General Discussion

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Sidebar: why do adventure writers always seem to think the Lord or the King has time to meet with a bunch of first level mercenaries adventurers? And then they write these awkward social encounters because neither the writer nor (probably) the DM or the players has any idea how that sort of conversation should go.

Most people with real status or power don't have to talk to people who don't know how to talk to them, or deal with people who don't know what they are doing. They are insulated from those frustrations by layers of underlings.

The exception to this is people whose job includes dealing with ordinary people on a regular basis, like the late Queen Elizabeth II. For her, there are a number of protocols which are carefully explained to anyone who is supposed to meet her. Those protocols aren't to insulate the monarch, BTW; they impose a structure so that the people meeting her, who otherwise wouldn't know how to handle the situation, have the comfort of knowing exactly what they are supposed to do. She was also adept at putting people back at ease if they made a mistake and were embarrassed, because like I said, the protocols aren't for her, they are to make sure everyone in the room is as comfortable as possible.

Note the reason she (and now King Charles III) has this duty is because of her role as head of state with no legislative or executive power. I would expect a king who is also a head of government (like your average D&D monarch would have fewer duties of this sort.

I think we can all agree that making up such protocols, let alone trying to enforce them on the players, is not a viable option for a D&D game, so you will always be dealing with the first type of powerful person, who doesn't have to put up with your players being idiots. If you want to talk to a king and you are a belligerent murder-hobo, you need to be high enough level that he really can't ignore you. Basically, when you are low level you can talk to an underling, when you are a knight (or equivalent) you can talk to a lord, and when you are a lord you can talk to a king.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Basically, when you are low level you can talk to an underling, when you are a knight (or equivalent) you can talk to a lord, and when you are a lord you can talk to a king.
Sure. Although, I feel like the general trope is that you're talking to the local lord, which in the case of a frontier territory, may actually be a hands-on kind of guy/gal since there probably isn't much of a bureaucracy at the local keep.

That said, I agree it's a drag dealing with irreverent/socially awkward players who don't want to roleplay due deference to an authority figure in the game because they're banking on your, the DM's, lack of desire to throw them in the donjon/mob them with tower guards for lèse-majesté before the adventure even gets started. Everyone thinks they're Han Solo.
...
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Everyone thinks they're Han Solo.
Well said.

I think its an important game-element that the PCs start out as lowly nobodies that the upper classes ignore. It gives them something to strive for and real sense of (long term) accomplishment when they achieve social status. I know this cuts against the modern rrrrole-playing trope of "I am the star of a movie, watch my Big Scenes"...but for me at least, that's not quality D&D.

The process for my players in the home campaign took years of calendar time before they ever met the local king (not lord, @The1True's point is well taken). They only got an audience arraigned after they saved the daughter (abducted by goblins, in stasis in an underground lake, impregnated by an Aboleth, and missing for some 30 years) of a noble family. Even then, they got deflected to only speak to the Chancellor.

Eventually they did meet the King while impersonating his eldest son and heir (whom they had killed...for long complicated reasons). But he wasn't really the King...

For whatever reason, more than XP or gold, getting recognition/fame in the world is more desirable than anything else---but my players are young adults, it could be a life-stage thing.

Whatever the root of the desire, for that recognition to matter, it has got to be a slow build.
 
Last edited:

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Slow buildup is def better. Being a "star in a movie with big scenes" is not how I view roleplaying at all and find that description a bit weird. Sounds more of elaborate backstory type player, not a roleplayer. Not to mention a DM roleplaying different NPCs all the time isnt trying to weave every performance into a big scene.
 
Sidebar: why do adventure writers always seem to think the Lord or the King has time to meet with a bunch of first level mercenaries adventurers? And then they write these awkward social encounters because neither the writer nor (probably) the DM or the players has any idea how that sort of conversation should go.
In my experience, 1st-level adventures where the PC's meet an authority figure typically have that figure be a local lord. The modern equivalent wouldn't be a meeting with the Queen of England, it would be meeting a small-town mayor or police chief.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
In my experience, 1st-level adventures where the PC's meet an authority figure typically have that figure be a local lord. The modern equivalent wouldn't be a meeting with the Queen of England, it would be meeting a small-town mayor or police chief.
If we are talking faux-medieval, the local lord probably wasn't there. Odds are he was at one of his other 10-20 manors, in one of this other villages, if we wasn't at the capital paying tribute to the king or taking care of other business, or on campaign fighting the king's war, or visiting friends or relatives.

In this case the small town mayor or police chief equivalent would be the village reeve or bailiff, or a vassal knight who held his lands from the lord. Maybe a castellan if it was a great lord with more than one castle. In any of those cases, they are still beholden to a higher aristocrat who is usually not the king. In England you might have had a sheriff ("shire-reeve") or constable, who were law enforcement officials who (I think) represented the king but might be appointed by cities/towns or "counties" (which I assume means by the local earl). The titles and duties vary from region and period to period, and I may be misremembering some of the details, but in general medieval society had a lot of layers, and the lower your standing, the lower the layer you would be dealing with.

That said, I agree it's a drag dealing with irreverent/socially awkward players who don't want to roleplay due deference to an authority figure in the game because they're banking on your, the DM's, lack of desire to throw them in the donjon/mob them with tower guards for lèse-majesté before the adventure even gets started. Everyone thinks they're Han Solo.
Actual quote from a campaign in the 80s, when a 1st level PC was faced with a 14th level druid: "I go up to the druid, and I poke him!"
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
This is a fairly newbie action, but I've seen the like before too. It's a reluctance to immerse, and at some point a decision has to be made to play or to quit.
I had been playing with the guy for a few years at this point. Some people just like to watch the (paper) world burn.
 

Yora

Should be playing D&D instead
I usually see players attempting random destruction as an expression of frustration to having no clue what's going on. The players know the GM is waiting for them to do something, but they can't think of anything in the scene they could interact with. Attacking an NPC who is percieved as an obstacle to moving on to a fun part of the game happens when they have no idea what else the GM wants them to do but refuses to say.
 

Two orcs

Officially better than you, according to PoN
ACKS shines since it's very clear what the social status of a player character or local magnate is on each level and how much wealth X gp actually represents. A rule of thumb inferred from the Battle rules is that people deal directly with others within 2 levels of themselves (3rd level characters act as liutenants to 5th level characters, 5th level characters act as lieutenants to 7th level characters etc.), otherwise delegates it to a servant.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
ACKS shines since it's very clear what the social status of a player character or local magnate is on each level and how much wealth X gp actually represents. A rule of thumb inferred from the Battle rules is that people deal directly with others within 2 levels of themselves (3rd level characters act as liutenants to 5th level characters, 5th level characters act as lieutenants to 7th level characters etc.), otherwise delegates it to a servant.
I like this idea, and it would be easy to import given 1e NPC rules regarding ranks of sergeants, lieutenants, captains (not to mention "lord" level).

The one thing that bugs me is that in D&D and clones rank always seems to be accompanied by combat level, which is fine if everyone gets their domain by carving it out, but makes no sense if your setting includes any kind of hereditary nobility.

Like, in 3e you have NPC classes, so you can take levels in the "expert" class, for instance, and become a better lawyer or minstrel (or whatever). But even there you also get better in combat as you level, and I can see no reason why your average experienced weaver would be better in a fight than the city guard. 1e was a bit like this with sages, who got tougher the more immersed they became in their scholarly pursuits.

In my game I've actually started tracking ability in combat and ability at various skills separately for my NPCs. So most of my NPCs are effectively "0-level" for combat purposes, but an aristocrat may have an effective diplomacy or history skill as if he was a higher level character, or a stable hand may be highly skilled at handling animals. So your diplomat may be a 0 level fighter but have the equivalent of 8th level in diplomacy.

4e also has a class (the warlord) that is good at supporting allies in battle, so instead of making all commissioned officers tougher than their sergeants, they can just have different roles on the battlefield.

So to differentiate rank in my game I consider the hereditary position (and other social modifiers) but also the character's effective level in the skills that are relevant to their position. Plus (and I have discussed this before) I treat having social position as if it were a magic item that gives bonuses to relevant skills during social interactions. So you may be tougher than the king, but he has more money, political power AND is probably better than you at certain social skills.

You may be able to beat up that ageing 1st level watch sergeant who is shaking you down, but he is more streetwise, and is usually more convincing when he lies than you are when you are telling the truth - as reflected in your relative bluff vs. diplomacy (or persuasion) bonuses when you are trying to convince a magistrate. This is, by the way, where a system that includes social skills shines: when you and your opponent are wielding your skills like a weapon, and you let the dice be a neutral arbiter of success, based on your relative skills and situational modifiers.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I read a whole thing last year (I can't find it now :( ) about medieval English guild apprentices practicing at arms regularly and frequently engaging in armed inter-guild bloodshed. I'm willing to accept that, at the very least, the higher you rise in an organization, the harder you become to kill (as evidenced by the devil protecting his own out in the world of politics (you go ahead and insert the polarizing figure of your preferred faith party here)). But in a world where the king could muster the fyrd to fight off invaders, men practiced at arms. The longer you practice, the better you get. Maybe not as much as a trained fighting man, but enough to get better at soccer brawls and bar fights.
 

Grützi

Should be playing D&D instead
I know a professional weaver. I'm confident I could take her.
That's because weaving includes very repetetive motions. You can essentially "dark soul" a weaver by learning their moveset and defeating them easily.
City guards on the other hand are much more chaotic (being corrupt and drunk most of the time) so their moveset is much more erratic.
:p
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
(you go ahead and insert the polarizing figure of your preferred faith party here)
I am going to henceforth always refer to the Left and Right as faith-parties! :p
I know it wasn't your intent, but it's still freakin' brilliant.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I read a whole thing last year (I can't find it now :( ) about medieval English guild apprentices practicing at arms regularly and frequently engaging in armed inter-guild bloodshed. I'm willing to accept that, at the very least, the higher you rise in an organization, the harder you become to kill (as evidenced by the devil protecting his own out in the world of politics (you go ahead and insert the polarizing figure of your preferred faith party here)). But in a world where the king could muster the fyrd to fight off invaders, men practiced at arms. The longer you practice, the better you get. Maybe not as much as a trained fighting man, but enough to get better at soccer brawls and bar fights.
Once you are talking guilds, you are already into the middle class, and are probably excluding weavers. Training and equipping oneself means having sufficient resources and leisure time to do so. That is going to exclude most people.

IIRC, during the middle of the feudal period, ie before the age of plate, it took an entire village to produce and supply 2-4 men-at-arms for the lord (which is part of the reason the lord needed a lot of villages and manors). And hunting by the peasantry was generally illegal. Plus if your vassals are unfree oppressed people it is risky to train them and arm them for combat. So odds are your 8th level baker of farmer doesn't have a lot of combat training.

But certainly, at a time when taking aim at the competition could be literal, I could see the merchant class investing in a bit of training for themselves and their retainers.
 
Top