Being King is Problematic

[StoryKeeper]

In games, one of the coolest and most common goals I see for characters is to become the leader of an area be it king, lord, mayor, shaman, or whatever. Naturally, one would accumulate a number of people loyal to and willing to serve one's character by becoming king (or something similar.) The problem with this is that it simply doesn't work out very well in games.

If you have a swarm of level 1 NPCs who have to do what you say, and you send them to their deaths serving you, you're unlikely to continue being seen as a figure worth following. If you have reasonably powerful NPCs that can serve you and adventure with you, they can bog down the game by adding more characters to combat, and there's always the risk of being upstaged by the NPCs. If you don't take advantage of your various followers and never see them in game, it can be sort of difficult to feel like you're a king at all.

How do you handle this in games? Personally, I would try to convey to the player (perhaps speaking to them prior to the game) that their character is unusually powerful and thus the only one who is likely to be helpful with plot hook X, but how does everyone else deal with this? Also, how do you handle giving the player enough servants at a given level to make sure they feel like they're accumulating power and renown but not so many that they can just sick the tribe of halflings loyal to them on the dragons they're out to kill?

[EvilDM]

Ahh, being King. If you are running a realist world, nothing could be more boring.

Endless documents to sign, trivial decisions to be made, guests to entertain, appearances to make and minor decisions to be made. Why any heroic adventure would want that burden I'll never know. Becoming King as an adventurer is akin to a 22 year old couple finding out they are about to have quintuplets.

It sounds like you're most worried about higher level followers making adventures too easy, the key to preventing this is to keep the followers at home.

If the PC is out hunting dragons, who is watching over the Kingdom? Normally the most powerful and trusted follower. If the PC insists that this person joins them then there will be a power void at the top of the Kingdom, one that a powerful noble or monster might try to fill. Other powerful followers should have appointed spots in the Kingdom as well, such as leader of the Guard, Judges, Mayors, etc. If they are all called to battle what happens to the jobs they were supposed to be filling?

No Kingdom should be without enemies, what would one do if they got wind of most of the powerful people from the PC's Kingdom had left for the week? What would the local thieves guild do if they knew the castle treasury and the King's personal belongs were basically unguarded?

If the player wants to pull most of his followers off to hunt dragons, who is protecting the castle, towns and cities? How long will it take to get them all to the staging point, and at what cost? How many are sick or on leave? How many will stay to guard the Kingdom, and again what forces would take advantage of the weakened state? Dragons are intelligent creatures usually, what would they do if they saw an army approaching their lair?

I wouldn't stop the PCs from using their followers as they see fit, but I would have them wondering next time if its actually worth it to bring them along.

[Coidzor]

There's a reason it's usually used to make PCs become NPCs.

[kaomera]

How do you handle this in games?

Every time it's actually come up in a game I've run the PCs have ditched the job after less than two sessions - in fact in my 1e AD&D games several times the PCs seized power just so they could make a single ruling / law and then abdicate. They even once abdicated in favor of the Duke they had just deposed - he would have sent his men after them, but they where pretty much all dead. In the players' defense they had given the Duke the chance to surrender power peacefully, but he and his men feared they would be strung up by an angry mob for some of his less popular policies if they where no longer in charge...

[TheCountAlucard]

Ruling is a lot easier when you have Bureaucracy and Socialize Charms.

[Lord Raziere]

and when your a Solar in general When in doubt, brainwash it, can't brainwash it? Kill it.

[Coidzor]

Ruling is a lot easier when you have Bureaucracy and Socialize Charms.

Also, fresh horses!

Or just a BRIAN BLESSED!

[Loki_42]

In my games, it's usually a nice non-dying way to retire a character. If it's not that, they usually continue adventuring and leave the actual ruling to a trusted NPC friend. If they did want to keep themselves in power, I would probably make things tricky by sending in assassin's, or keeping their troops occupied by making enemy nations declare war. Your soldiers can't very well fight off that dragon for you if their already fighting other people. Basically, I try to make active leadership a very undesirable and difficult option.

[Coidzor]

I believe the Kingmaker adventure path from Paizo has some thoughts on the matter, as well.

[Totally Guy]

One of the best games I ran was a one-shot featuring a newly crowned king of the dwarves as a player character. Unlike the Elven Prince, who was also a player character, he was in his home realm which netted him a lot of options to use his power.

The system was Burning Wheel. I believe it did things that supported me and my players in both being king and playing a game about it.

1) Circles:
King: "I know a soldier who can deal with this problem."
GM: "Ok roll circles. You are at a disadvantage as you outrank a soldier. If you fail the soldier you get will be a dirty racist and presume you want him to fight the elves instead of pursue the gnome."
King: :rolls dice: "Phew, I just succeed"
GM: "Cool what's the soldier's name?"

2) Abstracted resources. Even a king can't afford everything without help. It brings all the political contacts straight into the game and makes them matter.

3) Social mechanics. I opposed the dwarves with some elf players and the binding social mechanics allowed me to do that.

4) Beliefs ensure the king always is doing something. He's got problems just like everyone else he is rewarded for interacting with his stated issues.

5) If the game had been longer than a one shot the advancement system would have kicked in. He needs to roll dice in order to gain advancement on those skills he rolls.

[Conners]

You can't expect to use DnD rules with an army.... not unless you have a super computer to do it all for you.

If you want it to be DnD like, where one guy can kill unlimited commoners, unless he gets bored part way, then there's a problem there too--it's pointless to have an army in that case, you'd just try to get as many elite men as you could to act like an army.

Honestly, the world probably wouldn't have kings in the same way AT ALL if things were like this... consider the possibilities of an army of 1,000 being crushed by one man, when an army of 1,000 will cost you a fortune each day.

[Alleran]

Honestly, the world probably wouldn't have kings in the same way AT ALL if things were like this... consider the possibilities of an army of 1,000 being crushed by one man, when an army of 1,000 will cost you a fortune each day.

How much does the man doing the crushing charge for his services?

[Conners]

You'd need to bargain. Generally, though, there'd be a limit to how much gold you can spend--even if you have feasts every day and collect horses. If they were stupidly spend-thrift like, it could come to a lot.... but not as much as a large army will take, no way.

Plus, since you tend to draft farmers to get an army, your income and happiness and so forth will go down, by having one (less people to work). If you hire one guy, you still have farmers at home--making whatever his wages are a bit less painful.

[horngeek]

Your characters are ruling a nation? Plot hooks aplenty!

The DM can give the nation enemies, which can give combat encounters. Of course, you have to deal with the nobles (political campaign! ).

If all else fails, draw on stuff like Authurian myth. Although in real life it's now considered dumb, the leader can, of course, fight on the battlefield himself.

So, in summation: if a PC is king, the other PCs should ideally become key figures in government, and the running of the nation should be a major focus of the campaign.

[Steckie]

If all else fails, draw on stuff like Authurian myth. Although in real life it's now considered dumb, the leader can, of course, fight on the battlefield himself.

So, in summation: if a PC is king, the other PCs should ideally become key figures in government, and the running of the nation should be a major focus of the campaign.

You could make it a bit easier.
Don't make the party kings of an entire nation, but make them rule a city. Let them build a colony or a border settlement or fortress. They could be the complete masters of the city, but still need to venture out and do various quests, gather followers, destroy enemies,...
They are the rulers, but they need to have a 'hands on' approach to make the city prospers.
They could even recruit an army if they wanted, but they can't really use it since they need it to defend their city. And they need a lot of the party loot to build stuff or hire people.

All in all, it would make for a very fun campain. Perhaps for 3.5 or Pathfinder, on these forums. I would definatly want to play in a game like that. (That was a hint )

[Lord_Gareth]

How much does the man doing the crushing charge for his services?

Encounter-appropriate treasure, plus a little extra for the booze and hookers after.

[Emmerask]

In general I tell them that this will mean that they will become an npc if they really want their char to become king.

If they ask why I tell them their workload for the next week, it involves endless discussions with other nobles and diplomats, going on a ball, more discussions, a marriage of a greater noble, more discussions and decisions...

simply put being king and going on adventures just does not mix at all.

Of course we could play a political campaign, though I would change the system from d&d to pretty much anything else because d&d is the worst system imaginable for such a campaign ^^

[navar100]

Two campaigns ago my character became Duke of the Western Realm. I was aiming for Centurion, the "King", but DM fiat and personal desire to continue playing the character provided an Honorable Out for an NPC to become Centurion and me becoming Duke in good face.

It was near the end of the campaign, so there wasn't much interference. There was some political intrigue where Nobles of the Eastern Realm tried to make my best friend (another party member) join their ranks with an official Title. They probably thought I was a pushover because I acquiesced in not becoming Centurion. I pushed back. My friend joined my ranks with a Title then, to show I wasn't a pushover, I strictly enforced regulationg of caravan trades. Perishables and other needed supplies continued normally, but all less important goods and luxuries got delayed as every i needed to be dotted and t crossed. All legal, just delayed the caravans long enough to cause frustration until the Eastern Nobles apologized for their arrogance. Caused political enemies, of course, especially since one luxury caravan company went bankrupt. Fun.

For the most part, though, the campaign continued as normal. There was one point where I hired an adventuring group to take care of an issue down in the sewers. It was fun being the Patron who hired the adventurers for a change. The deed was important, but the party had more pressing matters to take care of. For the most part, being Duke was a roleplay shtick as party missions were important to national security anyway. My friend was Viscount and King of Thieves. The party wizard was Headmistress of the Wizard School. The Party Psion was Queen of a nation in the Underdark. The Barbarian/Warmind didn't have a title, but he didn't seem to mind. His personal character roleplay stuff was his own shtick, not politics.

As for the OP, it's fine for a player character to have a Title. However, I recommend that every party member have a Title or otherwise be Someone Important. If the paladin becomes King, the wizard is his Vizier. The cleric is the Pope. The rogue could be the Godfather. The paladin King may not like it, but he knows that no matter his beliefs, there will always exist scoundrels and thieves. The Godfather, while naturally reaping the rewards, in his position is at least able to keep it down to a dull roar, meaning crime is not rampant, the citizenry aren't harrassed, and the true Evil stuff of murder and slavery is not tolerated. That is what my Viscount/King of Thieves did where as my character, the Duke, was the Figurehead Pope for the Church of Justice. Being Duke, I couldn't have true authority over the Church but was recognized and respected as a High Cleric in the Church.

[Conners]

In general I tell them that this will mean that they will become an npc if they really want their char to become king.

If they ask why I tell them their workload for the next week, it involves endless discussions with other nobles and diplomats, going on a ball, more discussions, a marriage of a greater noble, more discussions and decisions...

simply put being king and going on adventures just does not mix at all.

Of course we could play a political campaign, though I would change the system from d&d to pretty much anything else because d&d is the worst system imaginable for such a campaign ^^

What, you think all kings were responsible? Look at the king from Game of Thrones, for a cartoonishly exaggerated example. A lot of times, Kings do what they want.

The stuff from cartoons, about the King sitting at a desk and signing lots of papers--not sure how historical that actually is.... For one thing, I doubt administration was repeatedly changing its policies. Kings would usually have to deal with politics, of course. But kings would go hunting, have feasts, fight in tournaments, and go to war--those were the main sources of fun you had back in the middle-ages.

[horngeek]

I think it likely that the king wouldn't have handled every little thing- constant changes to law and the signings that go with it would have been much rarer in the middle ages, leaving the king to mainly handle higher-level politics- namely, handling the nobles, and international politics.

[Conners]

Yeah. That probably included such things as attending weddings to honour the nobles. Letting nobles visit the king and stay in his castle for a while. Visiting nobles in the same manner. And keeping their interests in mind (as well as being diplomatic in general).

Even then, a lot o those things won't pop up often. Travel was very tiresome back then--of course, the King might often have a few nobles staying with him, whom he is expected to talk to. Typically, these would be the only sorts the King is allowed to associate with, so he probably wouldn't mind the company and conversation.

[navar100]

You can also go the Shakespeare route, where the PC as King goes undercover has an adventurer to see how the population likes the King's (his) rule and their general welfare.

[paladinofshojo]

Any realistic country won't just hand over its sovereignty to some outsider no matter how powerful he is.....at best he gets to marry the princess and become the "Prince Consort" for the future Queen......you aren't "made" royalty you are born into it.... That is not to say you don't get power, authority and privileges....you just don't get the fancy title like emperor or king..... This is why marrying into royalty is much easier for women than for men, since not only do their heirs become royalty, but they themselves also get titles equal to their husbands'.....

[Conners]

That is something of an exaggeration. A "King", is someone who has enough loyal people to call him, "your majesty". You probably also need to own a lot of land, and have nobles who are subservient to you, for it to count. Other than that, it doesn't matter.

So, killing the King in a duel within his castle, after killing hundreds of his guards might do it... Depends how much everyone liked their king, and how much they'd like you as a king. Nobles are almost sure to oppose you, if they don't think they'd just get killed (which you could convince them otherwise). You could make yourself out as a hero against an evil tyrant to the people, and claim that you have royal blood from some ancient days.

It's just a question of the circumstances, and playing against them properly. You don't have to be born a prince, to become a king.

[Crasical]

4e DnD has an Epic Destiny for a character that they come into at level 20 and end at level 30 that's called 'Legendary Sovereign', which basically gives you the Aragorn ending. By this point it's assumed that the plot has well and truly arrived, so that the players will be fighting off invasions and trying to stop the campaign's big bad instead of engaging in bureaucracy. Supposedly, enough peril is going on that no-one's really got a problem with this until either the DM ends the game, or you hit 30 and are encouraged to retire your new king. The 'immortality' section of the destiny, basically your character's epilogue, reads as thus:

"Upon completing your final quest, you ascend to the throne and begin your reign. For decades, your land flowers and your people prosper. Your victories shield your land from invasion and bring your ancestral enemies to their knees. Your descendants will mount the steps to your throne for centuries to come. When death comes for you at last, your tomb is a monument revered by your people."

So having a character become a ruler works fairly well as their 'retirement option', but as noted, having it happen mid-adventure is problematic.

[Conners]

Aragon is nothing so ludicrous as DnD level 20...

[paladinofshojo]

That is something of an exaggeration. A "King", is someone who has enough loyal people to call him, "your majesty". You probably also need to own a lot of land, and have nobles who are subservient to you, for it to count. Other than that, it doesn't matter.

And that is a bit of an oversimplification as well as an overgeneralization, I mean a petty warlord can have a loyal army, land, and nobles/officials beneath him, but that doesn't make him a king, since he's not part of an established monarchy.....moreover, the whole point of a monarchy is so that people inherit their stations, not earn them. If being a monarch has nothing to do with breeding then why has every monarch till the 20th century supported the idea that heredity gave them a divine right to rule? That's how monarchies have survived, since it perpetuated the myth that the ability to rule countries is something you are born with and not something that can be replicated.

So, killing the King in a duel within his castle, after killing hundreds of his guards might do it... Depends how much everyone liked their king, and how much they'd like you as a king. Nobles are almost sure to oppose you, if they don't think they'd just get killed (which you could convince them otherwise). You could make yourself out as a hero against an evil tyrant to the people, and claim that you have royal blood from some ancient days.

Unless the hero has legitimate proof of royalty (or even nobility is good enough) he will never be a legitimate king in the eyes of the ruling elite no matter how good his PR is. That's part of the reason why Napoleon was loathed by so many royals in Europe, for having the audacity to call himself an emperor even though he wasn't born into a royal family.....

You don't have to be born a prince, to become a king.

You have to have a great deal of noble blood to at least be considered in succession......

[Chilingsworth]

You can't expect to use DnD rules with an army.... not unless you have a super computer to do it all for you.

If you want it to be DnD like, where one guy can kill unlimited commoners, unless he gets bored part way, then there's a problem there too--it's pointless to have an army in that case, you'd just try to get as many elite men as you could to act like an army.

Honestly, the world probably wouldn't have kings in the same way AT ALL if things were like this... consider the possibilities of an army of 1,000 being crushed by one man, when an army of 1,000 will cost you a fortune each day.

possibly relevant:

[Knaight]

And that is a bit of an oversimplification as well as an overgeneralization, I mean a petty warlord can have a loyal army, land, and nobles/officials beneath him, but that doesn't make him a king, since he's not part of an established monarchy.....moreover, the whole point of a monarchy is so that people inherit their stations, not earn them. If being a monarch has nothing to do with breeding then why has every monarch till the 20th century supported the idea that heredity gave them a divine right to rule? That's how monarchies have survived, since it perpetuated the myth that the ability to rule countries is something you are born with and not something that can be replicated.

At some point, someone has to become king from a point where the system of governance is not a kingdom. A "petty warlord" with a loyal army and land can just declare himself king, and unless other established monarchies decide to crack down on this because of how it threatens the system of monarchy - which they might well do, because it really sets a terrible precedent. Moreover, in addition to this, a sufficiently powerful "petty warlord" can just depose an existing monarchy and declare themselves king. Sure, other monarchies are still an issue, and surviving heirs from the previous dynasty a bigger one, but it still happens. See William the Conqueror.

For that matter, the title "Emperor" is about equivalent to that of "King". Take a look at the Chinese dynasties, the transitions tended to be violent takeovers, particularly the Yuan and Manchu dynasties. Moreover, the whole divine right to rule in Europe was just as present in China - see something called the Mandate of Heaven, for a rough translation. Like in Europe, some people were often unhappy about certain people* calling themselves king - again, Yuan and Manchu are like this in particular. However, the amount people care tends to decrease as the dynasty gets more established.

*As a rule, this means people who had power under the previous administration and lose it under the new regime. Those who gain power probably approve of the regime change, and its not as if farmers are likely to care that much.

[Conners]

And that is a bit of an oversimplification as well as an overgeneralization, I mean a petty warlord can have a loyal army, land, and nobles/officials beneath him, but that doesn't make him a king, since he's not part of an established monarchy.....moreover, the whole point of a monarchy is so that people inherit their stations, not earn them. If being a monarch has nothing to do with breeding then why has every monarch till the 20th century supported the idea that heredity gave them a divine right to rule? That's how monarchies have survived, since it perpetuated the myth that the ability to rule countries is something you are born with and not something that can be replicated.

Unless the hero has legitimate proof of royalty (or even nobility is good enough) he will never be a legitimate king in the eyes of the ruling elite no matter how good his PR is. That's part of the reason why Napoleon was loathed by so many royals in Europe, for having the audacity to call himself an emperor even though he wasn't born into a royal family.....

You have to have a great deal of noble blood to at least be considered in succession......

Who does he need to establish his monarchy with? God? The whole world? Some Kings will have been considered by their enemies to be petty warlords--because "Warlord" and "King" is a blurred line.
To put it simply for all your warlord has to do: Arrange a ceremony, a crown, crown his son king--it is now an established monarchy (if the kid has to work with an unstable kingdom, however--it might be a short-lived monarchy).
Also, there's nothing really special about the inheritance system.... just about everyone did that, passing their trade to their sons (if your father was a carpenter, you were a carpenter, and your son will be a carpenter).

Well, if he honestly can't trick any the nobles of the realm, he isn't skilled enough or has picked a bad kingdom. Unless, of course, he can do it some other way (killing and replacing nobles, for example).
And look at how famous and successful Napoleon is! Heck, if he had been smarter, he would've taken over the world (attacking Russia in the winter... he may've read the Art of War, but he didn't understand it).

Just bribe the guy doing the blood-test .

possibly relevant:

I think that's mostly because Haley is an archer rogue, though? Also, they're about level 9 or 10 or something. Look at what Belkar does to the hob-goblins in a later comic, and you'll get the idea (also, the hobgoblins getting four attacks each before they die... doesn't add up, really).

EDIT: Notably, if you did have 1,000 attacks made on you, roughly 50 of them are likely to be nat 20s. If hobgoblins do 1d8+1 damage, that's an average of 250 damage in total--ignoring any critical hits, for simplicity.
So, it's just a question of whether the PC can manage to avoid 1,000 attacks being made on them... and if they're carrying a few potions of cure-serious-wounds (which might totally subvert the danger). Great-Cleave would also change things quite a bit--especially if you have reach.

-snip-

Precisely right, with good examples.