Regents (was Outside the Realms

[Jonathan Picklesimer]

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Brian Logan wrote:

> At 05:29 PM 13/02/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
> We play in a campaign where everyone is a regent. I am the only Guilder and
> hold no provinces. We have no-one who is exclusively a mage or priest. The
> biggest problem is coming up with reasons for the kings to go _adventuring_.
> And when they do go and don't dispatch retainers, there is the problem of
> all the personal bodyguards and sharing the experience.
>
> Any suggestions for reasons for the kings to be adventuring. We used the

Sometimes I think that we loose perspectie on the times, and the power of
leadership. It is a relatively recent development in warfare that the
officers are in the back and the soldiers in the front. For centuries,
it was the king or general who led his armies into battle. The common
man's fighting spirit is aroused when they see their king taking charge
of the situation and taking on equal risk with his men in military
conquest. That is why lieutenant actions are VERY risky. The populous
does not want to see one of the king's personal lackey's out sandbagging
during a flood. They feel as if the king thinks taht he is too good to
come out and help them. The king is disinterested int eh common man and
their loyalty fails. They want to see a strong militaristic and economic
leader who understands what is happening to them. They need to see
someone who is connected with their expreriences.

Consider politics today. When the President of the US sends out the Vice
President to a disaster area, people are not as happy as when the
President comes. Even a better example is the Royal Family of Britain.
If something tragic, such as a bombing, a ship wreck, or a war happens,
you find the Royals in the middle of things, not sitting back sending
their economic advisor. That is why the common people love the Royals so
much. "Yeah, I surved in the Royal Navy! I fought right along side his
Highness Prince Charles." "The Queen came and spoke at the funeral for
our children who were killed in a tragic ferry accident."

The way to get rulers on the street pounding pavement is to start
dropping province loyalty the next time they send a few troops out to a
town where monsters have been raiding. They may have solved the monster
problem, but they have not made the populace feel as if they were
improtant. Maybe the lieutenant gets into the situation and discovers
that he/she cannot hold command of the troops as the regent does and
winds up loosing the battle due to poor troop control. Intentionally
fail a few lieutenant actions. When the province is
bordering on open rebellion and a neighboring domain, or a local guild
is about to openly challenge the rightful ruleres claim to the province, the
regents will get on the road. The governemtn governs only by the
consent of the people!
jsp

[Undertaker]

At 01:46 PM 2/14/97 -0600, Jonathan Picklesimer(pick@chief.csm.astate.edu)wrote:
>
>On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Brian Logan wrote:
>
>> We play in a campaign where everyone is a regent. I am the only Guilder and
>> hold no provinces. We have no-one who is exclusively a mage or priest. The
>> biggest problem is coming up with reasons for the kings to go _adventuring_.
>> And when they do go and don't dispatch retainers, there is the problem of
>> all the personal bodyguards and sharing the experience.
>>
>> Any suggestions for reasons for the kings to be adventuring. We used the
>

>
>The way to get rulers on the street pounding pavement is to start
>dropping province loyalty the next time they send a few troops out to a
>town where monsters have been raiding. They may have solved the monster
>problem, but they have not made the populace feel as if they were
>improtant. Maybe the lieutenant gets into the situation and discovers
>that he/she cannot hold command of the troops as the regent does and
>winds up loosing the battle due to poor troop control. Intentionally
>fail a few lieutenant actions. When the province is
>bordering on open rebellion and a neighboring domain, or a local guild
>is about to openly challenge the rightful ruleres claim to the province, the
>regents will get on the road. The governemtn governs only by the
>consent of the people!
>

Besides the loyalty of your people to consider, there are somethings that
are just too important for a Regent to leave to his lackys. In many tales of
King Arthur, he as well as his faithful knights seek the Holy Grail. He
didn't just laze around, and say, 'let me know when you find it.' Medievil
style rulers always tended to get in the thick of things. They knew all to
well the dangers of letting others handle all their dirty work, and the
importance of not seeming weak. It dosen't take too much rationilization to
see why rulers need to be out in the field taking action, not just reacting
to others endevours. Besides when playing AD&D you want to go on adventures,
right. It will get boring quick if the Players just sit around, and let
everyone else have all the fun. In the end the adventures need to have a
little different feel to them, and they must be introduced along different
lines(not much room for the old, "Begger walks up to you in a tavern...",
routine), but basically the reasons for adventureing(at least for
Players)stays the same. The characters just have bigger goals, and choose
the adventures they seek for slightly different reasons, such as retrieving
lost items of power, seeking lost kingdoms, striking at the heart of a band
of brigands who attack his/her trade routes, etc.

As for the problem of all those retainers, well like you said they come with
their own problems. First, they suck up Exp. points quickly. Even a large
battle will be worth nothing if the Exp. has to be broken up a dozen ways.
Secondly, many quests equire time, and stealth. A regent traveling far, and
wide, will need to see to the well being of all those who travel with
him/her. This is no small task, and a good DM can make quite a task of it,
if they try. Starvation in a remote camp site is an ugly thing(think Donner
party). As for stealth, well 14, or 15, people will have a hard time
sneaking into anyplace without a lot of planning, and then if something goes
wrong. Which brings me to my last point, many adventures take place with
circumstances beyond the norm. Many rulers would think twice about how many
of his/her loyal subjects are they going to risk. The senseless death of
retainers can send shockwaves through a populace. If people believe their
ruler has no care for the lives of his loyal men/women, then what could he
care for the lives of common folk. Not to mention its not easy to replace
people close to you whom you can trust. A constant turn over in retainers
would create an easy opening for a ruler's enemys.

Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net
RL Homepage: http://www.metrolink.net/~veleda/sepulcher.html

[Laldw@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-02-14 20:00:56 EST, you write:

>The biggest problem is coming up with reasons for the kings to go
_adventuring_.

How about questing for a legendary magic item like the Rod of Rulership?

A peasant has discovered a cave in a mountain that seems to have a huge
vein of gold in it. Problem? Its full of monsters. Also the local guilder
heard about
it and is on the move. If you want the profit you better move fast.

>And when they do go and don't dispatch retainers, there is the problem of
>all the personal bodyguards and sharing the experience.

Oops, that wine was bad and the regent didn't have any. Too bad all the
king's
horses and all the king's men have food poisoning.

>Any suggestions for reasons for the kings to be adventuring. We used the
> situation of a royal hunt before affairs of state where the kings could get
> away from it all, and had an incident come up. We can't use monsters
because
> a king would dispatch his best to eliminate them.

Not if all the King's best is dealing with an army on the border. Or that
pesky
bandit king that has a law 2 in one of your provinces has been causing
trouble
again. Maybe all the king's best is on vacation that week or most of them
are
away at a festival in a neighboring allied kingdom.

>A king would not go to a dangerous place for relaxation. So as you see we
are >running out of ideas.

Not if he was a coward and didn't care if his people respected him or not.

Just find excuses (no matter how lame) to not have retainers come along.

[Laldw@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-02-14 20:25:18 EST, you write:

>

The Royals don't handle disasters, the government does. The Royals
are just figureheads with no power.

[Jonathan Picklesimer]

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 Laldw@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-02-14 20:25:18 EST, you write:
>
> If something tragic, such as a bombing, a ship wreck, or a war happens,
> you find the Royals in the middle of things, not sitting back sending
> their economic advisor. That is why the common people love the Royals so
> much. "Yeah, I surved in the Royal Navy! I fought right along side his
> Highness Prince Charles." "The Queen came and spoke at the funeral for
> our children who were killed in a tragic ferry accident." >>
>
> The Royals don't handle disasters, the government does. The Royals
> are just figureheads with no power.

True, they are figure heads. True, they have no "power" (except some
limited martial powers) but ask any one from any country that is still
under the "crown" and they will tell you that the royals are extremely
important. They do things that help boost the morale of the people as
well as serve as important dignitaries to international events.

jsp