I was hoping to get some insight on how people have handled leadership roles in their campaigns... Obviously it's still a party-related thing, but have most groups allowed the ruler to have actual, absolute decision making on all regards (like an actual leader of a kingdom would), or have you done more delegation? It makes sense to me to have it be that each leadership position *should* have exclusive control of how they handle their role, and the ruler handles any unfilled roles (by ordering NPC decisions) and obviously his own ruler decisions, as well as veto any *really* extreme measures taken by other leadership roles.
However, our group started out kind of humoring the ruler to do whatever, just because it was good fun... But it has more turned into a railroading of whatever his decision is goes, and disagreeing with him means he'll just fire you and have someone else fill the role (which is how it would go IRL, but obviously isn't fun for any person disagreeing with the ruler). He also exclusively decides what to do with the money, since an NPC is the treasurer. He's stepped into *every* sentencing/punishment scenario (since obviously only the high-profile cases are ever going to be RP'd), but this essentially makes the royal enforcer, marshall, or warden a non-role outside of the numbers it adds. We haven't gone to war yet, but he and the general have disagreed in every other council vote we've had, so I'm sure there will be overruling on army/war decisions. We've had a character who's made a couple bad rolls on things get removed from his role twice and put into a new role. And because the ruler has a different outlook and alignment than the other characters, there is always at least some disagreement on how to handle scenarios, but obviously he's overruled any decision that isn't his own. We also allow him to keep all the good items, because the ruler *should* be getting the most expensive items (although obviously he should be being gracious in the gifting of items to subordinates)... But so far he has maintained the 4? maybe 5 most expensive magic items received so far outside of a spellbook he couldn't use, and we've gone along with it because I mean, yeah, we need to keep him alive as our #1 priority and these will all help... There hasn't been any outward contention to this point yet, because he really isn't doing it maliciously, we're all just still on board with the humoring him aspect of it, but it is starting to get a little old now that we're getting later in the campaign and leadership roles and decisions are actually starting to have some impact...
Again, i'm just trying to get an idea of how you guys have handled leadership roles, and if anyone has been able to turn around the railroad-y aspect of any ruler characters if it's gotten that far, whether that player was tyrannical or whether it was more accidental.
Thank you!
EDIT: And yes, he and I are the two who disagree the most, simply because we're quite different people and both hold to our opinions pretty unwaveringly. But in a group function we've often found compromises or taken turns backing off and letting the other do their thing. However, now that we've established the kingdom and he's the "ruler," it's essentially impossible to disagree with him or even compromise on disagreements.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A good leader at a gaming table should gather a sense of the meeting and then make a decision, then listen to complaints which will hopefully be rare since the decision was taken with everyone's concerns in mind.
With the power dynamic at your table previously having been split between the 2 of you, it's tragic that either of you became King. You should have selected a more neutral PC and then he would have acted as the arbiter between the 2 of you, making sure everything's fair and considered.
Now you have to advocate your decisions politely.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: A good leader at a gaming table should gather a sense of the meeting and then make a decision, then listen to complaints which will hopefully be rare since the decision was taken with everyone's concerns in mind.
With the power dynamic at your table previously having been split between the 2 of you, it's tragic that either of you became King. You should have selected a more neutral PC and then he would have acted as the arbiter between the 2 of you, making sure everything's fair and considered.
Now you have to advocate your decisions politely.
I intentionally avoided the leadership position, because I knew there would be problems with it. We're just too extremely different. We played a wrath of the righteous campaign and had a captive soldier of the demon army. After hours of interrogation he gave us some information finally, although it was information we already knew. The other pc argued that since he gave us information he should be freed, I argued that he's literally one of the worst people on the planet since he voluntarily was serving a demon army and attempting to destroy all life on this plane, so we should give him a summary trial and execution. He was let go, with his weapons, *and* the other guy gave him 50gp so that he "wouldn't need to rob anyone to survive." It's moral insanity in this group
Maybe you two should play each others characters for one game session. Just to try to get a diffent perception of things.
If you were playing his character with the same morals and life goals and he was playing your character the same way - Perhaps both of you would come out wiser.
In my Kingmaker campaign, there was an understanding that although one of the player characters was the ruler, the players all had an equal voice in decisions concerning the kingdom, and that worked out just fine for us.
Perhaps that would work for your group, but I suspect it might not.
You might consider proposing a more 'formal' version of this. The 'fluff' names of the Kingdom roles don't necessarily have to equate to the mechanics, and fluff names that convey a more equal balance between the PCs might work out better. Prime Minister, Minister of War, Foreign Minister, Minister of Magic, etc. might be examples that would convey a more balanced feel.
It might also help to consider that historically nations that are Kingdoms often the King doesn't have unlimited power. Even when there isn't a legal bar to them firing whoever they want, there are often practical considerations (such avoiding a rebellion or angering a major religion) preventing that sort of thing.
I'm missing some serious context here. Are we talking about the party leader or the leader of a state? Is the "ruler" a party member or an NPC?
If this is Kingmaker-specific, you might have better luck in the forum specific to that adventure path. In my experience, most non-Kingmaker games don't have this dynamic, and I doubt I'm the only person reading this thread who hasn't played the AP in question (or at least not far enough for this to make sense).
this is in regards to the Leadership Roles subsection of the Kingdom Building section of the rules. I'll post a link to the d20pfsrd below. These were the rules made for Kingmaker, but they apply to any other kingdom building setting as well. This specific instance is Kingmaker though.
It's more a question of how do you reconcile the concept that 'the party members should have equal say and everyone should be having fun' with 'here is a party member who has a dictatorial leadership role (whether he chooses to be benevolent or not, still the exclusive "executive decision maker" role)'
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/kingdom-building/
So yes it's the "leader of a state," as a PC, and the other PCs are also "leaders of the state." It's just that *one* of those leaders is the "Ruler"
RAWmonger wrote: I was hoping to get some insight on how people have handled leadership roles in their campaigns... Obviously it's still a party-related thing, but have most groups allowed the ruler to have actual, absolute decision making on all regards (like an actual leader of a kingdom would), or have you done more delegation? I think you should examine your core assumption here.
Actual historical examples of monarchs would inform you that they delegate, and are often beholden to, their advisers quite a lot.
Philip the II (Alexander the Great's father) had to engage in a lot of machinations in order to ensure he himself was king. After his death, Alexander had to do a lot of maneuvering and fighting in order to be recognized as undisputed king.
In addition, as Alexander conquered, he often utilized the previous administration to rule for him. He'd kill the enemy king, then just leave everything else as it was. He often installed a couple of his officers as his representative, but then below that officer would be the advisers and court officials who were there before Alexander took over.
If a king orders your execution, but the executioner just sits there... does the king's order matter? If the king draws his sword to kill you, and the executioner comes to your defense... is the king really in charge?
If you need more historical examples, I can provide them. All the way from Augustus to Stalin, every powerful ruler was backed by a lot of people who had a vested interest in maintaining the ruler's power. A few were ideological fanatics, but many found it advantageous to their own ends as well.
If a king is enriching himself at the expense of those who he needs to hold onto his kingdom... that's a recipe for being assassinated.
RAWmonger wrote:
It's more a question of how do you reconcile the concept that 'the party members should have equal say and everyone should be having fun' with 'here is a party member who has a dictatorial leadership role (whether he chooses to be benevolent or not, still the exclusive "executive decision maker" role)'
Well, now is the time to do some actual 'politics'. aka make some back door deals, form a coalition, and then inform the 'king' of your group consensus.
Contact the other players outside of game time. Have a character discussion where you bring up the idea that each of you joined the party as equal members and the King was selected by the party, put on the throne by the party, and is only in his position with the support of the party. The adventuring party is greater than the king, and greater than the council that supports his rule. As a matter of fact, its best members should be the party since the AP doesn't provide adventurer-grade NPCs unless your GM decided to improve them (NPC's best bonus should be +3).
Get people on board with having 'the talk' with the king to emphasize that he was put on the throne by the party, and that the party are his greatest supporters. As such, he needs to keep the party happy or he'll be removed from his position by the party. That is the great truth behind any ruler, and your 'king' needs to follow this too. If he keeps upsetting his supporters, he won't last in his position. And the first adaptation the party demands is that any expenditure of BP needs to be put to a high council vote. The high council consists of just the party members, including the king. The king gets the same number of votes as any other party member.
Don't get into an argument with the King. Make sure you've come to an agreement with everybody else, and stick to that agreement. If the King balks, then ask the other party members what they want to do about it. The King shouldn't get any say in this. He needs all of your support, and collectively the party can remove him. Make sure the player 100% understands this. And if he starts talking about treason, just look at him funny and say "who made you the boss? We did. And it looks like we made a mistake. If you can calm down you can help us decide who the next king will be. If you can't handle that, they you can leave. And if you can't handle that, I would rather not kill you, but I will if you want to fight about it. Don't make this ugly and stop being selfish and stupid."
Hopefully your King gets the clue early on in this conversation. But it doesn't sound like he will. Don't start with removing him, let him alienate everyone first before bring that up. It would be better to keep him as King, as long as he realizes that he is less important than the entire party.
|
