PDA

View Full Version : Should players role a die to decide which social status their characters come from?



paladinofshojo
2011-07-10, 01:54 AM
Think about it......in a fantasy setting, RP-wise a character who writes down nobleman as a backstory would have a somewhat unfair advantage dealing with NPCs who have to show respect to their title, as they have to show him respect and admiration that he hasn't earned yet.....However, rather than simply pigeonhole everyone into one social class.....I've thought up of an ultimatum, rolling two 10-sided die to see which social strata you come from.....Here's what I've come up with

20-"Crown-Prince(ss) of an entire country"
19- A nobleman (Archduke-duchess, Earl, Viscount, Marquis, Baron, etc.)
18- A knight or dame
17 or lower- Commoner

My philosophy is that probability should decide which social class your character comes from, since in a way, probability decides whether we are born from the elite or not in real life aswell..... we can't all be born into the elite afterall

Shadowknight12
2011-07-10, 02:01 AM
Oh boy.

Let's get the basic answer out of the way: Yes, you can do that. Propose that to the players before implementing it, because a lot of people might not be okay with that (at all), since you are removing choice from the players (i.e., the choice to decide what their character's background is).

Now, let's dig a little deeper. What you're doing is a very old school way of doing things, where you rolled your stats (in order), then rolled for race, then with your race and stats, figured out what classes you qualified for. This way of rolling for backgrounds is right up that alley.

You have to understand that what you're doing is not wrong, per se. It's just a playstyle that a lot of people dislike in a primal, visceral manner because it removes choice from them. Some people want to play a character of their own making, not something randomly rolled up for them.

What's important is that you get your players' approval before subjecting them to this, if only for politeness's sake.

Vemynal
2011-07-10, 02:03 AM
20-"Crown-Prince(ss) of an entire country"
18 & 19- A nobleman (Archduke-duchess, Earl, Viscount, Marquis, Baron, etc.)
15, 16 & 17- A knight or dame
12, 13 & 14- Middle class merchant family
11 & lower- Commoner

I'd say the above. Cuz its a bit more scaled out

Temotei
2011-07-10, 02:05 AM
Think about it......in a fantasy setting, RP-wise a character who writes down nobleman as a backstory would have a somewhat unfair advantage dealing with NPCs who have to show respect to their title, as they have to show him respect and admiration that he hasn't earned yet.....

Who says they haven't earned their title and respect? Just because the character hasn't adventured under your DMing yet doesn't mean they haven't done things worthy of respect, admiration, and their title.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-10, 02:15 AM
Who says they haven't earned their title and respect? Just because the character hasn't adventured under your DMing yet doesn't mean they haven't done things worthy of respect, admiration, and their title.

True, but doesn't it strike you as god-moding when someone tries to use their backstory to order around NPCs at a village or militia in the campaign before they had done any heroic deed worthy of respect? It would be unfair to take away the opportunity to play a character born into the upper class but it would also give them a somewhat unfair advantage if all the players were allowed to say that their backstories are "Warrior-Prince(sses) with enitre armies riding at their back"....after all, if you depend on probability to decide what your physical stats are why can't you depend on probability to decide what your social stats are?


20-"Crown-Prince(ss) of an entire country"
18 & 19- A nobleman (Archduke-duchess, Earl, Viscount, Marquis, Baron, etc.)
15, 16 & 17- A knight or dame
12, 13 & 14- Middle class merchant family
11 & lower- Commoner

I'd say the above. Cuz its a bit more scaled out

Yeah it is more scaled out....but the point I am trying to make is that being born into the noble class is a rare event. In the middle ages, nobility only accounted for 10% of the population. Even my scale gives the player a 15% chance of being born into nobility.... Although I guess I really should add a Merchant Class into my scale, seeing that it is possible for Nouveau riche to move up socially, however the chances of that are just as slim as being born into nobility.....

tyckspoon
2011-07-10, 02:24 AM
True, but doesn't it strike you as god-moding when someone tries to use their backstory to order around NPCs at a village or militia in the campaign before they had done any heroic deed worthy of respect?

"Good farmer, I demand your aid! I am the heir to the Duchy of WayOverThere, and my companions and I are hungry!"
"That's nice, yer nobleness, but 'round these parts we answer to the Earl of IOwnThatCastleRightThere, and those turnips are still five copper. Beggin' yer pardon. Yew want them or not?"

Unless you're playing a one-city-based campaign or similar, most of the time? Your player's noble title probably doesn't matter that much. Either the small people they could potentially boss around don't actually answer to them, or they're small people that can't really help them in a material way. After all, if the local militia could actually clear out the den of monsters that your Band of Great Heroes is here to deal with, they probably already would have.. trying to pull rank on people your title isn't actually associated with will mostly get your character a reputation as a jerkass. At best, you get an easy in with other high-society types, which makes certain social situations easier.

Worira
2011-07-10, 02:32 AM
Honestly, I'd rank this up there with "roll to see if you died of the plague as an infant".

paladinofshojo
2011-07-10, 02:36 AM
Unless you're playing a one-city-based campaign or similar, most of the time? Your player's noble title probably doesn't matter that much. Either the small people they could potentially boss around don't actually answer to them, or they're small people that can't really help them in a material way. After all, if the local militia could actually clear out the den of monsters that your Band of Great Heroes is here to deal with, they probably already would have.. trying to pull rank on people your title isn't actually associated with will mostly get your character a reputation as a jerkass. At best, you get an easy in with other high-society types, which makes certain social situations easier.

Yes, but nobility itself also grants certain priviledges like being above the common townhall's law or having 1 or 2 retainers following you around on your journey. Nobility also have an easier time acquiring lodging from the owner of local castles and may not even have to pay up front in the Inn their staying at if it's close enough to their domain....

Also, rolling gives an equal chance of having less jerkassy noblemen, as the player who doesn't really care about social rank has an equal chance of being nobility as the player who would actively use it to RP as a jerkass noble.......

Shadowknight12
2011-07-10, 02:44 AM
Yes, but nobility itself also grants certain priviledges like being above the common townhall's law or having 1 or 2 retainers following you around on your journey. Nobility also have an easier time acquiring lodging from the owner of local castles and may not even have to pay up front in the Inn their staying at if it's close enough to their domain....

Also, this gives an equal chance of having less jerkassy noblemen, as the player who doesn't really care about social rank has an equal chance of being nobility as the player who would actively use it to RP as a jerkass noble.......

Sounds to me like your problem is with the players trying to use fluff to get crunch advantages. While this is a solution, I would suggest that an even better solution would be to say "Okay, your player is a noble? That's fine. Remember to add some excuse for them to start and continue being roughly the same as the other characters."

That way, you obtain the exact same thing you're getting out of this (players not using their background to get bonuses) but you're actually letting them decide for themselves. They can come up with a reason why their noble standing means little (perhaps they avoid using it because it might attract kidnappers or assassins, perhaps they were exiled or disgraced, perhaps they are from a previous regime that was overthrown, etc).

Furthermore, the problem here is that your logic simply fails due to simple mathematical probability. Go to the DMG and generate a few cities or realms. You'll find several different combinations of race/class/background and the player can justify his background by saying they want to play that. If there is a snow elven kingdom, and there is a nobility class, and someone in that class is a 1st level sorcerer, the player has a right to play that character, because it exists in your world. If you don't want them to play it, that's a whole 'nother issue, something you ought to explain to them in a mature manner.

Hiding your discontent with a player behind the implementation of an arbitrary mechanic doesn't solve a problem, it merely adds another layer of confusion, frustration and deception above it.

Mikeavelli
2011-07-10, 02:51 AM
Honestly, I'd weight it more towards the middle classes, specifically because Adventurers are exceptional.

The percentage of nobility was probably even lower than 10% during the middle ages, Wikipedia says a few individual nations (Castile, Poland, and Lithuania) made it up to 10%, but most of Western Europe got 0.5-2% of the population as noblemen.

However, the population of adventurers is probably much higher in terms of nobility. Anyone getting the training to be a fighter probably comes from a wealthier or luckier background than, say, a Warrior (the NPC class). Getting access to a proper education (say, as a Wizard) is likely to come from a noble family. Sorcerers gain their power from ancestry, and probably had powerful ancestors.

You could say the same about most PC classes, except maybe druids and barbarians.

I'd say something around:

20: Crown Prince
19-18: younger son of the king (2nd or further in the line of succession)
17-15: Middle nobleman (Marquis, Duke, etc.)
14-10: Knight or dame
9-6: Merchant or middle class
5-2: Artisan.
1: Serf, peasant, etc.

This is one of those things where "realism" should take a back seat to "fun."

By the same token, "realism" should take a back seat to "fun" for the "realistic" consequences of having a noble rank. Make that roll, and then find some way to equalize the party, or find an excuse for why their noble birth or powers don't properly function.

Heatwizard
2011-07-10, 02:56 AM
Yes, but nobility itself also grants certain priviledges like being above the common townhall's law or having 1 or 2 retainers following you around on your journey. Nobility also have an easier time acquiring lodging from the owner of local castles and may not even have to pay up front in the Inn their staying at if it's close enough to their domain...

You're not under any obligation to give them any of that; 'snot in the rules. If they ask for it, tell 'em no.

NikitaDarkstar
2011-07-10, 02:57 AM
You're missing a few obvious things here though. First of all if a character has "Warrior Prince(ess) with an entire army riding at his(/her back." as their background story, why are they adventuring? Did they have a fallout with the family and become disowned? Messed up so badly daddy said they couldn't command armies until they figured out how to hold that sword properly? Are they just bored of being treated as royalty?

Now lets assume said noble person actually is on good standing with the family and so on and actually won't get into trouble for using said authority. What does a nobelman look like? Clean, well groomed, latest fashion in clothes, you know, rich. Probably with an entourage. What does an adventurer look like most of the time? If male he probably hasn't shaved ina day or two, dirty from the latest dungeon crawl (lets hope those stains wash out), practical clothes and in a small group of people looking the same way. (And possibly smelling.) They can claim to be noble all they want, but not many would believe them. (Lets face it, even in a magical world most commoners outside the city wouldn't know what the nobility looked like. They might recognize the ruler and his/her immediate family but don't bet on it.)

Claiming nobility might make their life easier in some cases yes, but not everyone will like the nobles if they actually believe the characters claims. That innkeeper that was considering being nice to you and give you a decent group discount? Yhea guess what, he's not so fond of the latest tax raise and while he might not try to outright cheat you off your money he sure as heck isn't serving the best the house has to offer anymore, slayed orc bandits or not.
And a noble travelling with just a small group of inexperienced adventurers? Word gets out and people start to take notice. Kidnap the brat and blackmail the family Attempt to kill the noble for reasons A-Z (including but not limited to, unfair taxes, rival families, conscripted children into military, etc. etc. etc. etc.).

And also remember you're the DM, if someone claims something in their back story that you disagree with you do have the right to say "No." to that part, but really I'd roll with it. Most players just want to explain why their character is a certain way, not abuse the system, and you get endless possibilities to both reward and mess with the character(s) in question.

But if you do decide to make people roll for it, talk to your group first and explain WHY you're concerned, just as DM's work with players, players can work with DM's and promise to behave.

icefractal
2011-07-10, 03:49 AM
Think about it......in a fantasy setting, RP-wise a character who writes down nobleman as a backstory would have a somewhat unfair advantage dealing with NPCs who have to show respect to their title,Ok, but how does random rolling solve that problem? Wouldn't this be just as true?

Think about it......in a fantasy setting, RP-wise a character who writes down nobleman rolls a 20 for social status as a backstory would have a somewhat unfair advantage dealing with NPCs who have to show respect to their title,

If you want to balance this, then give it some kind of cost in terms of other character-creation resources. I'm not saying you need a full point-system, but maybe a list of selectable perks, of which increased social status is one (picked multiple times for really high status). But really, random rolls don't balance things, they just shuffle them around.

Yora
2011-07-10, 04:07 AM
I don't think anything should be rolled during character creation, but as such ideas go, this one is clearly one of the better ones.
If you do it, make that roll at the very beginning of character creation, before players have decided on a race and class.

Figgin of Chaos
2011-07-10, 04:33 AM
In my first D&D campaign, the DM presented five homebrewed "races" as human noble houses, with normal humans as the common folk. Unlike the rest of the party, I played a commoner (not the class), and started a revolution called the House of Commoners.

Being on the low end of the social ladder ain't so bad when you're a hero.

MickJay
2011-07-10, 06:34 AM
I'd remove crown princes and heirs to the title or fortune altogether from the list, since they wouldn't be allowed to adventure as they want, since it's too dangerous, and they have to learn how to rule, govern and administer anyway. This still leaves all the younger sons who wouldn't inherit much (and would therefore have a reason to travel the world in an attempt to gain fame and make their own fortune). It also removes the problem of small armies of guards, retainers, courtiers etc. following the adventurers.

Terraoblivion
2011-07-10, 07:03 AM
Also, a point worth making is that nobility in a medieval context really doesn't confer a lot of privileges not related to taxation. Scandinavia didn't even have titled nobility until the 16th century, for example. Being a noble just meant that you could afford to buy a warhorse, a sword and a suit of armor and were willing to promise to serve the king when he went to war. In exchange you didn't have to pay taxes for your farm.

However, the unified concept of nobility didn't exist anywhere in Europe before the renaissance. There were lords and there were knights and they were separate social classes, considered as distinct as knights and commoners both in terms of ideology and practical conditions. Being a lord or a direct family member of one conferred significant rights and responsibilities, centered around rulership and management of the territory. Running off to pursue your own things was a sure way to be overlooked for inheritance or get overthrown for not actually ruling your country.

The general concept of idle nobility has never really been accurate, the closest being British gentry in the 19th century and French courtiers during the enlightenment. However, the latter group had a social standing that relied less on their title and more on their position within the court, to the degree that landed nobility actually concerned with managing their land was completely locked out of royal favor and real standing within their class. And again, they were supposed to actually manage their lands and generally didn't have the money to delegate completely. Nobility just came with a whole lot of responsibilities as well as privileges, many of them centered around maintaining the basis for the privileges.

The latter is probably the central part, the entire premise for the thread is ultimately that nobles don't do anything other than enjoy privileges and if that's how you were going to portray it, of course it would cause problems. But really, even if you have your own army, you still have to pay to maintain it, keep the soldiers content and loyal, balancing budgets and keep all the people on the land who forms your economic basis content. At the minimum. Most likely you would also have to show off your wealth and splendor to reinforce the notion that you really are deserving of the station and of course you'd need to keep using diplomacy to fend off rivals. All of this also means not mobilizing your army and marching it around all the time, which would be quite a drain to the economy and spook your neighbors if not outright invade their territories. In short, it was hard work. Idle nobility was really only possible once the political functions of nobility had mostly disappeared and civil bureaucracy was strong enough that it was safe to delegate and trust the authorities to prevent corruption, while the economic basis for the noble class was still present. So mostly just the 19th and early 20th century and certainly not the administrative vacuum that was the middle ages.

In a more general sense, this discussion seems to come from a D&D perspective. Quite a few systems not only have rules meant to represent the kind of privileges you're talking about, just like they would generally be more inclined to force you to pay attention to the obligations and duties of your station. However, even beyond that it just takes a bit of world building and clarity in the goals of the game and what is and isn't expected at character creation to avoid trouble when dealing with a mature group. I have been in quite a few games involving noble characters without any of them wielding an undue effect on the plot and where the privileges seemed to largely extend to being able to afford wearing a fancier dress at parties and similar.

Tiki Snakes
2011-07-10, 07:26 AM
I'm amused at the idea of nobility being automatically an advantage. Currently playing in a Warhammer Fantasy game, as the only noble type in the party. This, in practice, translates to the following more often than not;

Distrusted by the NPC's. Attempting to interact with the common folk to find things out has to be done with incredible care, otherwise they just stare at me like a rabbit in the headlights or become outright passive-aggressive hostile.

Duties versus benefits. Events dealt with as they have been, we've generally been rewarded for what we've acheived so far. But for the most part, all of the actual responsibility and culpability and so on fall to me, as I'm stuck at least nominally in charge.

Blamed for the failings of my social class. The (Baron?) and the other nobility, who mostly dwell in the fort have not exactly ingratiated themselves with either the landowners, the free-men, or the general populace. A lot of the resistance I encounter is purely because I am nominally a noble. It doesn't help that I'm deliberately playing him as a bit of a jerk, admittedly.

Least natural allies of the whole group. The halflings have their own communities, as well as the watch and militia that they work in. They also at this point have ingratiated themselves very easily with several of the various factions in town. The Huntress and former woodcutter has both the temple of Taal and her Woodcutter friends to call on, even the barmaid who is not only common but also a Servant classed character has a large section of society and at least one secret faction behind her. My Squire in comparison comes from the kind of atmosphere where you must watch what you say because other nobility are likely to squeeze you for advantages. The closest he gets to an allied faction are almost certainly using him as a disposable asset in some grander political manouvering and if events continue as they have been, there's a very real chance he'll end up on the wrong side of a civil uprising/civil war.

It's a great game, but I can honestly say that the power and resources of the Nobility are not always the be-all and end-all, especially in a remotely convaluted/politically semi-realistic scenario. I'd say that all told though I have the same chance of success as the other players, I'm most likely to face fatal complications eventually, largely because of the social class that supposedly gives me an advantage.

Pigkappa
2011-07-10, 08:26 AM
If being a noble is an advantage, let them pay XPs or a feat to qualify.

lesser_minion
2011-07-10, 08:45 AM
Nobility is not automatically an advantage -- it depends on what you're playing.

In WFRP, for example, a noble gets 1d4 retainers. You have to feed them at 7/- per day per head, and none of them are actually going to be useful on an adventure except as porters.

This being WFRP, you will never have enough stuff that you need porters.

When you only make 200 shillings from a whole week of adventuring, it pays not to have to shell out over 300 shillings just to feed everyone in your care.

Mono Vertigo
2011-07-10, 09:18 AM
And in Dwarf Fortress, nobles are not just whiny and stupid, they frequently get unfortunate accidents. :smallwink:
Of course, DF is not a tabletop RPG, but my point still stands. In fact, one could argue your average PC acts as a dwarven noble. They just don't demand demon rat leather thongs or such. Usually.

Blacky the Blackball
2011-07-10, 09:32 AM
Well, you have to think about what nobility means in the game world; not just what it means in our world.

When you have fighters capable of killing an entire retinue of guards single-handedly, and wizards capable of disintegrating people they don't like; nobility as a purely social class doesn't work.

Any "0th level" noble who is in their position solely by birth is not going to command the respect of such powerful characters and is probably going to be killed or deposed rather quickly and have their castle looted.

So rather than nobility being something that you are born to; in my games (and I wrote this assumption into Dark Dungeons) nobility is something that is earned.

Basically, all nobles are high level characters. They have to be to survive. As high level characters, they handle the big important things that happen in their domains, but they really haven't time to go out and track down every last bunch of bandits or goblin raiders. So what do they do? They hire low level adventurers to do that sort of stuff. And hiring the same bunch of low level adventurers turns into patronage.

And when those adventurers get higher level, they've proved themselves to be worldly wise and (assuming the nobles have got to know them) sensible and level headed. So they then get given land grants and titles and so forth and become the next generation of nobility - whereupon they settle down and spend time looking after their domains and hiring low level adventurers to do the petty goblin-killing stuff for them...

This is kind of the set up that old editions use - the ones that assume that high level characters end up with castles and so forth.

It has a dual advantage. Firstly, it gives adventurers a place in the world. Adventuring becomes the primary source of social mobility, so it's a respected - if dangerous - calling; and one that gets patronage from the powers that be rather than being seen as disreputable. Secondly, it is a great in-game justification for both having high level nobles that adventurers can't bump off that easily and also why high level characters don't simply solve all the problems. They're too busy ruling.

Of course, if your world works like this, there are no first level characters who just happen to be nobles, because all nobles are - by definition - high level. There may be some who are the children of nobles though - and whose parents have basically kicked them out of the castle with a sword and a promise to come back "when they've proved themselves worthy"...

Jay R
2011-07-10, 10:23 AM
First, you have to decide what nobility means in your world, and how it's propagated. French nobility never dilutes, the fourth some of the fifth son of the sixth daughter of a minor noble is still completely noble. The equivalent character in England would likely be a commoner.

Then you have to decide what opportunities you want to open or close. For instance, I would never let a PC be a Crown Prince, because that is an important national resource, and wouldn't be allowed to risk his life adventuring (war and tournaments are another matter).

I also wouldn't put a PC in the position of inheriting anything that might interfere with adventuring, either by giving them stay-at-home responsibilities or by giving them too much money or soldiery. Remember that PCs, being primarily focused on removing dangerous obstacles in their path, can often inherit very quickly.

Like any other idea, it will change the game somewhat. The issue is what changes do you want, and how are you going to prevent the changes that the PCs want and you don't?

On the other hand, if one of your characters is the heir of the duke whose lands were taken over by the evil necromancer, there's the focus of your entire campaign.

In short, if you plan to do this, think it through carefully, and then use it for creating the adventures.

RndmNumGen
2011-07-10, 10:52 AM
Think about it......in a fantasy setting, RP-wise a character who writes down nobleman as a backstory would have a somewhat unfair advantage dealing with NPCs who have to show respect to their title, as they have to show him respect and admiration that he hasn't earned yet.....However, rather than simply pigeonhole everyone into one social class.....I've thought up of an ultimatum, rolling two 10-sided die to see which social strata you come from.....Here's what I've come up with

20-"Crown-Prince(ss) of an entire country"
19- A nobleman (Archduke-duchess, Earl, Viscount, Marquis, Baron, etc.)
18- A knight or dame
17 or lower- Commoner

My philosophy is that probability should decide which social class your character comes from, since in a way, probability decides whether we are born from the elite or not in real life aswell..... we can't all be born into the elite afterall

So, statistically speaking, 1 out of every 20 adventurers will be a crown prince? Not just the bastard son of a king, but actually heir to the throne?

How many kingdoms do you have!?

If you're doing this kind of thing, I would suggest using percentile dice, at minimum. However, as others have said, I don't really think this is the right way to go about doing things. Will the players also roll to determine gender? Hair color? Sure, rolling can be a good way to add some randomness to the game, but I don't think it's needed in this case.

If a player wants to play a noble, and they end up (ab)using that power, remember that nobles have their own enemies and problems as well. Send a man who has sworn revenge on the character's family, or have their lot overthrown and lose their fortune. Or, just don't let them gain mechanical benefits from their birth.

Knaight
2011-07-10, 11:13 AM
So, statistically speaking, 1 out of every 20 adventurers will be a crown prince? Not just the bastard son of a king, but actually heir to the throne?

It listed 2d10, not 1d20. So the percentages are:
1% Crown Prince(ss)
2% Noble(wo)man
3% Knight or Dame
94% Commoner

It still seems like a bad idea from the perspective of control over ones own character, as lesser nobility -often without any real power- can be critical to a character concept, and any nobility can utterly destroy a character concept as well. It also looks like merchant classes were overlooked, as well as clergy, so there's that problem.

Honest Tiefling
2011-07-10, 12:45 PM
I am against rolling, but mostly because if I have my little heart set on being a farmer who rose to awesomeness or a minor merchant who knows their way around a shady deal, I would be sad if I could not play out the concept, even if neither has a heck of a lot of mechanical advantage.

I think rolling for nobility should only occur if everyone at the table agrees to it. Those who agree that other players can do it should be able to opt out, but instead only be able to be from the low end of the merchant class.

It should also only occur if you trust your players. If the noble PC uses it to be overpowered socially, they are assassinated and their next PC is a turnip farmer. I think there are plenty of ways to be a noble without going to abuse. Be an illegitimate child, or the fifth son. Be a noble who was given over power to serve a church. Be a noble from a region that was thoroughly smooshed.

You might also want to consider a setting where being nobility...Doesn't actually matter that much. If the game is set in a bunch of city states that don't give special privileges to nobles from another city, in only one city does the nobility actually confer power at all. You can further say that that these city states have laws regarding what their nobility can do. Say, the nobility cannot unlawfully execute anyone who has not been found guilty of a serious crime in court, or cannot demand the labor or goods for free.

If they complain that the nobles aren't powerful enough, remind them that the nobles can't have them executed on a whim or take their shinies if they feel like it.

Reluctance
2011-07-10, 01:06 PM
Status and the ability to save a few gold here and there matter at first level. If you play first level, the assumption tends to be that you're starting from nothing and working your way up, so you're free to explicitly state that. Be sure your players are on board for that sort of plot arc, though. (Be sure you're prepared for it yourself, too, lest your game of plucky peasant heroes become completely sidetracked when the PCs can challenge armies singlehandedly.)

When you start a little higher, your characters have already done something noteworthy, at which point title starts to be less of a clear advantage. Being a prince is cool. Being a dragon slayer is even cooler, no matter what class you were born into. The noble can get a little more give with the upper classes, the farm boy done good gets a little more awe from the common folk, but individual merit matters more while background increasingly becomes exactly that.

WarKitty
2011-07-10, 01:10 PM
Personally, the best bet I'd say is to make it have a mixed bag of effects. If your PC's are the type I'm guessing they are, make it so there's some family discipline. Their family expects them to bring honor to the family name. That means they better be able to provide a good reason for all that gold they have. Also they are expected to maintain themselves in proper style for a noble - no slinking around the cheap inn in unwashed clothes. And you can bet mommy will hear about it if you go to that whorehouse!

kamikasei
2011-07-10, 01:12 PM
My philosophy is that probability should decide which social class your character comes from, since in a way, probability decides whether we are born from the elite or not in real life aswell..... we can't all be born into the elite afterall
I don't think I can NO with the vehemence this demands.

Players get to define their characters*. If a character idea doesn't fit the game, tell them so and work together to come up with one that does. Not only is this idea bad because it removes a player's control over who her character is, but it's pointless because it just creates a small chance that she gets this supposed unfair bonus without necessarily even wanting it.

*Or you roll randomly because it's entertaining, but there is absolutely no reason to single out social class among the dozens of other aspects that go in to a character as meriting randomness more than anything else.

True, but doesn't it strike you as god-moding when someone tries to use their backstory to order around NPCs at a village or militia in the campaign before they had done any heroic deed worthy of respect?
If players are drawing on their backgrounds to tie themselves in to the game world, I think that's a good thing. If they're trying to write their backgrounds so as to give themselves nothing but advantages, that's a problem with the player, not something to solve with chargen rules.

...after all, if you depend on probability to decide what your physical stats are why can't you depend on probability to decide what your social stats are?
Well,
1) you don't necessarily depend on probability for any of this, depending on the game in question;
2) in, e.g., D&D 3.5 with rolled stats you do determine mental as well as physical attributes, which have an impact on your social standing and ability, but then you choose a whole lot of other stats without any randomness, including such things as race, class, place of origin, skills, personality... all of which are going to shape who you are in the game world.

In the middle ages, nobility only accounted for 10% of the population.
And naturally, monster-slaying heroes are a perfectly representative cross-section of the larger population.

Epsilon Rose
2011-07-10, 01:12 PM
I have to say that I really dislike this idea. Both because it hampers character creation and because any benefits are better handled as feats. If a character wants a small army they can take leadership (or find the funds to hire one) and the fact that neither of those options are available to a first level character is fine because no army is going to listen to a first level character, noble or not. If you really wanted to you could create. A another feat for the social benefits or you could just use it as the explenation behind why that particular use of a social skill worked.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-10, 01:35 PM
If being a noble is an advantage, let them pay XPs or a feat to qualify.

That actually is a VERY good idea.....maybe a prestige class that only gives them social power something like a PC version of Aristocrat

Epsilon Rose
2011-07-10, 01:46 PM
That actually is a VERY good idea.....maybe a prestige class that only gives them social power something like a PC version of Aristocrat

A full peculiar might be to much of an investment and/or really bad for story depending on what it does. I'd digest either doing it as feats or writing up a bloodline for it.

Lord Loss
2011-07-10, 02:03 PM
I don't see the point of turning this into mechanics. I've had noble characters in my campaigns and it can be more of a hassle for the player than an advantage.

Common folk in most kingdoms won't really care about some lord or king's child and, in the places that do care, they won't really believe the character most of the time. On the off chance that they do, well, it's an advantage that rarely comes up in play that's balanced out by people wishing to do the noblity/royalty harm. Like assassins, rebels, thugs or members of other noble houses. Also, many people won't care even if they do live under the character's parent's rule. A lot of people didn't like the royals back in the day (case in point: the French Revolution).

RPGuru1331
2011-07-10, 02:05 PM
If you ask for game resources to justify it, and you then turn around and deny the usefulness of their background except for meaningless trifles, you will irritate players. Keep that in mind in deciding how much to ask for. If they had to sink 5 levels into being The Princess, they're going to be extremely irked if you decide to that being The Princess isn't actually useful.

WarKitty
2011-07-10, 02:10 PM
If you ask for game resources to justify it, and you then turn around and deny the usefulness of their background except for meaningless trifles, you will irritate players. Keep that in mind in deciding how much to ask for. If they had to sink 5 levels into being The Princess, they're going to be extremely irked if you decide to that being The Princess isn't actually useful.

I think it's more a case of either ask for game resources to justify it, or make it less useful. Not that it shouldn't be useful - but if it doesn't cost any game resources, it shouldn't be more useful than being a commoner. It should confer a different but roughly equivalent set of advantages and disadvantages.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-10, 02:10 PM
This is the kind of stuff that should be decided in back story and worked out with the DM, in my opinion. Maybe some feats to increase first level wealth, or similar, to reflect, potentially, a higher station,but rolling for social standing? I say no. One of the arguments to reject rolling for point buy is the potential disparity of power. This, if it actually has an effect, could be much worse. And if it doesn't, what is the point?

Jude_H
2011-07-10, 02:23 PM
Should players roll dice? No. That's not something that would make games universally more enjoyable or immersive or whatever.

Is it a viable step to toss into character generation? Absolutely.

There are certainly games that do this and basically work out (see Conan d20 and its PC creation guide thing). Even D&D often has an element of it underlying its starting wealth rolls.

That said, it's an approach I'd typically avoid. In games I run, I like to have a general idea of players' character plans, just to bait the initial plot hooks and to sketch out some plot-type ideas for later. This kind of randomization puts more pressure on me to think fast in the first session. It's not the end of the world or anything, but it is a bit of extra hassle.

And as a player, I'm not sure what I'd be getting out of it. I don't mind waiting to throw some dice before coming up with a character, but I'm not sure what would become more fun with this added step.

Aux-Ash
2011-07-10, 02:24 PM
I don't see the point of turning this into mechanics. I've had noble characters in my campaigns and it can be more of a hassle for the player than an advantage.

Common folk in most kingdoms won't really care about some lord or king's child and, in the places that do care, they won't really believe the character most of the time. On the off chance that they do, well, it's an advantage that rarely comes up in play that's balanced out by people wishing to do the noblity/royalty harm. Like assassins, rebels, thugs or members of other noble houses. Also, many people won't care even if they do live under the character's parent's rule. A lot of people didn't like the royals back in the day (case in point: the French Revolution).

Uh... yes. Common people will care. A visit from a noble in your home region was a big event. Kind of like one of those increadibly famous people coming to visit a neighbourhood store in modern terms. A lot of people would gather to see what's going on. Hail and cheer if the noble is popular or glare quietly if he/she is not. Innkeepers would clear entire floors to accomodate nobility if they wanted a place to stay, tossing all those other guests out. A lot of young men and women would try to... win the nobles favour in the hope that the noble would bring them with them to court. Poor and people in need would come for alms and to ask for help.

If they have trouble with the local lord they'll petition you for help to make sure their lord does his/her duties to them. Especially if the noble is higher status than their lord. A king's second son would be like having the president come by your own street.

Now if you don't come with a huge retinue and fancy clothes, it is far more likely they won't believe you're a noble than shrug their shoulders and not care.
The minute it gets out that you are a noble, they won't leave you alone for a minute.

archon_huskie
2011-07-10, 02:28 PM
This is part of character creation for Hackmaster. they have 10 wealth classes. This also affects your starting wealth.

Upper Upper Class
Middle Upper Class
Lower Upper Class
Upper Middle Class
Middle Middle Class
Lower Middle Class
Upper Lower Class
Middle Lower Class
Lower Lower Class
Slave

Terraoblivion
2011-07-10, 03:07 PM
If said noble was a high ranking lord or a recognized close relative of one, Aux. An ordinary knight or the son of a petty baron on the other side of the country would get addressed by title and otherwise be expected to pay and act like a normal guy.

Seriously, it's like half the people writing in this thread think that nobles are all incredibly important, powerful people. Most really weren't, especially not when around the place they lived themselves. Really, it should be expected. Only so many people can be closely tied to the local government or fabulously wealthy and nobles were generally far too common for that.

Terazul
2011-07-10, 03:15 PM
Yeaaah, this was one of those things you would roll for in Hackmaster during character creation. It was also one of those systems that would have you roll to see if you were an illegitimate child, whether your parents loved you, if you got accepted to your school of training, if you passed your school of training, if while at your school of training your instructors abused you, and so on.

Basically I hate Hackmaster and some things you just shouldn't have to roll for.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-10, 03:24 PM
There was a system of rolling in, at least 1st edition AD&D, Oriental Adventures for social rank and inheritance. There was later an article in Dragon Magazine on a system for buying the benefits of with honour points because the author felt having all these benefits come at once was too unbalancing for characters at first level. As I have never played AD&D, much less Oriental Adventures, I can not vouch for the fix, but it seemed more reasonable then dumping all of it at once.

Aux-Ash
2011-07-10, 03:33 PM
If said noble was a high ranking lord or a recognized close relative of one, Aux. An ordinary knight or the son of a petty baron on the other side of the country would get addressed by title and otherwise be expected to pay and act like a normal guy.

Well yes. A member of the lower nobilty wouldn't be that much news. But still probably the focus of today's gossip on the street. And if he wanted a room at the inn and the rooms aren't filled with more important people, an innkeep can probably arrange something (can't have a knight sleep in the pigsty, now can you?). And if the village have problems with bandits or something they will ask him for help.
But they would be expected to pay for themselves and follow the law. And once the intital curiosity has been stilled it's just a normal day ("oh... it was just a knight... I thought it was someone important").

High nobility however (which is just about everyone with a title). That's another matter entirely.


Seriously, it's like half the people writing in this thread think that nobles are all incredibly important, powerful people. Most really weren't, especially not when around the place they lived themselves. Really, it should be expected. Only so many people can be closely tied to the local government or fabulously wealthy and nobles were generally far too common for that.

Indeed. All nobles aren't super important people. Most are in fact just professional soldiers. But neither are they nobodies. They have privileges. They have duties to the common people. The lone wandering knights won't have the streets lined with cheering (or jeering) crowds when he passes, but he'll probably be followed by that group of wide-eyed children. And people will speak to him more politely than others (if nothing else because he's a soldier).

However, a big part in being treated like nobility lies in looking the part. If you walk with ruined boots, dirty clothes with a rough stubble all alone... they're not going to treat you according to your station. Because you look more like a drunk than a noble.

Now on a horse with a great colourful cloak, a retinue of people following you and guarding you. Some nice banners and impressive heraldry. Music and waving to the people. They'll treat you with respect and like a noble even if they haven't a clue who you are.

Mind.. if they recognice the former as a noble and the latter as a commoner then people will be shocked (in the former case) and outraged (in the latter).

Tulya
2011-07-10, 04:22 PM
If your players are using their noble backgrounds as an advantage, remind them that nobility is also a liability.
Don't forget that the social games that alter the balance of power and status among nobles continue even in your players' absence. You have any number of options to play that up without making it the central focus of your game.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-10, 04:39 PM
Nobles do NOT get benefits over other adventures, and I can sum up why in one word.

Zuko.

Longer version: yes, he's the crown prince, and yes, he became fire lord, but he didn't get any benefits for being crown prince, because the only reason he was adventuring is because he was banished or a fugitive.

Eric Tolle
2011-07-10, 05:51 PM
I've seen systems for rolling for social rank, in among other games, WHFRP. Which leads to really weird questions about party composition. So a boatman, a physician, a rat catcher, and the son of a baron, all meet at an inn and decide to travel and work together? Riiiiight.

There's also the fact that in a feudal system, it's all about the network of loyalties. So say, having a duke as a PC means that he is going to have loyalties and obligations to his lord, and loyalties and obligations to the people that are loyal to him. Note that this flows both ways, so he'll get benefits flowing down from his liege, and up from his vassals. It's not a system really conducive to being independent murderous hobos.

Then again, the entire medieval feudal milieu isn't good for adventuring parties in the first place. You really want a setting that resembles the Old West more than Europe, though you can have castles instead of forts, and wizards instead of cattle barons. In that set-up a noble title might mean something back home, but out on the frontier, it most likely means you're just a dandy from back East.

Jay R
2011-07-10, 05:55 PM
The first version of this I ever played with was from The Dragon #3. We used it, but it didn't really affect much, since the DM wasn't using the character backgrounds in designing his world.

It works well in Flashing Blades, Champions and other games when it's part of character creation.

The question you have to ask is this: what is it for?

"Duke" isn't a character attribute, like STR 17, or blonde hair; it's a position in society with responsibilities, privileges, connection to a certain land, relationships with many other people, etc.

Unless the DM and player use it do define the character's lifestyle, goals, situations, etc. as part of the actual play of the game, it's meaningless.

Kurald Galain
2011-07-10, 06:11 PM
In campaigns where it matters, I make "social status" an additional attribute, and have the players spend part of their point buy on it (or not, of course, if they don't want to). It offers a very real in-game benefit, so it's a tradeoff for the benefit of other attributes.

Analytica
2011-07-10, 06:28 PM
I like the idea of being able to take feats, or substitution levels, and so forth, to represent social status. In fact, I might ask that a player of noble backgrounds dedicate some character options to it - if you were raised at court, you should have taken ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty. You should probably take Leadership as soon as you can, to represent the servants your family makes available to you.

As for characters being probabilistically generated according to the background distribution of the population... by that reasoning, the same should go for race and the trade you are trained in, i.e. class. There are some games that do this, ranging from Hârnmaster to FATAL. In either case, I wouldn't play them.

EagleWiz
2011-07-10, 06:50 PM
You know what puts a charactor at an even more unfair advantage? Writing Class: Druid on thier charactor sheet. That doesn't mean that we should all roll randomly for charactor class (Not Monk! Thats worse then that Bard/Fighter I got last time!)

If a player is getting an unfair advantage, use the banhammer. Its so much easier and less painfull. Because a party with King Wizard and Poor-as-dirt Truenamer would be just as stupid if it were determined randomly.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-10, 06:58 PM
You know what puts a charactor at an even more unfair advantage? Writing Class: Druid on thier charactor sheet. That doesn't mean that we should all roll randomly for charactor class (Not Monk! Thats worse then that Bard/Fighter I got last time!)

If a player is getting an unfair advantage, use the banhammer. Its so much easier and less painfull. Because a party with King Wizard and Poor-as-dirt Truenamer would be just as stupid if it were determined randomly.
If a person is a full functioning member of a high social class, not an outcast like Zuko became, and it actually affects the game, they have tremendous advantage. At high social classes, this is like Leadership+. Of course, there is also responsibilities, but you still have resources that others won't.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-10, 06:59 PM
You know what puts a charactor at an even more unfair advantage? Writing Class: Druid on thier charactor sheet. That doesn't mean that we should all roll randomly for charactor class (Not Monk! Thats worse then that Bard/Fighter I got last time!)

If a player is getting an unfair advantage, use the banhammer. Its so much easier and less painfull. Because a party with King Wizard and Poor-as-dirt Truenamer would be just as stupid if it were King Truenamer and Poor-as-Dirt Wizard, because the wizard would still be way better.

Fixed that for you.

Seb Wiers
2011-07-10, 09:10 PM
Think about it......in a fantasy setting, RP-wise a character who writes down nobleman as a backstory would have a somewhat unfair advantage dealing with NPCs who have to show respect to their title, as they have to show him respect and admiration that he hasn't earned yet.....l

They would also have to face the risk of being forced to run errands for nobility (in their own family or those the family owes favors / loyalty / money), be less able to travel incognito (certainly if they wanted that respect they "deserve"), would probably get charged more for goods and services (or flat out refused certain low cost services as "not fitting their class"), might have unknown enemies, etc, etc.

Being "just another peasant" has its advantages.

Flickerdart
2011-07-10, 09:16 PM
Savage Worlds has a Noble trait or something, which automatically makes you Rich and Very Rich. But being a nobleman also has its obligations, as the description points out. You have to uphold the reputation of your house, you have to attend all the social events, be polite to all the bastards you want to strangle...and then most of your interaction will be with monsters at sword-point, anyway. Being a peasant might cost you 5 cp in turnips, but it saves you so much more pain in the neck, and the nobility still has to roll Diplomacy just like anyone else.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-10, 10:54 PM
Another problem with nobility is that it gives players lei-way to play their characters as complete jerkasses or psychopaths.....Since in the dark ages over to the middle ages, nobility essentially means that your ancestors were powerful warriors who had sacked, conquered, and terrorizing the populace into obeying them. A character of nobility technically can get away with murder (as long as the victim's kin are beneath his social standing). If the Character wants to be "old-fashioned" he could even sack, loot, plunder a small town as long as no one important cares for it.... Granted, I'm not saying that all players who use nobility as a backstory end up like this....but I'm just saying that it gives them an excuse to allow their characters to act unaccountable for their behavior......

Shadowknight12
2011-07-10, 11:03 PM
Another problem with nobility is that it gives players lei-way to play their characters as complete jerkasses or psychopaths.....Since in the dark ages over to the middle ages, nobility essentially means that your ancestors were powerful warriors who had sacked, conquered, and terrorizing the populace into obeying them. A character of nobility technically can get away with murder (as long as the victim's kin are beneath his social standing). If the Character wants to be "old-fashioned" he could even sack, loot, plunder a small town as long as no one important cares for it.... Granted, I'm not saying that all players who use nobility as a backstory end up like this....but I'm just saying that it gives them an excuse to allow their characters to act unaccountable for their behavior......

You do realise that this does not actually have to be the case right? That this is something that has to be solved outside the game and not by deflecting the issue and hiding behind the implementation of a mechanic? You, as the DM, have to tell the players, OOCly, "Hey, I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with the way your character is acting. Do you think you could be nicer? Thanks." A lot of DMs don't allow evil alignments in their campaigns. This is pretty much the same issue. Just say that you aren't comfortable with jerks or evil characters and ask your players to please play nice. Don't avoid confrontation by implementing a mechanic and pretending everything's fine.

I mean, honestly, what do you want from us? Validation? You'll find some of it, I'm sure, as I'm fairly sure some people agree with you. But not from all of us, no. I, for one, do not agree with your assessment of the situation you presented, or the mechanic you're proposing, at all.

Bovine Colonel
2011-07-10, 11:04 PM
If that's what your players are doing, you've got bigger problems.

Edit: Swordsage.

Also, I think the consensus is "this is a bad idea; don't do it." People have produced some very good points; try to do something other than ignoring them?

Knaight
2011-07-10, 11:05 PM
Another problem with nobility is that it gives players lei-way to play their characters as complete jerkasses or psychopaths.....Since in the dark ages over to the middle ages, nobility essentially means that your ancestors were powerful warriors who had sacked, conquered, and terrorizing the populace into obeying them. A character of nobility technically can get away with murder (as long as the victim's kin are beneath his social standing). If the Character wants to be "old-fashioned" he could even sack, loot, plunder a small town as long as no one important cares for it.... Granted, I'm not saying that all players who use nobility as a backstory end up like this....but I'm just saying that it gives them an excuse to allow their characters to act unaccountable for their behavior......

If they use that excuse, then it says something about the player again. Moreover, if their reason for doing this is rolling a 19, its not any better for the game.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-10, 11:49 PM
You do realise that this does not actually have to be the case right? That this is something that has to be solved outside the game and not by deflecting the issue and hiding behind the implementation of a mechanic? You, as the DM, have to tell the players, OOCly, "Hey, I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with the way your character is acting. Do you think you could be nicer? Thanks." A lot of DMs don't allow evil alignments in their campaigns. This is pretty much the same issue. Just say that you aren't comfortable with jerks or evil characters and ask your players to please play nice. Don't avoid confrontation by implementing a mechanic and pretending everything's fine.

I mean, honestly, what do you want from us? Validation? You'll find some of it, I'm sure, as I'm fairly sure some people agree with you. But not from all of us, no. I, for one, do not agree with your assessment of the situation you presented, or the mechanic you're proposing, at all.

Well true, but I don't really want to be "that DM" just because I don't like the way they play their characters.....I believe that as a DM my job is merely to create a world which reacts accordingly to the PCs actions.....so if they want to go on a killing spree the countryside then by all means they're free to do so, however it would also mean that they will spend the rest of their PC lives as fugitives running from legions of paladins out for their blood. I can't just say "I want you to play a LG character even though you prefer to be CE"....I don't even believe that players should be railroaded to one quest if they don't want to be, my party once decided to just let a kingdom be taken over by an Orcish Warchief just because the King refused the party leader's demand of errr...."aqcuainting himself" with the King's wife and daughter as payment for his services.....I'm a pretty lax DM but what I don't tolerate is granting players any sort of advantage that they haven't earned through their own devices or through random chance.... If they want the power of nobility they can get it either through rolling or through feats but I'm not just going to give it to them just because their backstory says so



Moreover, if their reason for doing this is rolling a 19, its not any better for the game.

Well true but it apparently is an acceptable reason according to Medieval Europe......where those who won the genetic lottery were able to justify their mistreatment of others by saying "Screw the rules, I'm a nobleman"

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-10, 11:55 PM
Well true, but I don't really want to be "that DM" just because I don't like the way they play their characters.....I believe that as a DM my job is merely to create a world which reacts accordingly to the PCs actions.....so if they want to go on a killing spree the countryside then by all means they're free to do so, however it would also mean that they will spend the rest of their PC lives as fugitives running from legions of paladins out for their blood. I can't just say "I want you to play a LG character even though you prefer to be CE"....I don't even believe that players should be railroaded to one quest if they don't want to be, my party once decided to just let a kingdom be taken over by an Orcish Warchief just because the King refused the party leader's demand of errr...."aqcuainting himself" with the King's wife and daughter as payment for his services.....I'm a pretty lax DM but what I don't tolerate is granting players any sort of advantage that they haven't earned through their own devices or through random chance.... If they want the power of nobility they can get it either through rolling or through feats but I'm not just going to give it to them just because their backstory says so

What's the big deal then? It's not like being of noble status is going to stop the paladins.

Knaight
2011-07-10, 11:56 PM
Well true, but I don't really want to be "that DM" just because I don't like the way they play their characters

At this point, they are already "those players". There is a serious need of discussion about what the game is going to be, and what the social contract regarding in game behavior is, because you have better things to do with your time than provide and maintain a setting for people who are intent on vandalizing it. As a GM, I'd have stopped GMing for this group ages ago. As a player, I'd have left the game ages ago. The point is, the dynamic encouraged by these players is enough to make the game a chore.

Its not a matter of not liking the way they play they characters. It is certainly not a matter of allowing player freedom, as not forcing certain "quests" or such is. The game is a shared creative space, with a shared emergent story. Part of what that means is that there must be respect for the parts of the creative space entrusted to the other participants. In the classic GM-player dynamic, that means that the GM respects the player's agency over their characters, the the players respect the integrity of the setting. The latter of these isn't happening, and that is a problem. And if the latter of these isn't happening, and the way that respect is being ignored is through the choice made by the players within the former, then the problem is that the agency of the characters is abused in an incredibly rude manner by the players.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-11, 12:16 AM
Well true, but I don't really want to be "that DM" just because I don't like the way they play their characters.....I believe that as a DM my job is merely to create a world which reacts accordingly to the PCs actions.....so if they want to go on a killing spree the countryside then by all means they're free to do so, however it would also mean that they will spend the rest of their PC lives as fugitives running from legions of paladins out for their blood. I can't just say "I want you to play a LG character even though you prefer to be CE"....I don't even believe that players should be railroaded to one quest if they don't want to be, my party once decided to just let a kingdom be taken over by an Orcish Warchief just because the King refused the party leader's demand of errr...."aqcuainting himself" with the King's wife and daughter as payment for his services.....I'm a pretty lax DM but what I don't tolerate is granting players any sort of advantage that they haven't earned through their own devices or through random chance.... If they want the power of nobility they can get it either through rolling or through feats but I'm not just going to give it to them just because their backstory says so

That's a very ethical stance and I respect and admire it. However, I had my fair share of friends who were a lot like that. They were very nice and believed that it was their duty as human beings do help other people out, to give to whoever asked something of them, and to be all around good people. The problem was that they got used. They were used by selfish people who took advantage of their kind nature for their own ends. My friends didn't know how to say "no," how to say "I'd love to help you, but I really can't" or "I'm sorry, I'm just not comfortable doing that."

You have just the same right to have fun as your players do. If their actions impede your fun, it is exactly like you doing something that impedes their fun. You have every right to say "Sorry, but there are some things I just don't like seeing in my game, because they detract from my fun." What would you do if a player wanted to describe, in lurid detail, how he tortures and murders an innocent NPC? Or other terrible, unwholesome acts? Think about something that makes you very, very uncomfortable. Now imagine a player brings that to the table. You have every right to ask for them not to do that, out of respect for you. There are things that you can do that would probably ruin their fun (such as enemies immune to damage or a permanent Antimagic Field on your campaign setting) and they would have every right to bring it up to you and say "I'm sorry, but I just don't like that, and I would really like for you not to do that, please." You have that right as well.


Well true but it apparently is an acceptable reason according to Medieval Europe......where those who won the genetic lottery were able to justify their mistreatment of others by saying "Screw the rules, I'm a nobleman"

So? Does that automatically mean that you must endure it in your game? If the player has a right not to experience his character suffering some form of horrible torture at the hands of an NPC, you too have a right not to experience your NPCs being tortured by the PCs. You are not obliged to make your games abide by the "Anything goes" rules. Everyone has limits and boundaries, and you have a right to make others respect them. You are pouring time and effort into the game. You are worthy of such boundaries being respected.

Epsilon Rose
2011-07-11, 01:48 AM
Well true, but I don't really want to be "that DM" just because I don't like the way they play their characters.....I believe that as a DM my job is merely to create a world which reacts accordingly to the PCs actions.....so if they want to go on a killing spree the countryside then by all means they're free to do so, however it would also mean that they will spend the rest of their PC lives as fugitives running from legions of paladins out for their blood. I can't just say "I want you to play a LG character even though you prefer to be CE"....I don't even believe that players should be railroaded to one quest if they don't want to be, my party once decided to just let a kingdom be taken over by an Orcish Warchief just because the King refused the party leader's demand of errr...."aqcuainting himself" with the King's wife and daughter as payment for his services.....I'm a pretty lax DM but what I don't tolerate is granting players any sort of advantage that they haven't earned through their own devices or through random chance.... If they want the power of nobility they can get it either through rolling or through feats but I'm not just going to give it to them just because their backstory says so




Well true but it apparently is an acceptable reason according to Medieval Europe......where those who won the genetic lottery were able to justify their mistreatment of others by saying "Screw the rules, I'm a nobleman"

Just because something was like X in medieval Y doesn't mean it needs to be like that in your campaign. For starters, your campaign world isn't Y, it is at best a stylized representation of Y and that means that it can (and usually will) differ in rather extreme ways. There's also the fact that there are allot of powers in play in D&D that weren't in play in medieval Europe:

A wizard/adventurer guild could take a special sort of umbrage with adventurers who go around sacking random visages (it is, after all, very bad for business), weather or not said adventurers are nobles. It's not like there families armies would be much of a threat to either type of organization.
Any god granting divine writs is perfectly capable (and more than likely willing) of (to) sending down a couple of representatives to admonish (horribly massacre) any rulers abusing said rifts.
The other side of the divine equation is perfectly capable on making good on any Faustian pacts involving the overthrow of a corrupt government (even if it's only to get their own corrupt government in place).
There's magic. Period. End of story. Communication is faster, defenses and external threats are bigger and the things that let nobles take such advantage of the common folk can be much less of a factor.


It's also worth noting that their credit as adventures (even at low levels) is going to go allot further than their credit as nobility in terms of inspiring the kind of fear and complacency you seem to want to give them.

Also also, even if the villagers are afraid to act out of fear of reprisal if it ever got to the point that you're describing they'd act anyways because they'd have nothing to lose, the laws be hanged. Furthermore at that point neighboring states/factions/Zs would be looking to takeout the nobles in question, if not there entire family, either out of fear or sensing an easy target for conquest.

RPGuru1331
2011-07-11, 02:09 AM
If they want the power of nobility they can get it either through rolling or through feats but I'm not just going to give it to them just because their backstory says so
You know, as long as you don't then frustrate it, there's nothing wrong with asking for an in-game mechanical resource to represent this. Every system I'm familiar with that doesn't do in game rolls (Which I will break from the majority and say *have the potential* to be interesting, if everyone's cool with it). It's usually called a Status background or advantage. Of course, most systems put a much smaller onus on Money Buying Everything, so starting with, for instance, Resources 5 or Wealth 8 (In a PL 8 game) isn't nearly so big a deal.



Well true but it apparently is an acceptable reason according to Medieval Europe......where those who won the genetic lottery were able to justify their mistreatment of others by saying "Screw the rules, I'm a nobleman"

You're not actually in medieval europe.

Worira
2011-07-11, 04:48 AM
If a person is a full functioning member of a high social class, not an outcast like Zuko became, and it actually affects the game, they have tremendous advantage. At high social classes, this is like Leadership+. Of course, there is also responsibilities, but you still have resources that others won't.

I... what? That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what you quoted. In fact, the post you quoted clearly and directly rebuts your point, and you don't appear to address it at all.

EDIT: Oh wait, presumably you meant to quote this post:


Nobles do NOT get benefits over other adventures, and I can sum up why in one word.

Zuko.

Longer version: yes, he's the crown prince, and yes, he became fire lord, but he didn't get any benefits for being crown prince, because the only reason he was adventuring is because he was banished or a fugitive.

Although I'm not sure how you got them mixed up, since they're like 5 posts apart.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-11, 06:04 AM
I... what? That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what you quoted. In fact, the post you quoted clearly and directly rebuts your point, and you don't appear to address it at all.

I am sorry you feel that way, and of course you are entitled to your opinion, but there are other ways you could have said it.:smallannoyed:

Morghen
2011-07-11, 12:51 PM
Social Class Table from HackMaster 4E:

01 Slave (Slaves, banished individuals, indentured servants)
02-06 Lower Lower Class (Peasants)
07-11 Middle Lower Class (Laborers, men-at-arms, peddlers)
12-20 Upper Lower Class (Tradesmen, Freemen, money changers)
21-35 Lower Middle Class (Artisans, landless knights, craftsmen)
36-55 Middle Middle Class (Landed gentry, merchants, senior officers)
56-87 Upper Middle Class (Guild masters, landless nobles, military commanders)
88-96 Lower Upper Class (Generals and marshals, knights)
97-99 Middle Upper Class (Commanders, nobles)
00 Upper Upper Class (Great nobles, sovereign nobility, royalty)

The roll is modified by race. HackMaster is a BP system, so the likelihood of getting stuck with a STARTING social class you hate is pretty slim. And sometimes a low social class can actually have a positive effect during your initial schooling if you're creating one of the thiefy types. (But usually, higher is better.)

Fhaolan
2011-07-11, 01:24 PM
This is one of those places where point-buy systems like GURPS comes in. If the players want mechanical advantages for their characters, they have to purchase them as advantages. And the amount of advantage varies with the amount they've paid for them.

However, this used to be a common thing in old-style RPGs. Social Class tables and the like. The way this was 'balanced' was that if you want the advantages of the higher social class, you also had to take on the disadvantages of that social class. Mainly the fact that you have to constantly maintain that social class. Being a nobleman/woman means you have responsibilities. If you shirk those responsibilities, your feudal lord can simply remove your rank, your holdings, etc. on a whim. Other organizations can have you over a barrel as well. Excommunications for ticking off the church, assassins from rival holdings, etc. Heck, rival lordlings will be constantly trying to get the king to reassign your holdings to them for any contextual reasons they can think of. If you're the heir to the kingdom, it gets even crazier as all your relatives will be trying to kill/control you so that *they* become King/Queen instead of you.

Adventurers, by definition have a big target on them. Noble adventurers have a big *publically visible* target on them.

Jay R
2011-07-12, 09:11 AM
Another problem with nobility is that it gives players lei-way to play their characters as complete jerkasses or psychopaths.....Since in the dark ages over to the middle ages, nobility essentially means that your ancestors were powerful warriors who had sacked, conquered, and terrorizing the populace into obeying them. A character of nobility technically can get away with murder (as long as the victim's kin are beneath his social standing). If the Character wants to be "old-fashioned" he could even sack, loot, plunder a small town as long as no one important cares for it.... Granted, I'm not saying that all players who use nobility as a backstory end up like this....but I'm just saying that it gives them an excuse to allow their characters to act unaccountable for their behavior......

A nobleman can only sack and loot a town if he and his followers can defeat the town guards. And a peasant can also get away with it if his forces can defeat the town guards. As you document above, the only difference between a noble who gets away with it and a peasant who gets away with it is that the noble's ancestors did it too.

(That's a gross exaggeration and over-simplification of nobility, but since your argument was based on it, I get to use it too.)

kyoryu
2011-07-12, 11:10 AM
Random background generation can work, but I'd only recommend it in old-school games where players are expected to have multiple characters (even if the multiple characters are not due to mortality rates).

lightningcat
2011-07-23, 11:38 PM
I've actually played in a single campaign where we used a die roll to determain social rank.
My character was the the son of the lowest noble rank (Viscount if I remeber correctly), and was therefor also the lowest social rank of any of the characters. We had 2 members of different royal families in the group as well.
My character was also more-or-less the leader of the group, a fact no one would argue with after he single handedly took out a dracolich. You got to love 2e AD&D
The social rank was important to the game, but it was only one facet of the entire game experience, and made for fun intraparty conflict.

Chen
2011-07-26, 02:06 PM
In our current Dark Sun campaign (in a made up city) we were able to choose to be either a Noble, Free man or Slave. The noble had a minor bonus to some knowledge skill and started able to read (no one else was legally allowed to and that was reflected in needing to spend skill points to read). Free men got to add an additional skill to their class list with a bonus to it (except UMD :P). Slaves got a free feat.

This balanced out fairly well, but it takes a bit more effort from the storyteller's point of view. If the slaves simply escaped early and suffered no consequences of it, it would be pretty pointless. But it works well if the campaign is going to be more than just dungeon crawling and the DM is capable of tailoring a campaign to take things like that into account. For reference in our group we had 2 Nobles, 3 slaves and a Free man in our original party which now is 2 nobles and 5 free men, where one of those free men was originally a slave (the other slaves died and we added a new player later on).

If the DM doesn't want to do work like that I'd suggest just making everyone come in as a "middle class" citizen so as not to worry about prince so and so causing issues.

Wardog
2011-07-27, 04:12 PM
Another problem with nobility is that it gives players lei-way to play their characters as complete jerkasses or psychopaths.....Since in the dark ages over to the middle ages, nobility essentially means that your ancestors were powerful warriors who had sacked, conquered, and terrorizing the populace into obeying them. A character of nobility technically can get away with murder (as long as the victim's kin are beneath his social standing). If the Character wants to be "old-fashioned" he could even sack, loot, plunder a small town as long as no one important cares for it.... Granted, I'm not saying that all players who use nobility as a backstory end up like this....but I'm just saying that it gives them an excuse to allow their characters to act unaccountable for their behavior......

Does the town belong to the noble in question?

If so, he's destroying his own source of wealth, and probably going to provoke a rebellion while he's at it.

If not, then he's going to have the noble who does own the town coming after him, at minimum. If the feudal society is actually functioning as it should, then he'll get the king and other nobles coming after him too. (In fact, he may get that even if it is his own town, because in a feudal system all the nobles' holdings are in theory at least granted by the king, and can be revoked by him as well).

The only situation a noble would be likely to get away with that would be in a civil war (like e.g. The Anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy))





Then again, the entire medieval feudal milieu isn't good for adventuring parties in the first place. You really want a setting that resembles the Old West more than Europe, though you can have castles instead of forts, and wizards instead of cattle barons. In that set-up a noble title might mean something back home, but out on the frontier, it most likely means you're just a dandy from back East.

Good point. I remember reading the same argument somewhere else as well. The other setting that they suggested would be appropriate would be something like the Bronze or Iron Age, or Classical Mythology.

This would also be a good way of making being a noble consistent and balanced with adventuring, because adventuring would be one of the ways you earned your position.

(Typical plot hook: "Today is the day you come of age. Your foster parents come to you and say 'Now you are old enough to know you that you are the son of the king. Here is the sword he left us to give to you when you were old enough. He lives on the other side of that monster-infested wilderness. Now off you go and introduce yourself to him").

And bear in mind that royalty was 10-a-penny, with potentially every city having its own king, and so common enough that it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a prince in an adventuring party, and common enough that it wouldn't be that big a deal. (Plus, in many cases, a king's primary source of wealth would be "a large herd of cattle").

Kiero
2011-07-27, 04:14 PM
Nothing in chargen should be random.

Given free rein to choose the social class of my characters, I always go for commoners. My current character is of genuine peasant stock, and has been underestimated because of it. Though he is now the only illiterate of the PC group.

Ormur
2011-07-28, 10:47 AM
Characters get the resources they start with, if they are nobles they have to explain why they're at the same footing as the rest of the characters and why they're associating with them in the first place. Actually even first level adventurers (in D&D 3,5 at least) are comparatively advantaged, they have somehow had enough training or wits to earn a PC class and even the starting equipment is something dirt poor peasant sons and daughters might have a hard time scraping together.

I actually imagine most adventurers would be more middle class but I think they're primarily outsiders if the setting has some kind of a class system. A bunch of powerful wanderers searching for treasure or hiring out their services don't fit very well into a hierarchy. It resembles a the stories of people in the past that rose to riches and power despite humble origins and rigid class distinctions, often in times of crisis. After the first levels power also becomes more important than origins except in the eyes of snotty higher level NPCs. The recipient of a fireball in the face doesn't care whether it was cast by a lord or a peasant.

Of course a noble origin is an excellent excuse for an interesting backstory and training as a swordsman or a wizard. The younger sons and daughters of lower nobility like a knight might be expected to fend for themselves but if they're heirs to titles and lands there must be something out of the ordinary. Maybe they ran away from their obligations, maybe they're the only survivors of a coup or a war, maybe they disgraced themselves. Almost every reason I can imagine for high nobility adventuring gives ample reasons for being discreet.

Wardog
2011-07-29, 02:41 AM
Characters get the resources they start with, if they are nobles they have to explain why they're at the same footing as the rest of the characters and why they're associating with them in the first place.

Possible explanations:

* The adventuring expedition has been commisioned and funded by the noble. His wealth and followers are represented by the party and their equipment. (Could result in some interesting - or unfun - party dynamics, especially if some members are played as actual servents or retainers of the noble rather than just friends or mercenaries).

* The noble is a decadent rake who has squandered his money and prestiege on gambling etc and adventuring is his attempt to regain it.

* The noble's family has fallen on hard times or out of favour (nobles are not always rich), and adventuring is his attempt to restore his family's wealth and honour.

* The noble's dynasty was founded by an adventurer who worked his way up to nobility from nothing, and as a point of pride, all his descendents are expected to do the same before they can receive their inheritance.

* A great evil is threatening the land, and the noble sees it is his duty (or has been told by the King that it is his duty) to deal with it, and has set out on a quest to do so. (That would explain why he is adventuring; having no more resources than standard adventurers could be explained as by the time he joins up with the rest of the party, he has expended all the rest. Maybe he tried to take on the dragon without sufficient force, all his followers got eaten, and he had to hand over all his wealth to be allowed to escape).

Lowkey Lyesmith
2011-07-29, 10:47 PM
Well true, but I don't really want to be "that DM" just because I don't like the way they play their characters.....I believe that as a DM my job is merely to create a world which reacts accordingly to the PCs actions.....so if they want to go on a killing spree the countryside then by all means they're free to do so, however it would also mean that they will spend the rest of their PC lives as fugitives running from legions of paladins out for their blood. I can't just say "I want you to play a LG character even though you prefer to be CE"....I don't even believe that players should be railroaded to one quest if they don't want to be, my party once decided to just let a kingdom be taken over by an Orcish Warchief just because the King refused the party leader's demand of errr...."aqcuainting himself" with the King's wife and daughter as payment for his services.....I'm a pretty lax DM but what I don't tolerate is granting players any sort of advantage that they haven't earned through their own devices or through random chance.... If they want the power of nobility they can get it either through rolling or through feats but I'm not just going to give it to them just because their backstory says so







When I was 16 I had a similar gaming group. At first I let them behave as they wanted but as they got worse and worse I finaly got tired of it. I then proceded to treat the situation as if in real life, what would actually happen if a nobleman walked in to a town in a land were he has no offical power and started making demands?

Well, war is a clear possibility.

That the noblemans liege finds out and take away his title. Also possible. Every action has consequenses and if you make sure your players understand that and understand that basically every adventure they play that way will end with their characters dying (or worse) you will get a result.

At best the group will learn and stop being complete idiots at worst they don't want you as a DM anymore.

I lost my playing group back then because of this. But that's okay since I was not enjoying the game. And why DM if you are not enjoying yourself?

Seb Wiers
2011-07-29, 11:10 PM
Another problem with nobility is that it gives players lei-way to play their characters as complete jerkasses or psychopaths.....Since in the dark ages over to the middle ages, nobility essentially means that your ancestors were powerful warriors who had sacked, conquered, and terrorizing the populace into obeying them. A character of nobility technically can get away with murder (as long as the victim's kin are beneath his social standing).

Fantasy setting != middle ages. There is no reason to assume government and social structures will be the same (ie fuedal / hereditary). Even if they started out that way, they'd be VERY hard to maintain, given the near-godlike power levels that low born adventurers can reach (which would, if nothing else, likely result in a meritocracy). For example, high level rouges could easily make those in power the kind of "offer you can't refuse"...

archon_huskie
2011-07-31, 11:39 PM
Fantasy setting != middle ages. There is no reason to assume government and social structures will be the same (ie fuedal / hereditary). Even if they started out that way, they'd be VERY hard to maintain, given the near-godlike power levels that low born adventurers can reach (which would, if nothing else, likely result in a meritocracy). For example, high level rouges could easily make those in power the kind of "offer you can't refuse"...

Personally I have always considered the Rogue class to be the class a noble to most likely have.

My very first rogue was actually a diplomat.

Ormur
2011-08-01, 12:17 AM
The rogue is a perfect fit for a less martial nobleman. The skill list and combat prowess fits very well. Most of the nobles I've stated up were rogues or warblades.

Otherworld Odd
2011-08-06, 11:01 AM
20-"Crown-Prince(ss) of an entire country"
18 & 19- A nobleman (Archduke-duchess, Earl, Viscount, Marquis, Baron, etc.)
15, 16 & 17- A knight or dame
12, 13 & 14- Middle class merchant family
11 & lower- Commoner

I'd say the above. Cuz its a bit more scaled out

I would be fine with this way. Your way was... well... pretty much you can plan on playing a commoner. I like having some choices picked out for me and building to that character as long as race, class, age, etc are up to me.

lightningcat
2011-08-07, 05:15 AM
The rogue is a perfect fit for a less martial nobleman. The skill list and combat prowess fits very well. Most of the nobles I've stated up were rogues or warblades.

Say what you will about the class, but I like to go for a bard as the less martial nobleman.


basic reasons for this choice, copied from my campaign info

Noble Bards
While it may seem like a strange idea at first, bards make one of the best classes for aristocratic player characters.
Nobles are often trained in a variety of abilities. Bards have 6 skill points per level and one of the largest lists of class skills.
Nobles should be able to hold their own in a fight. And while bards do have a relatively small hit die (d6), they do have an average base attack bonus, two good saving throws, and they are also proficient with most of the courtly weapons, as well as light armor.
Nobles are often taught by sages and wizards. Bards gain some spellcasting ability and have a chance of knowing almost anything with the bardic knowledge ability.
Nobles are expected to be charismatic and able to use their words to inspire those who follow them, and even use words to wound their opponents. Bards gain a variety of abilities with the bardic music ability, including at the most basic level the ability to inspire courage.
Noble bards are most likely to concentrate on Perform (oratory) over other Perform skills, and they should also have a high Diplomacy skill, Knowledge (history), and Knowledge (royalty and nobility) as well.

warmachine
2011-08-07, 08:16 AM
It is an implicit rule that you can't gain powers, even social, merely by what's in your backstory. If deleting that rules adds to the fun, that's fine as long as it doesn't subtract from others by making one player unduly powerful. Let the others have social powers based on their backstory. For example, the thief could know the secret code words for every local Thieves Guild and can buy inside information or special services. Or the local clergy, even of another god, consider themselves a power separate from the nobility and are always friendly with the Cleric.

Emmerask
2011-08-07, 08:43 AM
Crown prince(ss) of an entire country?
Except maybe for a viking like culture I could not see them ever to be allowed to adventure, it is much too dangerous business, secondly a crown prince(ss) has way to many chores to be ever able to go out and adventure.
And then even if you can find logical reasons why both these are the case, why would he ever be on his/her way without 20+ guard soldiers (the best of the realm)?

No I really can´t see that I would ever allow such high nobility to be played by my players (at the beginning of a game). I mostly let them choose what they want to be. But the selection is confined to minor nobility at the top end.
If my players want to roll I guess I would go with something like this table:

20: Junker
19-18: Knight
17-15: Hedge Knight (Knight without land to his title)
14-11: Merchant family
10-1: Commoner

or if they want to play a young character son/daughter of table.

The Hedge Knight is above the merchant family because nobility sees the merchants as not much more then commoners (be it with a bit more money) while the hedge knight atleast has a title ie is the lowest of low nobility.

Knaight
2011-08-07, 07:43 PM
Crown prince(ss) of an entire country?
Except maybe for a viking like culture I could not see them ever to be allowed to adventure, it is much too dangerous business, secondly a crown prince(ss) has way to many chores to be ever able to go out and adventure.
And then even if you can find logical reasons why both these are the case, why would he ever be on his/her way without 20+ guard soldiers (the best of the realm)?

Look at the early iron age. When the entire country is a city state, and most of these only have a few thousand people, sending royalty off to adventure and see the world seems entirely reasonable.

NNescio
2011-08-08, 06:40 PM
Personally I have always considered the Rogue class to be the class a noble to most likely have.

My very first rogue was actually a diplomat.


The rogue is a perfect fit for a less martial nobleman. The skill list and combat prowess fits very well. Most of the nobles I've stated up were rogues or warblades.

Guys, Aristocrats.

Siosilvar
2011-08-13, 05:37 PM
Guys, Aristocrats.

NPC class. Subpar chassis + no class features = both boring and underpowered.

If you're bothering to give the NPC stats and not defaulting to a generic block, the NPC classes are pretty much below them (exception: Lord Shojo).

Balain
2011-08-14, 02:42 AM
I didn't read all the posts but it can be done. Many systems actually do something very much like that.

The other thing to consider, yes being a noble has it's perks in a fantasy world, people know you and listen to what you say and you can order people around, you get stuff for free and raise armies. There is also downsides, people want you dead and you have to worry about constant assassins hunting you down, Sometimes having people know you on site is good sometimes it's not so good as people swarm around you and want advice, want your autograph, want to touch you, as a noble people maybe trying to kidnap you for ransoms. If you are off adventuring and your nation/king/whatever go to war and you ignore the war to adventure, all of a sudden your people don't like you any more and won't listen to you and maybe they help out those assassins....


Anyways my rambling point is they can come up with a background where they are a noble which gives them perks, but you can roleplay situations that make him wish he wasn't a noble at all.

Morty
2011-08-15, 05:09 AM
Players arbitrarily making their characters high nobility in order to reap in-game benefits is a problem. However, making players roll dice to determine their social status is not a solution to this problem.
Besides, really, an argument could be made that in a typical D&D world, people from the non-priviledged classes of society are more likely to become adventurers. Adventuring is a high risk, high reward job; you can gain wealth, power and status quickly but you also risk being killed and eaten by a monster pretty much on a daily basis. Such a career is much more tempting for someone on the bottom of the heap than to someone on top of it.

Ormur
2011-08-17, 10:30 AM
Guys, Aristocrats.

Yeah no, if they didn't have anything but skills and a few proficiencies why hasn't some adventurer killed them and taken their lands? Might pretty much equals right in D&D so big important people need to have effective HD. You could go even further and have all the aristocrats in your setting clerics, sorcerers and wizards although their class skills are less representative so I choose not to.