Gamer Forger Listener Email:
King In Need
I'm running a D&D 4e campaign. IN the game a player has worked very hard and somehow tricked me into becoming a king of an evil kingdom. Good for him he deserves it. However, how do I keep him from:
1.Going into his towns treasury and looting all the gold and buying everything in the D&D manual.
2.Rolling his army out to do quests for him.
Furthermore, how do I challenge a king intellectually and in battle. A personal army would be very annoying for me to maintain and or fight. Imagine rolling 20 times per turn.
Any thoughts at all would be appreciated.
Gamer Forge Response:
Confuscious says: "A king in need is a king who isn't very good at PR". When you hand the keys to the kingdom over to the player, DCR says...
1. Just because its listed in the book, doesn't mean the players have access to it. Take into account geographic, political, and economic boundaries when determining what players have access to from vendors. The new king may have enough money to buy a ballista that shoots whales, but if you're not near an ocean, then you can't have it.
2. The game of politics becomes a story in and of itself. This new king now has to deal with political coups, assassination attempts, bribery, and romantic triangles as a matter of course. If the player wishes to still have the keys to the kingdom, then make these the new "normal". If, after a while, the player doesn't like these story arcs, then make him relinquish control of the throne. Give him/her a fair chance to back down, because he/she may have bitten off more than they chew.
3. If it all seems like too much, then make the player also handle all the mundane tasks of managing his kingdom. It's kind of a dick move. No, it's actually a big dick move, but you do what you gotta do to keep the action of the game moving. Treat it as SimCity: Home Edition. If the player was smart enough to get the keys, then he should be smart enough to take care of the car. Turnabout is fair play.
Right now, three of my party's members are afflicted with the paranoia insanity. One effect is that paranoid characters cannot willingly accept aid, including healing, without making a Will save against the insanity DC.
However, things don't play out as I expected, in-game:
1.the paranoid cleric will cast a cure spell on a paranoid PC.
2.The paranoid PC will attempt a will save to accept healing and fail, as per the insanity's effect.
3.the paranoid PC then argues that they should get a saving throw against it, because the cure spell is harmless. But by failing, the PC 'suffers' the effects of receive the cure spell.
My problem is that this approach seems to reward PCs who have low Will saves by having a failure on the spell's saving throw become a success for them. Is this just how it is, or are we handling this scenario wrong?
Gamer Forge Response:
The saving throw vs. a saving throw against another saving throw makes a saving throw? We spent more time figuring out the wording than we could find an answer. DCR says:
1. Too much dice rolling. Cut it down to one saving throw to keep things moving. This paranoia is making things much too complicated and stalling things out.
2. The easy way to answer this is to ask: "what are you saving against?" If you, the controlling player, wish to receive something like healing, then you must resist the influence of the mental state. This is one of those times where one must turn off the "meta-game".
3. Also, phrase your questions better, please. We have to be able to understand what it is you are asking so we can actually provide an effective answer. Otherwise, you are wasting your time, and ours. Thank you.