Are the PC's the fulcrum on which the world pivots?

[Acrimone]

LordVreeg said something in another thread that really piqued my interest.  I reproduce here:

... I have always taken the mindset that the world is as the world is, and the adventurers end up somewhere they should know to avoid, well, that is their own fault.

When the Igbarians released the Antroo Vampyre, they lost 5/7 of their party.

It's not just a little difference in play, I have always wanted the PC's to feel that they are part of a moving, existing world, and that the world does not change for them unless they change it.

Similarly, NPC's are as I set them out to be, and if they are active NPC's, than they are supposed to gain experience, as well.  ANd the uncertainty of not knowing how powerful the KNight of the Red Circle taunting them from across the bar is critical for that feeling of being part of the world.

This got me thinking about various approaches to the question of "what happens in the world when the PCs aren't looking".  I can imagine a lot of very different ways to deal with this, but I thought I would ask the question:

To what extent do things (big things, medium things) happen in your world without PC involvement?

My own take on this is that the PC's are entirely optional to the story.  That is, in their absence, there is a certain progression of events that will happen.  King so-and-so will marry off his daughter to Count you-know-who, who will start a war with his neighbor the Vicar of Whatchamacallit, which means the village of Thereitis is going to be burned down, and the kid with the potential to be a powerful wizard will be turned into an orphan and sold into slavery, and the lich that is waking up will have no one to stop him... you get the idea.

My approach is that the PCs are put into this world, and if they just sit on their asses, things go on without them.  But if they put themselves in the middle of it, people start reacting to them.  Courses of actions change.  Events don't happen.  The future needs to be constantly rewritten to account for PC involvement, but things constantly and organically do go on without them.  This puts an IMMENSE premium on the players' thinking about where they want to have the most impact, and makes their decision to travel to the Capital to trade and repair, or to the frontierlands for plunder and adventure, a decision with incredibly far-reaching consequences.

I could, however, see some great value in other approaches.  There's something nice about the notion that the world is more or less stable, and the key pivotal events don't generally get underway unless the PCs are in a position to change them.  This centers the story on the PCs and makes them more important.

I could also see something of a balance betwen the two positions -- with REALLY important stuff requiring PC proximity, but minor changes happening without them.

Anyway, I wanted to ask some of you what you thought of this topic, so here I have.  

Finally, I thought I would include some material from my campaign sourcebook addressing this -- although it generally restates my position above.  I've eliminated world-specific references to keep this a general statement about gaming philosophy.

[spoiler=Some Theme Notes]The World Does Not Care.

It is a world of knights, a world of blacksmiths.  It is a world of Kings, and bakers, and innkeepers.  It is a world of bandits, of scholars, of wizards and thieves and farmers and millers.  It is a world of cobblers, of glaziers, of sailors, pirates, traders, scribes, courtiers, tailors, weavers, skinners, tanners, thatchers, and grooms.  It is a world of harlots, priests, queens, beggars, barbarians, hunters, children, and soldiers.  It is a world of carpenters, of masons, architects, painters, mimes, actors, and wanderers.

Every single one of the people in the world, whatever land they live in, whatever language they speak, is concerned with survival.  Some care for their own survival.  Some look after families.  Some look after towns, baronies, duchies, clans, Empires, or syndicates.  The only thing they all have in common besides a desire for survival is that they do not care about you.

Yet.

Shaping Your Own Future
The single most important thing in a role-playing game is to have the denizens of the world care about the player characters.  But they just don't '" at least not at first.  The tavernmaster doesn't care that you have traveled for three weeks without a warm bed.  He cares about the copper you can give him.  Perhaps he would care if he knew that you found his niece in the hands of brigands, but of course you would have to tell him first'¦

Every action a character takes makes an impression on the world.  Every action leads to consequences.  Some residents of the world may react positively.  Some negatively.  But they will react.  And the greater the action on your part, the greater the reaction.  Threaten their interests, and they will seek to destroy you.  Offer them the chance to increase their power, and they will count you as ally, or at least allow you to help them.

The future is in your hands.  If you sit and do nothing, the world will pass you by.  If you do not do for yourself, someone else will eventually do for you.  But there need be no limit to the scope of your ambitions.

Do you want to be King, or even Emperor?  Give it a try.  You might succeed.  But do not expect the Emperor to take it lying down.  As soon as you represent a real enough threat for him to take notice, he will move to destroy you.  And he is Emperor for a reason '" there could be thousands of nobles and soldiers who have a vested interest themselves in seeing the Emperor maintain his power.  

Do you want to run a farm?  Expect your neighbors to care about what crops you grow.  Expect the traders to care what prices you set, and expect them to ignore you if you set them too high.  Expect the local lord to particularly care how much you produce, and how much of its value he can manage to get into his own coffers.  

No one cares about your character until your character makes them care.  So go out and make them.  There is nothing that a man or woman cannot do.  

But there are a lot of people who might try to stop their doing it.
[/spoiler]

[Nomadic]

I have always in all my campaigns followed a doctrine of a dynamic world. I suppose it is just my preference to do so and I certainly enjoy it. A dynamic world is just so much more interesting and of course much less 2d.

[Pellanor]

My current game's had some issues with this where the PCs have felt that all of the other NPCs are incapable of doing anything on their own. We're currently playing a wartime game and I was trying to put the players in a position where they were critical to the outcome of things, and had the opportunity to participate in the planning. What I didn't anticipate was that they didn't really want to plan much, and I hadn't prepared any fallback plans. In retrospect I should have done more along the line of what you've suggested here, with having the "if the PCs do nothing" plan laid out, and just keep adapting that based on what happens in the sessions.

[Moniker]

The world is dynamic, and the player's actions create ripples and effect the immediate world around them. Sometimes, they affect the world in much more tangible ways. However, the world "is as it is", as Vreeg stated. The players aren't special in the grand scheme of things; they're just like anyone else in the world, attempting to make their way along. Of course, the player's story itself is focused on the players , thus they have a more immediate understanding of their impact on the people and places they visit. But all in all, I do not adhere to the "pcs as heroes/antiheroes" ethos that D&D has always emphasized. They are simply a part of the greater story, which will move and shape on it's own accord even without the players.

[Towel Ninja]

(kinda felt i should post in your thread to :P)

Hmm, PC's in my world dont have to be around for something to happen, Like the demons rising up from hell to destroy anything alive on the surface, No PC's present but it happened. Givin if the PC's had been there im sure there would have been some minor differences but it would come out roughly the same.

I actually plan for my next campaign to lead my players into thinking they are going to be some great heroes foretold in legend. They will go and vanquish what they believe to be the great evil and all that good stuff only to find they have just been following another much more badass party and they have been simply cleaning up the peons they leave behind. Or if they decide they dont want to be the heroes then the world will be saved without them ever being involved. Not sure if i went off topic but oh well.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

I've always run things with the world extremely dynamic - such that with no PCs at all there would still be events to write novels about. PCs are certainly capable of influencing those events however, what is hard for them to do is actually determine what and how much influence their actions are having/have had on the greater scale of things, even the the Chaos Butterfly effect is a distinct potential. They can tell that they saved the village from the marauding orc bands but are unlikely to be able to perceive/connect the right clues to the fact that the nearby kingdom had intended to use the raiding as an excuse to annex the village and move a large number of troops there in actual preparation to invade the other neighboring kingdom. Odds are slim the PCs will ever figure out that they pulled the staging ground for a war out from under those planning it much less the altered effects on the world which then arise/ripple from that. . . One of the facets which I liked about Forgotten Realm design was the depth and scope of factional activity it includes. While not all DMs would chose to incorporate the full gamut of covert players, when all are present/active it is very difficult for PCs to do anything "heroic" that *doesn't* throw a wrench into someone's plans - although its often quite difficult to see this when it happens, finding out instead when it becomes clear that they've somehow pissed someone off. I'm developing a similar "density of dynamics" in Panisadore - and pointing out to players that this is present. Canny and observant players/PCs can actually use this to their advantage. (I played in a Shadowrun team that made a constant practice of setting someone else they didn't like up to be blamed for their runs - especially if they were double crossed in the course of the run. An exec who hired us to recover his daughter and a ton of money/data he was responsible for tried to take out the team and daughter once we had her with us. She kept the money - minus a split, and he went to prison for embezzling, and corporate espionage - selling the data to another corp, among other things related to the situation.) Eventually PC's learn to detect and observe the ripples in the world their actions create, particularly as they gain the ability to cause more significant and obvious specific changes.

[Pair o' Dice Lost]

My view is that the PCs are only necessary for the extraordinary things.  Wars, trade, and all that normal civilization stuff will go on fine without the PCs' intervention--and even with it, really, since there's only so much 4 people can do to disrupt an economy to begin with--but extraplanar invasions, undead armies, and basically anything that upsets the status quo will happen (or not) based on what the PCs do (or don't do).

[Acrimone]

My view is that the PCs are only necessary for the extraordinary things.  Wars, trade, and all that normal civilization stuff will go on fine without the PCs' intervention--and even with it, really, since there's only so much 4 people can do to disrupt an economy to begin with--but extraplanar invasions, undead armies, and basically anything that upsets the status quo will happen (or not) based on what the PCs do (or don't do).

COuld you elaborate on this?  What do you see as the benefits of this approach?  How does it fall out in game play?

[Pair o' Dice Lost]

COuld you elaborate on this?  What do you see as the benefits of this approach?  How does it fall out in game play?

have[/i] to be planar invasions or undead armies to let the PCs take it on, but those are good examples of "Yeah, the PCs are there to fix it" scenarios.

Example time!  Let's say we're dealing with a war: Kingdom A wants to invade Kingdom B.  Why?  Let's say it's land--Kingdom A has too high of a population and needs to expand.  Are the PCs going to stop that war?  Fat chance.  Kingdom A's leaders all want the war because they need the land, so killing someone won't help; the population wants the space, so a rebellion won't help; Kingdom B is already doing all they can, so volunteering their services won't help.  That war is going to happen; deal with it.

Rewind.  Let's say we're dealing with a war: Kingdom A wants to invade Kingdom B.  Why?  Let's say it's magic--there's a magical fountain in B and anyone touching its waters can heal, nourish, and protect anyone they want; Kingdom A is being invaded and there's a famine on, so they want it...except Kingdom B wants it too and doesn't want to share.  Are the PCs going to stop that war?  Maybe.  There's some water to go around, so negotiating a settlement might help; the people of B are sympathetic to the people of A, so convincing the people of B to convince their rulers to share might help; Kingdom A isn't going to stand on morals, so secretly taking some to A might help.

It's kind of hard to explain, but the whole thing boils down to how much narrative power the PCs have.  In the first scenario, the PCs can't do squat about the war, and will have to cope with its aftermath, whereas in the second they can do something about it.  It introduces a bit of intrigue as the PCs have to figure out people's motivations and can't say "Oh, the DM mentioned this war, it must be a plot hook and the DM is going to have us stop it."  It provides more verisimilitude because you can't assume everything there is for the PCs; a lot of it (and often most of it) is filler, backdrop, and otherwise out of the PCs' control.

PCs aren't gods; they can't just want to fix things and have it happen.  On one occasion my party tried to stop a war between two city-states (hence my earlier example) so they could get the armies' help in taking on a planar invasion.  The war, I had determined, was based on politics--a blood feud between the monarchs and an issue of reputation to uphold--and since they didn't believe the planar invasion was real the PCs wouldn't be able to stop the war.  After discovering the reasons and reluctance through spying and other means, they still tried to convince them to take on the demons.  Meanwhile, the demons kept coming until the PCs couldn't wait any longer, and the fight was much harder as a result.  Afterwards, my players said that I had captured the political dynamic really well and it was more realistic, instead of making the city-states stop because that's what the PCs wanted.

[Lmns Crn]

It should be noted that issues of scale can be considered, too. It's entirely possible for players/PCs to affect and change a mutable world without being the most important people in it. That doesn't make the world any less "dynamic."

I guess what I'm saying is that I want to steal Moniker's answer and use it as my own.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

A couple of quick thoughts re "scale" arising from Moniker's (reread after LC,) and Pair o' Dice Lost (love the name btw but think it aughta be Irish - started to type Pair O'Dice by mental default. . .)

Uber -hero/anti hero - not, unless they get *really* good eventually. However, they *are* heroic (okay, that's *one word* to describe it at any rate. . .) - looking at the world as a whole, people who do that kinda shit *just ain't normal* - interpret that statement as you will, numerous interpretations will certainly be encountered in the setting. That said, there's little to nothing a truly dedicated group of poets, fools and madmen can't *influence* to some degree if they set their twisted little minds to it. (Doesn't mean they can't fail, just that they do have a chance to succeed). Greater scale of course takes greater effort. However, demonic invasions and the like are pretty world affecting - tho' a good Taoist realizes that things are easy when still small - fix the crack in the dam *before* it breaks. . . Much other is not so much a matter of scale as of type - if they can turn back a demonic invasion they can disrupt, even crash an economy. Depending on their background/skills/etc. ("class") that may even be much easier. (System can influence this, see numerous discussion of DnD focus on combat at the expense of social interaction abilities.) I agree with the bemazed Irish gambler here in part - and the war examples are decent comparisons as to the ease of affecting them - but unless the PCs have achieved enlightenment (or are sleeping with Thelema) they never really have plot control at any level - just an inherently distorted personal perspective that can at time reflect back to them the natural delusion that they do have such control. I'm not talking about a "screw the PCs" DMing style, but rather that, while they can influence and divert certain courses, the rest of the world is still also influencing those courses as well and ultimate outcomes won't necessarily be as expected - tho' they will invariably reveal to the discerning definite signs of the PC's interference. In this sense then, *anything* the PC's do will cause ripples in the world (which they may or may not be astute enough to detect and trace). Really canny PC's, as they grow more "powerful," may in fact start to act in manner's meant to conceal those ripples - or at least their actual origin - so that others in the world *don't* recognize the effect they have and assume that events have actually played out in an inevitable fashion which mortal's could not in fact influence. Such PC's actually have the greatest chance of successfully influencing affairs because deliberate counters to their efforts are minimized and they are instead in a better position to utilize the efforts of others.

What all that amounts to really is that at any "scale" the right pebble dropped in the right place can always trigger a massive avalanche - it doesn't really take a "powerful" PC to do this, just a very perceptive (i.e., "experienced") PC to accomplish this deliberately with any degree of consistency. That usually only occurs after they've correctly identified and observed/analyzed a number of such avalanches which they've *inadvertently* triggered. . .

[LordVreeg]

Also germaine here is that this question might need to be broken into two parts.

1) How do you present the PC's plotline to the players, in terms of it's impact on the rest of the world.

2) How much influence they really have.

I'm hearing a lot of middle of the road answers, such as I would be forced to give if this question was asked of me as stated.  

I know my Igbarians think they are a tiny pustule on a grand body of work, but in actuality I set up some plotlines to allow my PC's tremendous ability to fuck up Celtricia, or to save it.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

In addendum to that, a related matter of phrasing occurred to me on the way to work:

There seems to be a general consensus in answering the question as phrased, "No, they aren't." However it seems also agreed that they invariably are the fulcrum upon which the campaign pivots; which can be consistent with "an inherently distorted personal perspective that can at time reflect back to them the natural delusion that they do have such control," as I stated earlier. LV posits valuable alternative perspectives as well; which then, in all cases, highlights the basis for his first question: that presentation is critical in determining the degree to which this actually occurs. I think a certain amount of "deception" (perhaps distortion would be more apropos,) as a means of manipulating/shaping player-as-PC perspective is actually applicable both ways in circumventing predictability and offering story arcs which remain engaging throughout their course. As LV describes, presenting situations which can actually have far greater impact on the world than the PC's are able to discern is, I suspect, a common ploy. (A favorite of mine at any rate - especially with initial clues and other discrete "pieces of the puzzle;" eventually if they begin to "connect the dots" they may get an inkling of the actual scope - which should serve as a motivator then to pursue the matter further.) The flip side of this coin is to at times present plot hooks, etc. which on the surface appear to be opportunities to effect significant change - the portion of Po'D's last example scenario regarding trying to get 2 city-states to forgo their war in favor of prioritizing a greater common threat, through the course of which they then learned important lessons regarding realpolitik, highlights this nicely. The trick here of course being to ensure that the player's actually appreciate, or gain a sense of accomplishment in the end, from the "lessons learned" rather than feel discouraged by the results they have (nominally failed to) achieve.

Ultimately much of this discussion I believe boils down to everyone sharing some perspectives and preferred usages of the storytellers art in DMing method - much of which is falling under the broader headings of "Keep 'em guessing. . ." and "Keep 'em interested. . ." and involving effective information flow control to achieve a good balance between them. In that regard I need to modify a previous statement of mine not conveying quite what I meant:
 

They can tell that they saved the village from the marauding orc bands but are unlikely to be able to perceive/connect the right clues to the fact that the nearby kingdom had intended to use the raiding as an excuse to annex the village and move a large number of troops there in actual preparation to invade the other neighboring kingdom. Odds are slim the PCs will ever figure out that they pulled the staging ground for a war out from under those planning it much less the altered effects on the world which then arise/ripple from that. . .

Actually, unless they soon depart for distant regions or took care to cover their tracks/lay the credit/blame on someone else, they may very well figure it out over time - they will have certainly pissed off some very powerful people who will probably retaliate in some fashion. From there of course it can go down an almost infinite # of possibility paths - they may not realize that the "new mission" they're offered in recognition of their great service to the kingdom is intended to kill them, the king could appear oblivious to their actions but send out assassins - and they'll wonder who they pissed off and how since it couldn't be the villagers or anyone concerned with their welfare, could it??? etc., etc. - In essence a new story arc by which to keep 'em simultaneously guessing and interested - in which it certainly could be an excellent story device to permit them the means of discovering/figuring out much if not eventually all of the ramifications of that simple charitable act. . .