about the scope of games. Some expect the entire world to hinge on the actions of he party, perhaps over and over again. Others have the opposite expectation, and can become annoyed when their characters pass by more mundane tasks and are constantly called upon to save the world. If a gamer who wants to be at the center of the world finds themselves in a setting like yours, they're likely to be unsatisfied.
Personally, I happen to like the scope of the adventure paths I'm currently involved with, Kingmaker and Skull & Shackles. In both, the PCs start out with responsibilities appropriate to 1st level characters, then slowly work their way up to being significant on the world stage, yet never to the position of "What are we saving the world from today, Tom?"
>>>-------------->
My experiences with ongoing homebrew settings is that the GMs who use them sometimes over-emphasize their favorite NPCs in a way that can make current PCs feel insignificant. I've certainly had the dubious honor of meeting many kings and wizened wizards with whom my GM was enamored, and rarely did it add to my enjoyment of a game. I don't know if you have that tendency or not, but there's an easy way to tell. The next time your players meet an NPC you feel an attachment to, ask yourself these questions:
- Who is in control of this scene, the NPC or the PCs?
- Who is talking more, the NPC or the PCs?
- In this scene, who is more impressive, the NPC or the PCs?
Self-auditing is really, really tricky. I imagine not just for me but everyone.
The answers though, from what I see are...
The PCs tend to be equally important to how scenes play out as the NPCs (this is dependant on level and the like. They always seem to feel like they can /do/ something at least, and what they do matters.)
The PCs talk more.
As for more impressive, I can't really say. If what you mean is 'do I have some wizard show up and fling fireballs around to solve their problems while acting cool' I don't do that, if you mean stuff like 'the PCs occasionally hear of NPCs doing impressive stuff' then yes. I try to keep the focus on the character action while avoiding too many 'cut-scenes.' Game's about the PCs after all.
I personally try to keep my NPCs varied and functional. Having one show up in a session just to have the players be intended to gape at him, is a bit on the side of well, lets just say a DM who does that too much will go blind.
That being said, having the heroes see what it means when an epic level character throws down, or watching an NPC of their equivalent level fighting just as hard as they do, can be useful in developing the characters and storyline. It also enables the players to not feel like they can't relax, or that without them around everything is going to go to hell. At least in my opinion.
I've generally found my players like seeing that the world keeps cranking when they aren't doing something, that people have ambitions and lives outside of what they do, and that the people on their side are just as tough as the one on the enemy side. As opposed to the Gygaxian nonsense where the world seems to have a glut of high level evil clerics out doing things, but only like 3 good aligned ones, and they all sit and molder in dark rooms waiting to raise PCs.
That being said I have found that other DMs, players in other games, and people my players speak to, tend to comment that I'm 'doing things wrong' by having leaders who do things, and by in a few situations having local authorities, enemies, or other NPCs beat the PCs to an objective if they dawdle too long.
My summary of your answers:
- Who is in control of this scene, the NPC or the PCs? Not the PCs
- Who is talking more, the NPC or the PCs? PCs
- In this scene, who is more impressive, the NPC or the PCs? Not the PCs
That being said, having the heroes see what it means when an epic level character throws down, or watching an NPC of their equivalent level fighting just as hard as they do, can be useful in developing the characters and storyline.
Useful in developing which characters? The PCs? Players don’t need to see epic level NPCs throw down. They know that powerful people are powerful. “Seeing” and “Watching” really aren’t valid RPG elements after about ten seconds. “You see the giant idol start to fall, what do you do?” is great, but, seriously, about ten seconds of “watching” is reasonable.
It also enables the players to not feel like they can't relax, or that without them around everything is going to go to hell.
They’re playing Pathfinder to be the heroes - the people who save the day. They’re not playing to watch other people save the day.
Imagine your favorite action movie. Nobody says things like, “This movie would be much better if someone other than the main character busted out of jail in the sixth scene” or “After he rescued the little boy, they really should have had the hero take a week off. I think a couple scenes of him on vacation in Malabu would have been more fun that that helicopter chase.”
That being said I have found that other DMs, players in other games, and people my players speak to, tend to comment that I'm 'doing things wrong' by having leaders who do things, and by in a few situations having local authorities, enemies, or other NPCs beat the PCs to an objective if they dawdle too long.
Woah! In “a few” situations? As in, more than two? Yes, if NPCs are beating PCs to objectives, then you’re probably doing something wrong. Also, what do you mean by “dawdle”? If you mean playing their characters as they would like to, then that’s not dawdling, that’s playing.
I hate to say this, but I’m fairly certain you’re doing that thing. The thing that makes a lot of players avoid playing in GMs “pet settings”. You may have become more attached to the setting and the NPCs in it than you are to the PCs. Have you ever been a player with a GM who has a pet setting? It can really suck if the GM isn’t very careful to make the story all about the PCs.
Go back and read your original post. You spent more than half describing your setting, but didn't mention a single PC or adventure.
Should there be competent NPC leaders in politics, the military, etc? Yes, of course! But there also should be incompetent ones, human nature being what it is. And in a society in which Joe automatically becomes the Duke of Dunagon because his dad (the former Duke) has kicked the bucket, there's even more opportunities for incompetent leadership than in our own society.
Should there be high-level people besides the PCs? Again, yes. But while there should be NPCs that are more powerful than the PCs, even starting PCs should be better than the common run. The PCs are people with the potential to go far.
Should nations/organizations/leaders keep records so that they can learn from their experiences? Absolutely! But records can be lost or destroyed, many folks can't write, and the transmission of information from place to place is inefficient and chancy. A world without mass communication is very different from ours.
I'm all for giving verisimilitude to the game world. That includes the world not regularly being on the verge of blowing up unless the PCs save it, and someone else taking care of an adventure hook that PCs are in no hurry to bite on. But part of verisimilitude is that terrible things do happen. In games like D&D or Pathfinder, the PCs should get a chance to make a difference, one way or the other.
|
|
Right. Terrible things /do/ happen, but its not along the lines of the PCs being the /only thing/ capable of halting them.
Players are still relevant. I admit part of this posting is me trying to understand why people seem to have trouble acknowledging their characters can matter without being the only thing that does.
Also, Wow, Blueluck. You're forcing me to try to learn how to work the quotes system. :)
Useful in developing which characters? The PCs? Players don’t need to see epic level NPCs throw down. They know that powerful people are powerful. “Seeing” and “Watching” really aren’t valid RPG elements after about ten seconds. “You see the giant idol start to fall, what do you do?” is great, but, seriously, about ten seconds of “watching” is reasonable.
Yeah, the PCs. In this circumstance it was watching a recording of an epic level wizard, an NPC from a past game, blasting an atropal with some high end epic level magic. It resulted in the player deciding he wanted to acquire said powers on his own since he reasoned if it can be used to par-broil something like an atropal, it might help cleanse his homeland.
Also, the party has enjoyed getting into political manuevering against a high level gunslinger who's defacto leader of a country who's proven an on-again off-again ally/antagonist.
They’re playing Pathfinder to be the heroes - the people who save the day. They’re not playing to watch other people save the day.
Imagine your favorite action movie. Nobody says things like, “This movie would be much better if someone other than the main character busted out of jail in the sixth scene” or “After he rescued the little boy, they really should have had the hero take a week off. I think a couple scenes of him on vacation in Malabu would have been more fun that that helicopter chase.”
Right, but it also prevents the Chronic Heroism problem where a hero feels like he /can't/ have an evening at the inn or else some other place is going to burn down. A recent plot arc featured a siege. The players were competent the defenders (who consisted of a large number of normal folks, and about as many levelled folks as composed their party) could defend the main area while they went to deal with other problems.
The NPC's not being useless lambs against threats that challenge the PCs let the PCs go and do something else without feeling like they were in a lose-lose situation.
Woah! In “a few” situations? As in, more than two? Yes, if NPCs are beating PCs to objectives, then you’re probably doing something wrong. Also, what do you mean by “dawdle”? If you mean playing their characters as they would like to, then that’s not dawdling, that’s playing.
I hate to say this, but I’m fairly certain you’re doing that thing. The thing that makes a lot of players avoid playing in GMs “pet settings”. You may have become more attached to the setting and the NPCs in it than you are to the PCs. Have you ever been a player with a GM who has a pet setting? It can really suck if the GM isn’t very careful to make the story all about the PCs.
Yes, during a prior campaign, one of the core ethics was recapturing a large quantity of McGuffins. The campaign had something like 12 factions (and the PCs) vying for them and competing against one another. They'd frequently arrive in areas either after two other groups had arrived, or while they were still there, or even in one case arrived right after the enemy had got there (and gotten through most of the traps) because thats how the timeline went.
The groups in that campaign didn't work at speed of PC, so the players felt a lot more involved in making sure they took care of things, prioritized, and strategized. And in some cases, allied groups assisted them in this.
A story is about the PCs, this doesn't mean that everything important ever needs to be done on camera, or by them, at least not in my opinion. But that probably ties into my 'quashing,' thing. I don't see it that way but I'm enjoying seeing the opposing opinions. :)
Go back and read your original post. You spent more than half describing your setting, but didn't mention a single PC or adventure.
If the post was TLDR before, it'd be even worse if I included all that..
But, a few examples.Player characters have released deities.
They have literally made physical changes to the world (whole new nations showing up, areas literally being made to disappear).
They've interfered with politics at the highest level of various countries.
They've founded merchant organizations, revivified failing economies.
They've defeated elder evils, and brought order to things.
And every campaign is built on the shoulders of the PCs who came before.
My campaign world's so not-dysfunctional /because/ of player action in the past. Past characters deciding their noble house would make sure their descendants didn't forget things.
PCs who assisted countries and took precautions to make sure /their/ repositories didn't turn into forgotten ruins in the middle of nowhere.
PCs who destroyed the evils instead of sealing them.
Even now I've got a player group trying to put an end to a millennia long war, reform a land quite literally ruined by evil, change their society's outlook on things, and deal with the machnations of evil gods.
Its why I've always found it odd that I'm supposedly quashing player importance, just because the town guard doesn't /need/ the PCs to handle a bunch of ogres.
The evil campaign idea has been suggested, but I've never been a huge fan of the 'break stuff,' style PCs.
Also, I don't think it needs 'fixing.' :/
I'm still trying to understand why I was accused of being well, an evil quasher of fun just for having a world like it in the first place.
Its something I'm having trouble grokking.
Because when you describe the bullet points of the campaign world, it doesn't sound dynamic or interesting. The way you DESCRIBE it, it sounds like all the major problems have been solved.
Try describing the parts where tension is happening and there is a great potential for calamity.
For me, the best descriptions of campaign settings always describe the dangerous parts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A good setting for adventuring is Ye Olde Worlde Gonne Madde! With One Thousande Elephantes! Seriously, there needs to be conflict, and not just stuff that can be "killed away", you need huge, sweeping conflict without clear answers.
Being grown up on Forgotten Realms: There are a few havens of civilization, where the lighter forces of the world hold sway: Waterdeep, Cormyr, Silverymoon, Sembia, Aglarond... these do work, and well, but there has never been a time their existence could be taken for granted. The rest is a time-lapse photograph of dragon flights, monster incursions, orc hordes, religious wars, tyranny, mage wars, conspiracies, and so on and so forth. Civilization has tried time and time again to change this, to little avail. Given this, what a band of adventurers can provide is (barely) to let light hold on a little further, perhaps create a new haven somewhere. I did not see this at first, but once I went back to look at it, I realized how pitch-dark the prospects were and had been all along.
Now, if your world doesn't work that way, you need to either subject it to a few truly massive WSEs, like a world war followed by a cataclysm of some sort followed by a reshaping of magic, or you need to move forward or backward in time to find a better time for adventuring. If the problems are fixed, let your heroes understand that the current prosperity was due to their work, their thoughts, and their sacrifices, but move on.
In the real world, it's not necessarily as simple as "smart leadership means the country is safe". People have made incredibly dangerous and stupid decisions despite being unquestionably smart and competent. Without open conflict, the relationships between countries can change pretty quickly. Take your imperialist evil country, for example, and decide on a new method for them to provide a service for the other countries, one that the others grow dependent on over time. Suddenly, criticizing the evil country becomes dangerous and rare. Good nations see their leaders compromise with their consciences to make their countries withstand crises. If large military treaties exist, massive wars can happen pretty quickly, and negotiations will break down faster than anyone believed possible. Propaganda can change public perception of a foreign population easily. Many among the forces of good may decide to isolate themselves rather than take an active hand in what they see as an immoral war. And so on. It doesn't take evil, no plan is needed, and so on. Things can f+@! up pretty easily anyway.
|
|
Should the world require PCs? On some level, sure.
Does it have to follow a specific other person's or group's idea of what that requirement should be, or how it should be presented? Um, NO. As long as you and your group are happy with what your game is like, keep going!
This system seems to run on the idea of a world needing heroes on some level. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of PCs IRL, in the world we live in.
Will post properly soon, a fascinating topic.
Agree with jeff, you've got to have things to do.
Another problem with the established states and everything is okay setting, is that it can actually be very boring. D&D is often simulating dark ages or ancient world in theme (others have noted this, with the barbs, pagan gods, giant temples and badlands, dnd is very ancient world) very dangerous, very risky, bands of armed folk can do and effect a lot. Not even factoring in magic, which has a lot of power potential.
Now renaissance sounds good, the renaissance may be an interesting setting, but if it is too safe, if don't worry peasant, the government has got this, then there can be a lack of real adventures for the pcs to engage in. Unless they are agents of the crown, sanctioned army units, but those games can be very common and can lead to player fatigue (yay we go on another spec ops mission which was chosen for us by our higher ups).
Another thing with renaissance high magic, as I've seen it, you might want to be careful about making it too high magic. If everyone has it, if it is used everywhere, it ceases to be special. Oh you want to get a magic sword? Sure, there are three magic crafters in this village.
:|
Now on the potential of the party I like to have things make sense, strange in a fantasy game I know. So there are plenty of low levels, but not that many actually at 4. Some didn't make it, some settled after their brief heroics "I've got the hoard from the troll and I am settling down." If people have a drive and reason, they will get into the mid levels. These are serious contenders, and will be dangerous. They aren't mooks, but they are not all over the place.
Orthodox so far yeah? Well here is where I make some modifications, states, churches and what have you, they will have some mid levels at their call, some will be serving the state, in senior positions, there may be jobber teams or problem solvers. The problem is, having gamed a lot I have observed that when players get power, real power, they do not liked to be bossed around, they want some control and they do not want to serve unless it is essential to the character concept.
So high levels? Well now, that is a funny thing. You will get a few wedded to power but most of the really high levels will be independent, with no fixed allegiance. They are too powerful to be puppets. Now I've seen some dms put high powered spellcasters into a state or kingdom, and they reconcile greed with the individualism of being a super hero. For me it doesn't make much sense, when you are so much more powerful than the majority, you would either go for lording over others and taking power (fighter or barbarian lords), or you would go for isolationism (wizards in towers) or constant adventuring and problem solving (not only helping one political entity because then you would be beholden to them, and your adventuring options would dry up over time), or they settle into orthodox power (you are promoted paladin) or join the economy good and properly, crafters and such.
Powerful spellcasters especially, I cannot see them really aligning with a kingdom and not keeping their independence. They have a lot of options and if they groom the next gen, they can ensure they always have a lot of oompf. If they are running missions for the crown, if they are following orders, research, training and leisure time (I teleport to this fine spot) could be seriously dampened.
Which is why spellcasters I often put them separate to, but not always contrary to existing states. Hidden lodges, research dungeons, churches that are the dominant power of a region but not seeking too much conflict.
That is just some of the ways I've done it, I try not to make the authorities too strong, but if the pcs were to fight them they would get taken out after causing a lot of losses, unless they are extremely high level, in which case they are the terrors of the age, and rightly too.
P.S What I also do, is I make the lawful npcs strong in the centre of a powerful state, but weaker in the rural areas or frontiers. On the edges, the chaotics and neutrals are stronger level wise, and it is they that keep the monsters at bay and safeguard their region.
There need to be things for the PCs to do. At low levels that may translate into "The village needs PCs". At high level into "The world needs PCs".
In a more sandboxy game, the PCs may have more of their own goals and not the players may not want to be distracted by needing to save the world.
I tend to prefer campaigns where, for one reason or another, the PCs are the only ones who can save the day. That may be because they really are special or just because they were the ones in the right place at the right time to become aware of the threat and be able to deal with it.
Sandbox easily allows the pcs to build their own power structures and establish a hold over a region.
Right place right time can be great, those missions where no matter how established and powerful something is, by acting now and succeeding, the world actually changes. Those are brilliant, I like to throw them in.
Some examples:
Help a warrior clan re-take a territory from rebels or another faction.
Release rust monsters into the armoury of a major fortress, thus turning the tide of a war. Some weeks later the castle is taken by another faction.
Killing someone important, perhaps by accident setting a gigantic series of events into motion.
The pcs are the perfect counter to an existing despot or monster threat. Others have been chewed up good and proper.
Able to make some rp choices and push an ideology or belief forward and over a region, or, drive something unwelcome right back (Hellknights shattered in an area and taking one of their castles).
A high cr monster that reproduces quickly when feasting upon peasants, is released by a pc because they left a dungeon door open.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the PC's world doesn't need them, then what's the point of even playing?
Example 1 - 2nd Darkness - broke down, to one extent or another, because the Elves of Kyonin could have dealt with the whole thing. They were represented as needing the PC's, but not, at exactly the same time. The adventure works only as long as the party wants it to. They can walk away at anytime. It is not unreasonable to think that the Elves would then use their own resources to resolve the issue.
Example 2 - Kingmaker - without the PC's, there is no game. The PC's direct world (their fledgling Kingdom) needs them. No one is going to save the player's Kingdom for them. They're either gonna be swallowed up by neighboring countries or something else. What {spoilers) doesn't matter, the point is that the PC's have a direct interest where no one else in Golarion really does.
Well, are you're PCs adventurers or heroes? There's a difference. In the original D&D campaigns, Blackmoor and Greyhawk, the PCs were adventurers. They weren't out to save the world, they were out for fortune and glory. They drove the action, especially in Blackmoor, were some of the PCs took up the roles of the bad guys in the setting. However as D&D was published some people took their inspiration from heroic fantasy like Lord of the Rings. D&D had creatures from Lord of the Rings, yes, but originally it was more inspired by sword and sorcery like Conan and Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. So some of the new guys started to take their games in different directions, which came to dominate the D&D game with Dragonlance and 2nd Edition. Both playstyles are valid, but they are different, though they can certainly overlap.
So, what's the point of this history lesson? Well adventurers need opportunities to seek fortune and glory, like treasure-filled ruins. Heroes need opportunities to be heroic, which means there must be something to strive against, like diabolical villains. Whether the world should require the PCs depends on who the PCs are.