New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 220
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    The wild idea would be to have them be loyal to someone actually nice.

    The rightful king with a good claim and all, who is actually just and nice (think noblesse oblige to the extreme I guess). And the ones trying to usurp them actually are the bad guys with less claim to power.

    I dunno, just live the fantasy that in a world of powerful mages and interfering gods (Forgotten Realms is full of that) there are nobles and royals who are good and nice, but also competent enough to have stayed in power.
    The creator of the thread did not even say if he included a kind and nice rebel that have great plans for the kingdom that sacrificed his life for defending a rebellion with a good cause and just got resurrected and is trying to make sure to overthrow the corrupt and evil royals.
    Without a super good and nice and kind alternative to royalty how would the players decide to go against it?

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Am I correct in reading that the OP wants his players to rebel against authority, and is introducing increasingly-wicked royals to see what it takes?

    If so, the advice given in this thread about making it personal is good: have the king take from the PCs. Demand shares of their loot.

    When he's rewarding them for taking down "disloyal nobles" by making them the nobles' replacements, consider the things that the nobles rebelled over, and have the king double down on those with his new PC nobility.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Am I correct in reading that the OP wants his players to rebel against authority, and is introducing increasingly-wicked royals to see what it takes?

    If so, the advice given in this thread about making it personal is good: have the king take from the PCs. Demand shares of their loot.

    When he's rewarding them for taking down "disloyal nobles" by making them the nobles' replacements, consider the things that the nobles rebelled over, and have the king double down on those with his new PC nobility.
    ex: demand completely unfair tithes the nobles that rebelled could barely pay while making their peasants works themselves to death.
    Last edited by noob; 2021-09-29 at 09:36 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    The wild idea would be to have them be loyal to someone actually nice.

    The rightful king with a good claim and all, who is actually just and nice (think noblesse oblige to the extreme I guess). And the ones trying to usurp them actually are the bad guys with less claim to power.

    I dunno, just live the fantasy that in a world of powerful mages and interfering gods (Forgotten Realms is full of that) there are nobles and royals who are good and nice, but also competent enough to have stayed in power.
    Putting aside the fact that I loathe the idea of the “good king” archetype as a symbol of legitimate authority. There are two reasons why I won’t go this route.

    1) If you have a benevolent monarch that is actually competent, chances are your setting is idealistic where there is little to no corruption or abuses of power, no infighting, no turf wars between nobles. And that just sounds way too boring. Why would a stable nation need morally compromised mercenaries?

    2) This is supposed to be a sandbox game where the players decide their own stories, if I introduce some “big good” character then it stops being about the player characters and starts being all about the “big good” character and how they plan on creating change to establish more equality and justice for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    The creator of the thread did not even say if he included a kind and nice rebel that have great plans for the kingdom that sacrificed his life for defending a rebellion with a good cause and just got resurrected and is trying to make sure to overthrow the corrupt and evil royals.
    Without a super good and nice and kind alternative to royalty how would the players decide to go against it?

    I’ve had a Robin Hood styled rebel leader of peasant soldiers and yeoman that had been shafted by the wars they fought in the name of their lords and king appear at least once or twice in my campaigns.

    But instead of joining them, the party usually sides with the King…
    Last edited by paladinofshojo; 2021-09-29 at 09:39 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    Putting aside the fact that I loathe the idea of the “good king” archetype as a symbol of legitimate authority. There are two reasons why I won’t go this route.

    1) If you have a benevolent monarch that is actually competent, chances are your setting is idealistic where there is little to no corruption or abuses of power, no infighting, no turf wars between nobles. And that just sounds way too boring. Why would a stable nation need morally compromised mercenaries?

    2) This is supposed to be a sandbox game where the players decide their own stories, if I introduce some “big good” character then it stops being about the player characters and starts being all about the “big good” character and how they plan on creating change to establish more equality and justice for all.

    Imagine the players believing there is absolutely no good person in the entire setting and that fundamentally any who would end up ruling would be evil and corrupt.
    That does not makes them want to overthrow the current evil and corrupt kings.
    So you need people with good goals to be here and to prove that if the current evil is overthrown that it can be replaced by better people.
    Ex: some rebels that says that if in power they would not murder people for fun, stop making ritual sacrifices every day and reduce taxes enough for commoners to live instead of them dying of overworking.

    Tldr: If there is no good people to replace the bad people then there is no reason to do stuff against the bad people thus leading to the situation you are experiencing.
    It is the "if there was only life hating skeletons would destroying life hating skeletons still be good" situation and the answer is "No"


    sorry did not read your answer because it was not here when I started writing

    An interesting concept would be the peasants rebelling more and more over time without even necessarily anybody that instigates anything because over time they are more and more hungry and desperate eventually there is no peasants left and no food production and the dead peasants starts coming back to life and attacking.
    Last edited by noob; 2021-09-29 at 09:49 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    Imagine the players believing there is absolutely no good person in the entire setting and that fundamentally any who would end up ruling would be evil and corrupt.
    Technically there are a lot of good people in the setting, hell, most of the mayors and town guards that the party encounter are usually just normal people trying to live their lives….

    But like I said earlier, they live in a feudal monarchy, as such their land is owned by aristocracy and the overarching government of the country is compromised solely of whichever aristocracy the crown appoints, which is usually done via nepotism or bribes….




    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    That does not makes them want to overthrow the current evil and corrupt kings.
    So you need people with good goals to be here and to prove that if the current evil is overthrown that it can be replaced by better people.
    They don’t have to, it’s a sandbox game, as such they can play however they want…. If they want to eschew the Crown’s politics and just focus on dungeon diving or hunting monsters in the wilderness then they are free to do so.


    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    Ex: some rebels that says that if in power they would not murder people for fun, stop making ritual sacrifices every day and reduce taxes enough for commoners to live instead of them dying of overworking.
    I’ve had several Robin Hood rebel characters who were making such humanitarian promises during my games, but for some reason my party do not like this archetype… at all.

    This type of character has been brutally killed whenever I tried to “reboot” the concept.


    Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
    An interesting concept would be the peasants rebelling more and more over time without even necessarily anybody that instigates anything because over time they are more and more hungry and desperate eventually there is no peasants left and no food production and the dead peasants starts coming back to life and attacking.
    I actually do have something akin to that, a powerful lich had been training necromancers and began preaching about “the justice of the grave” in which his necromancers promise that “in undeath all are equal, noble and peasant, king and commoner” and “there is no pain, no hunger, only unity” and had started gaining a rather large following of disgruntled starving peasants eagerly allowing the Lich’s acolytes to transform them into undead with the goal of turning the entire kingdom into a land of death
    Last edited by paladinofshojo; 2021-09-29 at 09:57 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    Technically there are a lot of good people in the setting, hell, most of the mayors and town guards that the party encounter are usually just normal people trying to live their lives….

    But like I said earlier, they live in a feudal monarchy, as such their land is owned by aristocracy and the overarching government of the country is compromised solely of whichever aristocracy the crown appoints, which is usually done via nepotism or bribes….






    They don’t have to, it’s a sandbox game, as such they can play however they want…. If they want to eschew the Crown’s politics and just focus on dungeon diving or hunting monsters in the wilderness then they are free to do so.




    I’ve had several Robin Hood rebel characters who were making such humanitarian promises during my games, but for some reason my party do not like this archetype… at all.

    This type of character has been brutally killed whenever I tried to “reboot” the concept.
    I am sorry when I answered I was replying to an incomplete version of your post and I realised it right now.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    I suppose my question is, if it's a sandbox...why are you so upset that they're choosing a side?

    It seems to be a side that rewards them. Perhaps they're not playing paragon heroes, but rather mercenaries?

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I suppose my question is, if it's a sandbox...why are you so upset that they're choosing a side?

    It seems to be a side that rewards them. Perhaps they're not playing paragon heroes, but rather mercenaries?
    Especially since nobility that crushes the poor under the taxes tends to make anyone outside of that nobility have little ability to reward in cash mercenaries.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I suppose my question is, if it's a sandbox...why are you so upset that they're choosing a side?

    It seems to be a side that rewards them. Perhaps they're not playing paragon heroes, but rather mercenaries?
    The main gripe I have is that they aren’t actually developing their characters or even coming up with their own character goals… but rather expecting someone with authority (who is controlled by me) to give them a quest to do…

    It kinda defeats the purpose of giving them the freedom to explore and impact the world when all they are going to do is willingly get railroaded by their DM.

    I am not asking for them to play as “paragons” I just want them to actually have some developments. Right now, their characters are right above RPG video game silent heroes in terms of actual personalities.

    I feel like that’s the problem here, they are playing this game like Dark Souls or Skyrim where they see a systemic problem but feel like the only option they have is to hit it really hard with a sword or fire bolt.
    Last edited by paladinofshojo; 2021-09-29 at 10:05 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    Putting aside the fact that I loathe the idea of the “good king” archetype as a symbol of legitimate authority. There are two reasons why I won’t go this route.
    So instead of the trite archetype of the legitimate virtuous and competent king you give them the equally trite archetype of the incompetent decadent escessive tyrant.

    How about some average ruler as should be pretty much the norm ?
    The main gripe I have is that they aren’t actually developing their characters or even coming up with their own character goals… but rather expecting someone with authority (who is controlled by me) to give them a quest to do…

    It kinda defeats the purpose of giving them the freedom to explore and impact the world when all they are going to do is willingly get railroaded by their DM.
    That is a completely different problem and actually pretty common.

    This can only be solved by lengthy OOC discussions.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2021-09-29 at 10:16 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Batcathat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    It kinda defeats the purpose of giving them the freedom to explore and impact the world when all they are going to do is willingly get railroaded by their DM.
    Are they, though? The fact that they don't act the way you expect them to (and you let them do so) seems to me like the opposite of being railroaded. Sure, they obey in-universe authorities but that's hardly the same thing as being railroaded.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    Putting aside the fact that I loathe the idea of the “good king” archetype as a symbol of legitimate authority. There are two reasons why I won’t go this route.

    1) If you have a benevolent monarch that is actually competent, chances are your setting is idealistic where there is little to no corruption or abuses of power, no infighting, no turf wars between nobles. And that just sounds way too boring. Why would a stable nation need morally compromised mercenaries?

    2) This is supposed to be a sandbox game where the players decide their own stories, if I introduce some “big good” character then it stops being about the player characters and starts being all about the “big good” character and how they plan on creating change to establish more equality and justice for all.
    1) The existence of Ned Stark, legitimate Hand of the King and lord of Winterfell, doesn’t make Westeros a nice place. You could have PCs work for someone like that.

    2) After Ned Stark gets himself outmaneuvered and killed, that would be a good time for the PCs to take some initiative before they join him.

    Or just put the PCs in the Ned Stark role, trying to hold things together for a well-intentioned king (okay, that might be giving Robert too much credit) who isn’t great at the job. “The PCs have to act on their own initiative to hold the kingdom together on behalf of the rightful king while his enemies try to eliminate them” is a perfectly cromulent campaign concept, IMO.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    The main gripe I have is that they aren’t actually developing their characters or even coming up with their own character goals… but rather expecting someone with authority (who is controlled by me) to give them a quest to do…

    It kinda defeats the purpose of giving them the freedom to explore and impact the world when all they are going to do is willingly get railroaded by their DM.

    I am not asking for them to play as “paragons” I just want them to actually have some developments. Right now, their characters are right above RPG video game silent heroes in terms of actual personalities.

    I feel like that’s the problem here, they are playing this game like Dark Souls or Skyrim where they see a systemic problem but feel like the only option they have is to hit it really hard with a sword or fire bolt.
    Quite frankly, this is something you should have outlined as important for them before the campaign started. Characters for a sandbox campaign need to have long term goals starting out. To the point that you should not have accepted characters that did not have a genuine long term goal to start out with. You can't just toss them into the world and then expect them to find something that their characters want afterwards.

    The problem isn't that they're unable to see any solutions to the world other than violence. It's that there's no reason for them to want anything else in the first place! With no pre-established character desires, they're going after the one thing that's meaningfully valuable to them (money) and that provides them with content (adventure).

    At this point, you need to take them aside out of a character and tell them what you want. If you want their characters to have explicit goals other than just becoming as rich and powerful as possible, tell them they need to give their currently existing characters these new goals. And if you want characters to be proactive, tell them to make characters that are proactive, who have goals that require being proactive, and then provide them opportunities to be proactive rather than missions from rich patrons. But do that last point only once you've cleared up what kinds of characters you expect them to make.
    Last edited by Theoboldi; 2021-09-29 at 11:06 AM.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vacation in Nyalotha

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    To me it appears you’ve been repeating a test (scenario) with the same inputs (players) and expecting different results. Address the players directly if you want a change or clarification.
    If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    The main gripe I have is that they aren’t actually developing their characters or even coming up with their own character goals… but rather expecting someone with authority (who is controlled by me) to give them a quest to do…

    It kinda defeats the purpose of giving them the freedom to explore and impact the world when all they are going to do is willingly get railroaded by their DM.

    I am not asking for them to play as “paragons” I just want them to actually have some developments. Right now, their characters are right above RPG video game silent heroes in terms of actual personalities.

    I feel like that’s the problem here, they are playing this game like Dark Souls or Skyrim where they see a systemic problem but feel like the only option they have is to hit it really hard with a sword or fire bolt.
    Give them multiple quests hooks at once, and let them pick which one(s) to take. Build hooks off of what's already happened. They're nobles now, right? How are they paying the taxes the king demands? Does the king have further quests for them? Are there crises facing their lands they must address? Do these conflict with the king's demands on their time and resources?

    They're happy following the quest hooks you've given. They're happy sticking to their contracts/goals rather than taking what you thought would be "better" options. They're definitely not being railroaded; if you were railroading them, you'd have forced them to side with the Robin Hood guy or the Not So Bad Nobles. There's a definite character to them from what you've described.

    Are they having fun? If so, that part's great. Are you not having fun? If not, why not?

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    It seems that while you're running a sandbox, you have a fairly specific narrative arc in mind:
    1) The PCs work for a corrupt king and are well-rewarded; it is entirely in their self-interest to continue doing this.
    2) They realize how bad the king is and have a "What have we done?!" moment.
    3) They turn against the king, either actively becoming rebels or at least no longer serving him.

    Because none of the first part has to be true - the king doesn't have to hire them, the king doesn't have to be rewarding or even reasonable to work for, and for that matter the king doesn't have to remain in power - what would happen if other nobles stage a successful coup against the king the PCs were serving and now demand they transfer loyalty (to a group with zero claim to any hereditary connection) or be declared outlaws?

    And I do grok that "doing the right thing when it costs you and the wrong thing is easier" is a different beat than "the wrong thing sucked for us as well, so we stopped doing it", but you can't force people to believe / act on the former, and it doesn't seem that your players are inclined to. Or that they even agree what is the right/wrong thing (IC at least).
    Last edited by icefractal; 2021-09-29 at 01:09 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Oh, I do believe that I understand the entirety of the complaint. You see, the OP has a sandbox and completely hates railroading whether he is the player or the DM. But, because the players are not playing the rebel anti authoritarian that the OP wants them to be. He sends them into contact with increasingly more horrific rulers and other bad people of authority. This stems from the fact that the OP believes that there is no such thing as a good and/or benevolent rulers can not exist, and even of they do..they are boring because only evil is fun.


    The OP is angry the players are not doing what he wants, and is unsure why free will is a thing that exists.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Faily's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    Putting aside the fact that I loathe the idea of the “good king” archetype as a symbol of legitimate authority. There are two reasons why I won’t go this route.

    1) If you have a benevolent monarch that is actually competent, chances are your setting is idealistic where there is little to no corruption or abuses of power, no infighting, no turf wars between nobles. And that just sounds way too boring. Why would a stable nation need morally compromised mercenaries?

    2) This is supposed to be a sandbox game where the players decide their own stories, if I introduce some “big good” character then it stops being about the player characters and starts being all about the “big good” character and how they plan on creating change to establish more equality and justice for all.



    I’ve had a Robin Hood styled rebel leader of peasant soldiers and yeoman that had been shafted by the wars they fought in the name of their lords and king appear at least once or twice in my campaigns.

    But instead of joining them, the party usually sides with the King…


    In a fantasy-world with magic, gods, and supernatural powers, a benevolent ruler that is competent is just as believeable as a cruel ruler that is competent. Both can be interesting stories. For the benevolent ruler, the challenge is more often "what can we do without compromising our morals?".


    You say it is a sandbox, but you clearly have a specific idea of what sort of story you want the players to engage in. Just because the king is a Big Good instead of a Big Bad, it doesn't make it less about the PCs anymore than it was with a Big Bad. You say it is a sandbox, which means that the players should be free to pursue whatever story they want, but you make it clear that you want them to bring change to establish a more equal and just society for all, and to do this they must rebel against an Evil Overlord.

    EDIT: I'd recommend looking at the War For The Crown adventure path (Pathfinder). It sets the PCs in focus for helping the legitimate heir to the throne who also happens to be a good person, mostly.
    Last edited by Faily; 2021-09-29 at 02:04 PM.
    RHoD: Soah | SC: Green Sparrow | WotBS: Sheliya |RoW: Raani | SA: Ariste | IG: Hemali | RoA: Abelia | WftC: Elize | Zeitgeist: Rutile
    Mystara: Othariel | Vette | Scarlet

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    The GM in me would actually lean towards throwing the legitimacy of the king into question in a way that could directly benefit the party to test their loyalty, or that would enable things to escalate to a full blown civil war in which they can participate. Having players who tie themselves to a specific person or group is a good opportunity for big things involving that group, in this case the loyalists to the wicked king.


    If you were to dangle information that one of the party is a descendant of an older, mostly forgotten branch of the royal family, and is by technicality more legitimate than the king, or introduce a rarely invoked mechanism by which the king can be chosen by other methods than direct lineage which the party could use to gain a claim themselves. Rite of combat, elective monarchy, there's a lot of ways to choose a king, especially if the current king can be convinced to abdicate in favour of a challenger.


    Another interesting possibility could be to have a foreign noble with a claim based on having a different form of succession law. Say that in the main kingdom inheritance priotitises sons > daughters > brothers > sisters > distant relatives. Direct male preference succession, kids of the monarch are always the highest in line.

    But if a previous monarch's brother got married off to a foreigner a generation or two back, and that kingdom has inheritance that goes sons > brothers > daughters > sisters > distant relatives, then that line would take precedence according to the customs and laws of their land, and would have a claim to the main dynastic branches throne.


    EDIT: Figured I'd add that I've played several characters who would probably fit in quite well with your players. Sometimes it's very fun to be the frenzied guard dog of an evil master, or just to be evil in general and respond to sob stories and people in need with a cruel laugh or a dismissive comment. As long as it doesn't make you unconfortable, I'd say just keep having the king act like any of a number of historical and fictional insane sadistic monarchs, history and fiction are full of fun lunatics and the players seem to be enjoying working for 'King Joffrey'.

    For a more low key scenario that could happen, having the king invite all the notables in the realm (including the players since they're nobles) to a theater which is booby trapped with something dangerous, like poisonous snakes, as a cruel prank for example. Have the king in a box seat above the main seating area where he can giggle as nobles, priests and wealthy merchants alike suddenly find their ankles surrounded by aggravated venemous serpents. The PCs have to deal with getting away from the snakes and with a stampede of panicking people while in an area ill suited to moving around.
    Last edited by Grim Portent; 2021-09-29 at 04:35 PM.
    Sanity is nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by ngilop View Post
    Oh, I do believe that I understand the entirety of the complaint. You see, the OP has a sandbox and completely hates railroading whether he is the player or the DM. But, because the players are not playing the rebel anti authoritarian that the OP wants them to be. He sends them into contact with increasingly more horrific rulers and other bad people of authority. This stems from the fact that the OP believes that there is no such thing as a good and/or benevolent rulers can not exist, and even of they do..they are boring because only evil is fun.


    The OP is angry the players are not doing what he wants, and is unsure why free will is a thing that exists.
    No my main problem is that they’re not engaging the world and are just doing whatever the king tells them to… with little to no character growth or building.

    This is a roleplaying game and their characters should have their own backstories, goals, experiences, and aspirations.

    They aren’t making rivals, personal enemies, friends, lovers, merchant-customer relations with anyone in this world.

    All they seem to care about is “whatever the King/Lord/noble authority currently in charge of where the party is standing wants them to be”

    It’s basically playing tabletop like a video game. They are perfectly okay with having no agency in directing the outcome of the story so long as they are given loot and money for their troubles.

    This story stopped being about their Player Characters and the World and more about “the chronicles of King Rupert the Mad”. Who actually enjoys playing their entire campaign revolving around a CE teenage NPC instead of their own PCs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim Portent View Post
    EDIT: Figured I'd add that I've played several characters who would probably fit in quite well with your players. Sometimes it's very fun to be the frenzied guard dog of an evil master, or just to be evil in general and respond to sob stories and people in need with a cruel laugh or a dismissive comment. As long as it doesn't make you unconfortable, I'd say just keep having the king act like any of a number of historical and fictional insane sadistic monarchs, history and fiction are full of fun lunatics and the players seem to be enjoying working for 'King Joffrey'.
    They don’t play their PCs as evil though… They don’t act like Gregor Clegane or Sandor Clegane, as they don’t seem to enjoy brutalizing people for the sake of it. They seem to play their characters as protagonists of JRPGs, in that the story is a linear narrative and they have no control over outside of gameplay.

    The beginning of this campaign they were a typical party of low level adventurers who were helping small outskirt towns and delving into dungeons. Since the highest authority they dealt with was a town guard or a village headman the tasks they did were moreso “find sheep stealers” or “hunt down goblins” which they did no problem. However they use that same level of indifference towards whatever crazy order that their new employers give them…. Like “kill upstart peasants”, “put down rebels to the last man”…. They don’t seem to care about who or what gives them orders, only that someone is actually telling them what to do.
    Last edited by paladinofshojo; 2021-09-29 at 07:28 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    No my main problem is that they’re not engaging the world and are just doing whatever the king tells them to… with little to no character growth or building.

    This is a roleplaying game and their characters should have their own backstories, goals, experiences, and aspirations.

    They aren’t making rivals, personal enemies, friends, lovers, merchant-customer relations with anyone in this world.

    All they seem to care about is “whatever the King/Lord/noble authority currently in charge of where the party is standing wants them to be”

    It’s basically playing tabletop like a video game. They are perfectly okay with having no agency in directing the outcome of the story so long as they are given loot and money for their troubles.

    This story stopped being about their Player Characters and the World and more about “the chronicles of King Rupert the Mad”. Who actually enjoys playing their entire campaign revolving around a CE teenage NPC instead of their own PCs?
    Okay if you really don't like them obeying the king, simply kill the king and have a civil war between nobilities break out with everyone lying that they're the legitimate heir without any way to confirm otherwise and have the kingdom descend into chaos. let the world burn, see what happens.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  23. - Top - End - #113
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    Who actually enjoys playing their entire campaign revolving around a CE teenage NPC instead of their own PCs?
    Your players?


    One thing I just noticed... you seem to genuinely think that a king that is both benevolent and competent would be both unrealistic and make for a boring setting in which no heroes are needed. If you players are aware of this: why would they ever go to the trouble of supporting your noble, well-intentioned pretender? That would be a literal no-win scenario - either the new king would turn out to be incompetent, evil or both upon his inauguration or their success would wreck the setting. It's clearly an exercise in futility.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Okay if you really don't like them obeying the king, simply kill the king and have a civil war between nobilities break out with everyone lying that they're the legitimate heir without any way to confirm otherwise and have the kingdom descend into chaos. let the world burn, see what happens.
    Putting aside the fact that this is a world with magic and divination so it’s not like you can make a claim of legitimacy and no one will fact check you on it….

    What you’re basically suggesting is that I remove the current king from the narrative and the party will just have to decide who is the most “deserving” of their help due to their arbitrary views of legitimacy based on male primogeniture and their magical abilities, after which they’ll serve this new claimant as ruthlessly as they did the last….

    They seem to serve the “royal bloodline” because that’s what Rupert and his predecessor preached along with the divine right of kings and for some reason the party internalized that instead of being skeptical about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Berenger View Post
    Your players?


    One thing I just noticed... you seem to genuinely think that a king that is both benevolent and competent would be both unrealistic and make for a boring setting in which no heroes are needed. If you players are aware of this: why would they ever go to the trouble of supporting your noble, well-intentioned pretender? That would be a literal no-win scenario - either the new king would turn out to be incompetent, evil or both upon his inauguration or their success would wreck the setting. It's clearly an exercise in futility.
    Putting aside the fact that I don’t believe that no one is entitled to absolute political power because of who their parents were… a king that is both benevolent and competent and legitimate is relying on the fact that not only did they happen to be born into a position of power but they end up becoming absolutely deserving of said power. History and Crusader Kings II has taught me that no matter how great an empire you are able to build, your descendants will always eventually ruin it in a couple generations.

    As for boring, the reason why I wanted them to support the bastard half brother of the old king is because it would have put them against all the evil nobles with whom they are currently working for. It would have caused much more tension because said pretender is half a peasant and that would strain relationships between the kingdom and its allies who see this as a dangerous precedent or a sign of weakness and invade…. Also the party probably would have been playing a much more active role in the campaign if they sided with the Archbishop, rather than just being the lapdogs used on any sort of resistance they are now.
    Last edited by paladinofshojo; 2021-09-29 at 07:52 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    Putting aside the fact that this is a world with magic and divination so it’s not like you can make a claim of legitimacy and no one will fact check you on it….

    What you’re basically suggesting is that I remove the current king from the narrative and the party will just have to decide who is the most “deserving” of their help due to their arbitrary views of legitimacy based on male primogeniture and their magical abilities, after which they’ll serve this new claimant as ruthlessly as they did the last….

    They seem to serve the “royal bloodline” because that’s what Rupert and his predecessor preached along with the divine right of kings and for some reason the party internalized that instead of being skeptical about it.
    Oh thats simple.

    The wizards and diviners are either get corrupt, dead or mysteriously vanished, all the claimants see the party as remnants of the old regime, as goons that that did the kings bidding to stomp their boot on them and thus want to kill them on sight, so it doesn't matter who is the legitimate ruler to them if all the claimants don't like them and don't want their help anyways because they're symbols of the old king oppression, when they already have their own goons to be symbols and enforcers of their brand of oppression.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  26. - Top - End - #116
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Oh thats simple.

    The wizards and diviners are either get corrupt, dead or mysteriously vanished, all the claimants see the party as remnants of the old regime, as goons that that did the kings bidding to stomp their boot on them and thus want to kill them on sight, so it doesn't matter who is the legitimate ruler to them if all the claimants don't like them and don't want their help anyways because they're symbols of the old king oppression, when they already have their own goons to be symbols and enforcers of their brand of oppression.
    This sounds a lot like railroading… which I am against on principle. I’d rather have my characters play as fascist lapdogs then to contrive scenarios which don’t make any sense but to corner them into being forced to play a certain way or force a certain outcome.

    For starters, why wouldn’t a claimant to the throne want the old king’s enforcers serving him? It adds to his own legitimacy…

    Secondly, my party apparently understands the concept of ransoming and “chivalry” in that you don’t mistreat highborn enemies or prisoners of war. Which leads to them being politically savvy enough to know that “anyone above a Knight on the feudal scale deserves humane treatment” as they only seem to butcher peasants indiscriminately. So it’s not like they had made any powerful enemies.
    Last edited by paladinofshojo; 2021-09-29 at 07:59 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    This sounds a lot like railroading… which I am against on principle. I’d rather have my characters play as fascist lapdogs then to contrive scenarios which don’t make any sense but to corner them into being forced to play a certain way or force a certain outcome.

    For starters, why wouldn’t a claimant to the throne want the old king’s enforcers serving him? It adds to his own legitimacy…
    well okay.

    then lets back up and do this: the king is mad right? and they serve him unquestioningly right? well what if the king's insanity was getting worse to the point of delusion, and thinks that if they kill him he will ascend and become immortal and godlike and thus orders the party to kill him and serve no one but him even after he ascends? but he is completely wrong and it just screws up everything.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  28. - Top - End - #118
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    well okay.

    then lets back up and do this: the king is mad right? and they serve him unquestioningly right? well what if the king's insanity was getting worse to the point of delusion, and thinks that if they kill him he will ascend and become immortal and godlike and thus orders the party to kill him and serve no one but him even after he ascends? but he is completely wrong and it just screws up everything.
    To be fair… the King is currently a teenager so I sincerely doubt he will be THAT mad… yet

    I can see him gain that level of delusion after a couple more decades of his mind eroding from paranoia and mistrust.
    Last edited by paladinofshojo; 2021-09-29 at 08:04 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinofshojo View Post
    To be fair… the King is currently a teenager so I sincerely doubt he will be THAT mad… yet

    I can see him gain that level of delusion after a couple more decades of his mind eroding from paranoia and mistrust.
    I mean sure if your feeling patient, but your completely able to speed it up however you feel is plausible.

    Point is: you don't like the status quo? do something to shake it up.
    Last edited by Lord Raziere; 2021-09-29 at 08:10 PM.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  30. - Top - End - #120
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    I mean sure if your feeling patient, but your completely able to speed it up however you feel is plausible.

    Point is: you don't like the status quo? do something to shake it up.
    As a DM I have to at least have some respect for the integrity of the world I’ve created… If I don’t then why should my players?

    That doesn’t mean I can’t subtly influence them to go a certain way but to outright force the plot to fold to my preference is the sign of a terrible DM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •