Why Hire Adventurers?

[Tanarii]

How does PCs are special and that's why we 'follow' them reconcile with dying ignominiously with a goblin arrow in the throat or Orc axe to the face? Or a TPK because they overstretched, later on?

In modern D&D that's not particularly likely, but there are still plenty of systems where likelihood of death is fairly high. The players are attempting to live and get rich and powerful from lootz just like any other adventurer. Or scrabble through the apocalyptic wasteland. Or possibly both if it's a fantasy points of light setting. Or do both while fighting off e tides of chaos and green skins. They might live, but they're far more likely to die. Just like all the other adventurers.

[KorvinStarmast]

They might live, but they're far more likely to die. Just like all the other adventurers.
Your old school is showing. :smallbiggrin:

[Bohandas]

Maybe he's just an archaeology or history professor. But when he goes on an adventure to find the Holy Grail, then he has become an adventurer.

I thought Temple of Doom was the earliest one in-world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How does PCs are special and that's why we 'follow' them reconcile with dying ignominiously with a goblin arrow in the throat or Orc axe to the face? Or a TPK because they overstretched, later on?

In modern D&D that's not particularly likely, but there are still plenty of systems where likelihood of death is fairly high. The players are attempting to live and get rich and powerful from lootz just like any other adventurer. Or scrabble through the apocalyptic wasteland. Or possibly both if it's a fantasy points of light setting. Or do both while fighting off e tides of chaos and green skins. They might live, but they're far more likely to die. Just like all the other adventurers.

They're special. That doesn't make them safe. Just that they have the potential to do grand things. Unlike 90+% of the rest of the setting, who are mired down in every-day life or are near their "if I want to grow I'll have to take risks I'm not willing to take" point.

[Tanarii]

They're special. That doesn't make them safe. Just that they have the potential to do grand things. Unlike 90+% of the rest of the setting, who are mired down in every-day life or are near their "if I want to grow I'll have to take risks I'm not willing to take" point.
Ah my mistake. I thought it was "the PCs are special even among adventurers" not "the PCs are special among the populace".


Your old school is showing. :smallbiggrin:True. But also my Warhammer experience. :smallwink: And examples of more modern games that have a high likely hood of character death are Forbidden Lands and Apocalypse World. The latter is important, because it's a very 'narrative' post-Forge game, and yet from what I understand, the characters are still very likely, even almost certain, to die. So the concept that characters must survive in order to continue their 'story' doesn't seem to be a given.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ah my mistake. I thought it was "the PCs are special even among adventurers" not "the PCs are special among the populace".


They are special among adventurers (in my setting at least), but not as much. Being an adventurer doesn't mean you're special or even good at it. The average career of an adventurer is measured in single digit missions, after which they are one of dead, maimed, traumatized, or have acquired enough wealth to settle down. Usually the first three.

Most PCs, however, are lucky enough to get the grand call to great things. And not die during that first, really risky part. And they're stupid enough to not realize they're rich and retire after their first big score. Or are out there for reasons other than just money. And then they get caught up in grander things and then it's push push onward lest the wrong lizard win. Or they've taken the bit and have goals to accomplish.

[KorvinStarmast]

So the concept that characters must survive in order to continue their 'story' doesn't seem to be a given. Besides AW's godfather (Baker) being a Forgite his own self, yeah, there's a rich and varied pile of literary genres that include "the hero dies while striving mightily" that is well served by many RPG formats.

Or they've taken the bit and have goals to accomplish.
Is that why my teeth always hurt? :smalleek:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is that why my teeth always hurt? :smalleek:

No, that's because you seem to find new ways of getting punched, slammed, kicked and otherwise beaten. I think so far this campaign it's a dead heat between you and Erland for "most turns spent at 0 HP."

[Talakeal]

That's the same way I feel about "PCs shouldn't be special because they're PCs." No, they're not special (in universe) because (out of the universe) they're PCs. But they're PCs because they're special. If they weren't, we'd be following and looking at people who were special. Or in special, pivotal circumstances.

I have been trying to explain this concept for years.

The rules of the game are weighted in the PCs favor not for any simulationist reason, but because it is representing a post-hoc survivor bias; this is the story about the adventurers who changed the world, not all the adventurers who are lying dead in shallow graves and monster stomachs.

[Yora]

Except in games where it isn't.

This is basically the Dragonlance Paradigm Shift when it comes to D&D.

[Talakeal]

Except in games where it isn't.

This is basically the Dragonlance Paradigm Shift when it comes to D&D.

I would argue it was true even in OD&D as Gygax often described saving throws and HP inflation as the result of pulp hero stunts and amazing luck.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, that's because you seem to find new ways of getting punched, slammed, kicked and otherwise beaten. Not to mention the hot lava bath at that low quality spa. :smalltongue:

[Vahnavoi]

How does PCs are special and that's why we 'follow' them reconcile with dying ignominiously with a goblin arrow in the throat or Orc axe to the face? Or a TPK because they overstretched, later on?

That's a whole different topic with a range of solutions. One of them is that you abandon the concept entirely: the characters are whoever and the question why to play them is open-ended & constantly re-evaluated during play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I should note that my setting has formalized "adventuring" (in at least one area). Very intentionally, as part of an international treaty, with an oversight body. With the express purpose of reducing the need/desire for substantial standing armies or even private military forces such as the standard feudal model. Instead, each nation sponsors one or more Registered Companies (which may operate in other nations as well). Anyone who chooses to adventure (ie take on hazardous tasks for pay) as well as anyone over a given power level[1] must register with a Registered Company (unless they declare themselves as non-adventuring). The Company is then responsible for their behavior, with the international Guild acting as enforcement. Requests for aid flow first to the Companies. Nations are discouraged from having substantial military forces themselves (beyond local town guards). The treaty also includes mutual aid and mutual defense provisions.

This came about after a couple incipient wars were aborted by a coalition of the high-power (former, at that point) adventurers getting together and airdropping onto the battlefield with their dragon friends (etc) and telling both sides to back off. Economically, it's enforced because the Guild (and the rest of the international body) have a monopoly on a portal network that allows instant travel across the entire region (effectively local Stargates)--these gates are relics of an earlier age and cannot be replicated (quite literally--the magics needed to create them no longer exist in the world-schema). Nations or groups that decide to get antsy risk getting cut off. Plus risk having all the high-powered folks drop in for a visit.

So there's very little open military or political squabbling. Lots of under the table and obfuscated skulduggery though. But no armies.

[1] Rough "class-level equivalent" power level (something proportional to # of HD for PCs, ish) is detectable due to setting metaphysics. But it's very rough--you can get bands of power:
F-rank: < 2 (90% of everyone)
C-rank: 2-6 (~8% of everyone)
B-rank: 7-8 (~1.99% of everyone)
A-rank: 9-10 (0.01% of everyone)
Legendary: 11+ (there are exactly 2 groups of legendary former adventurers known in that area)

[Stonehead]

When English children during World War 2 were sent to the country, most of them just played in the country. Only four of them went to Narnia through a wardrobe. That’s a very improbable result – but those are the four that the book is about.

Most hobbits did the normal hobbit-like action of staying home, growing food, eating six meals a day. Only Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin went to the Great War. But those four are the ones Tolkien wrote about.

Most Kryptonians stayed on Krypton and died when it blew up. Only one (or two) were sent to Earth to become superheroes. No matter how unlikely that result is, it’s the reason we have any stories about Kryptonians at all.

Similarly, PCs in my game are all adventurers, and they are the ones I'm designing scenarios for.

If 9,999 rulers don't hire adventurers, and one ruler does, then that's the only ruler whose actions I'm tracking carefully.


That's the same way I feel about "PCs shouldn't be special because they're PCs." No, they're not special (in universe) because (out of the universe) they're PCs. But they're PCs because they're special. If they weren't, we'd be following and looking at people who were special. Or in special, pivotal circumstances.

For me, there's buckets of "adventurers" out there. The vast majority are little more than bandits or straight-up mercenaries, hired to do mercenary types of things. In mercenary types of numbers and organizations (except there isn't much war right now in the main setting, so it's more conquistador "break ground in the unknown" type. Some specialize in monster hunting. Other groups in mediating political issues. Others in weapons research (as testers, mostly, as the developers stay in their labs where it's even more dangerous). Others focus on finding and protecting (or robbing) ancient "dungeons" (a thing which doesn't exist much in the real world, but is common in mine for various metaphysical and historical reasons). But in general, they're weak, bounded in power, and don't live long and healthy lives. The PCs are among the special group whose power growth isn't clearly bounded. They can grow explosively, while most have hit their "soft cap" by early adulthood. And PCs are catalysts, because we follow the people who are in positions where things are nicely balanced and all it takes is a small act to start a cascade.

This is fair for certain settings, but it's not universal to ttrpgs. Especially recently, there have been games that treat 'adventuring' as a profession, in an almost self-aware sort of way. With the number of "adventurer" stories in both published modules, and homebrew campaigns, a lot of people started to accept heroes or adventurers as a reasonably common in-universe thing. Some people like playing games in which they aren't the chosen one, or even the Bilbo, in the right place at the right time due purely to chance. So to the people who like games like that, and sessions where the local lord hires them to defeat the goblin raiding party, the title question still applies.

[KorvinStarmast]

Legendary: 11+ (there are exactly 2 groups of legendary former adventurers known in that area) IIRC, one of those adventurers is now an officer in, or the head of, one of the adventuring guilds - that was the plan, anyway. (A certain vertically challenged halfling).

With the number of "adventurer" stories in both published modules, and homebrew campaigns, a lot of people started to accept heroes or adventurers as a reasonably common in-universe thing. Heck, back during AD&D 1e days some of the FR novels included references to and interactions with official adventuring guilds (the one I am thinking of included Finder Wyvernspur's stories, but it also might have been a different one - been over three decades since I read those books).

[Tanarii]

Except in games where it isn't.

This is basically the Dragonlance Paradigm Shift when it comes to D&D.
Right. And it's one that oD&D, AD&D, BECMI and even 2e, doesn't represent very well. Because unless the DM fudges or makes survival-oriented house rules, most games will be "following" adventurers who end up very dead, probably quite early on. Not ones that accomplish some grand story.

Otoh, even a Fighting-man that dies adventuring is a little special compared to a Norman Man. Following the PCs because they are one of many adventurers and this a little special and maybe do a few heroic things but then probably die a grizzly death vs because they are some type of protagonists of a story that do truly great things are totally different game styles. And often sets of game rules.

[Yora]

Classic dungeon crawling doesn't have to be exceptionally deadly, But then it also won't be particularly heroic.

An important cornerstone of these games is that the players have options in which dungeons they want to go to, and to what depths they descend. Danger isn't thrown at the party. The PCs are approaching it. If the GM does provide the players options for where they want to progress, danger is something that the players can manage. There is always a great deal of uncertainty involved, but there are ways to improve your odds of survival.
Gaming the system in your favor is widely considered the main skill players develop in classic dungeon crawling games. This is also where the whole Combat as War pardigm originally comes from. If the world of the characters is harsh and unfair, exploit its weaknesses to give yourself any advantage you can get. Being unheroic cowards and cheats to run off with the treasures is the name of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Being unheroic cowards and cheats to run off with the treasures is the name of the game. But nobody at the tavern knows that, so you can spin them whatever yarn you like about how you arrived with that treasure in your possession. :smallwink:

[Jay R]

This is fair for certain settings, but it's not universal to ttrpgs. Especially recently, there have been games that treat 'adventuring' as a profession, in an almost self-aware sort of way. With the number of "adventurer" stories in both published modules, and homebrew campaigns, a lot of people started to accept heroes or adventurers as a reasonably common in-universe thing. Some people like playing games in which they aren't the chosen one, or even the Bilbo, in the right place at the right time due purely to chance. So to the people who like games like that, and sessions where the local lord hires them to defeat the goblin raiding party, the title question still applies.

And the answer is still the same, in all ttrpgs about adventurers. We are following the PCs, who are adventurers, so we only pay attention to the employers who hire the PCs.

New York City has a dozen super-heroes, and Metropolis only has one. But there's always a super-hero on stage during the fight scene.

Maybe adventurers are common, like in old Westerns, and every rancher has some hired guns. Maybe adventurers don't even exist, like in Jurassic Park. John Hammond hired dinosaur experts to evaluate his park, and they accidentally become the only dinosaur-focused adventurers in the entire world when the park security goes off-line.

In one world, hiring adventurers is normal, and adventurers are reasonably common, and lots of employers hire adventurers. In another world, it's rare, and only the PCs are adventurers, and only one employer in the world is hiring adventurers.

Either way, any adventure story about what the PCs are hired to do will include an employer who hired adventurers.

[Stonehead]

And the answer is still the same, in all ttrpgs about adventurers. We are following the PCs, who are adventurers, so we only pay attention to the employers who hire the PCs.

New York City has a dozen super-heroes, and Metropolis only has one. But there's always a super-hero on stage during the fight scene.

Maybe adventurers are common, like in old Westerns, and every rancher has some hired guns. Maybe adventurers don't even exist, like in Jurassic Park. John Hammond hired dinosaur experts to evaluate his park, and they accidentally become the only dinosaur-focused adventurers in the entire world when the park security goes off-line.

In one world, hiring adventurers is normal, and adventurers are reasonably common, and lots of employers hire adventurers. In another world, it's rare, and only the PCs are adventurers, and only one employer in the world is hiring adventurers.

Either way, any adventure story about what the PCs are hired to do will include an employer who hired adventurers.

I'm saying that there are people who want their story to be statistically unremarkable. There are people who want their characters' stories to represent a mostly standard human existence.

There are also people who want their game worlds to be realistic (I know there's a whole thing here about verisimilitude, but realism does have its diehard fans). There are people who want their game setting to be a fairly believable model of how people behave in the real world.

To people who are both the question is important.

To focus in on a single line:

In one world, hiring adventurers is normal, and adventurers are reasonably common, and lots of employers hire adventurers. In another world, it's rare, and only the PCs are adventurers, and only one employer in the world is hiring adventurers.
It's not a given that both worlds are realistic. In action movies, violent gangs are normal, and fist fights are common. It makes for a fun setting, but not a very believable one to people who care about realism. Someone who really cares about realism wouldn't want to play in that game. So the question of whether or not hiring adventurers is a reasonable thing to do is still an important question, because some people want a world like world 1 where what they do is normal and common, and a world that seems believable to them.

Now, as it happens, I do think it's fairly realistic given certain start conditions, and I don't really care too much about realism, but that doesn't mean the question is irrelevant.

[Jay R]

I'm saying that there are people who want their story to be statistically unremarkable. There are people who want their characters' stories to represent a mostly standard human existence.

You and I are talking about two different issues. I will address the one I care about (and that I think is inherent in the thread title “Why hire adventurers?”). Then I will address the one you seem to be interested in.

My point is this: whether it is “statistically unremarkable” or not, whether it’s what the players want or not, whether the goal is realism or verisimilitude or believability or sheer romping adventures, hiring adventurers will happen in any game in which:

A. Somebody hires the PCs, and
B. The PCs are adventurers.

That is totally independent of the question of how realistic or believable it is. Therefore I have ignored the question of how realistic or believable it is (up until now).

I will now address the issue you seem concerned with: how realistic or believable it is.

And first, I need to make a clear distinction that you haven’t made. “Realistic” or “believable” are not synonymous with “statistically unremarkable”. I’m one of the people who want a game to be believable and to have verisimilitude. I want the world to represent “a fairly believable model of how people behave in the real world.” That does not mean I want my PC’s life to be statistically unremarkable. PCs’ lives are only statistically unremarkable in a game of Fields and Farmers, or Markets and Merchants, or Homes and Housework. An adventure is inherently statistically remarkable.

Monopoly or The Game of Life, then you are right, and we have no disagreement, for the simple reason that there is no intersection between your topic and mine.

I want to play an adventurer – a character with a statistically remarkable life. I want to do so in a believable world, but I still want to fight ogres and explore wilderness in that world, not grow turnips. Growing turnips is a mostly standard human existence. Slaying ogres is not.

It follows that I do not mind unlikely events. In fact, in most role-playing games, we skip over the statistically unremarkable parts. We don’t discuss waking up, cooking breakfast, washing dishes, re-packing our packs, and each unremarkable stage in the day’s hike. We skip all that with, “Next morning you get started and continue walking through the forest. About an hour later, you see tracks crossing your trail. Role a Tracking check to determine what creature made them.” We deal with the owlbear tracks specifically because they are statistically remarkable.

So even if a noble who hires adventurers is rare, and therefore statistically remarkable, it doesn’t break verisimilitude. [A king who offers half his kingdom and the hand of the princess to whoever slays the giant is also rare, and statistically remarkable. It was also the basis of the story.]

Have I successfully identified, and addressed, your issue?

[Mechalich]

I'm saying that there are people who want their story to be statistically unremarkable. There are people who want their characters' stories to represent a mostly standard human existence.

That's not quite it. People want to play as relative average - at least in terms of starting state - members of a statistical outlier group. Human storytelling preferentially targets outlier events. In event-based storytelling this is easy - just pick an event, like a battle. There are many movies with one-word battle names as titles for exactly this reason. When telling a character-focused story the approach is to pick a person who will naturally be involved in a larger number of outlier events by dint of their life's circumstances, with career being a common choice. Therefore we have tons of television series about doctors, lawyers, cops, and soldiers. In a TTRPG, 'adventurer' is one form of outlier group, serving similar duty alongside 'superhero' and 'vampire.' The event side is handled by the GM in the form of the campaign structure.

The question, from a game design and worldbuilding standpoint, is whether the outlier group the PCs are part of is a normally occurring part of society, or something that only exists because of event circumstances. That is, are they adventurers: defined by life choices, or heroes: defined by response to imposed circumstances. This has profound consequences because going the adventurer route implies that there are other people like the PCs, lots of them even, whereas going the hero route implies the PCs are largely unique.

D&D, of course, has long tried to have it both ways (so, so many problems in D&D boil down to this). FR novels have adventuring parties that wander around the continent and contend with various problems including other adventuring parties and there are various societal conventions for dealing with them. By contrast Dragonlance centered its storyline around the largely unique Heroes of the Lance and society had no idea how to handle them.

[Satinavian]

Using strange coincidendes as justification is rather inelegant. Because :

- In many cases it just is not a justification at all. Yes, some events are really rare, but whenever or whereever they occur, they occur for proper reasons, not just because they didn't happen at all the other places.

- Focussing on People who are involved in an interesting thing is valid and the interesting thing thus occuring in game does not break versimilitude. But that works exactly once per campaign. As soon as the same guys are repeatedly just there whenever something strange and unrelated happens, it stops being plausible/needs a better justification. It is not hard to give a better justification.

[Sapphire Guard]

D&D, of course, has long tried to have it both ways (so, so many problems in D&D boil down to this). FR novels have adventuring parties that wander around the continent and contend with various problems including other adventuring parties and there are various societal conventions for dealing with them. By contrast Dragonlance centered its storyline around the largely unique Heroes of the Lance and society had no idea how to handle them.

Aren't those entirely separate worlds? Why should their societies be the same?

All that tells me is that you can go either way with the same system and it will work. It's just a matter of taste.

If your metric for being 'realistic' is how people behave in the real world, that has potential to cause problems, because in worlds where the physical laws of the universe are different, people would act differently. So the question of whether something is realistic or not is not some fixed standard, but 'it depends'.

[Zombimode]

Sure, but you only need "proper justification" for the specific instance.

Why Hire Adventurers as a general question is one that is pretty irrelevant.

[KorvinStarmast]

Either way, any adventure story about what the PCs are hired to do will include an employer who hired adventurers. That shines an interesting light on The Usual Suspects :smallbiggrin:

[Stonehead]

That's not quite it. People want to play as relative average - at least in terms of starting state - members of a statistical outlier group. Human storytelling preferentially targets outlier events. In event-based storytelling this is easy - just pick an event, like a battle. There are many movies with one-word battle names as titles for exactly this reason. When telling a character-focused story the approach is to pick a person who will naturally be involved in a larger number of outlier events by dint of their life's circumstances, with career being a common choice. Therefore we have tons of television series about doctors, lawyers, cops, and soldiers. In a TTRPG, 'adventurer' is one form of outlier group, serving similar duty alongside 'superhero' and 'vampire.' The event side is handled by the GM in the form of the campaign structure.

The question, from a game design and worldbuilding standpoint, is whether the outlier group the PCs are part of is a normally occurring part of society, or something that only exists because of event circumstances. That is, are they adventurers: defined by life choices, or heroes: defined by response to imposed circumstances. This has profound consequences because going the adventurer route implies that there are other people like the PCs, lots of them even, whereas going the hero route implies the PCs are largely unique.

D&D, of course, has long tried to have it both ways (so, so many problems in D&D boil down to this). FR novels have adventuring parties that wander around the continent and contend with various problems including other adventuring parties and there are various societal conventions for dealing with them. By contrast Dragonlance centered its storyline around the largely unique Heroes of the Lance and society had no idea how to handle them.

I don't believe that is the case. To continue the TV example, my friend who went to med school likes Scrubs, but physically cringes when seeing clips of Grey's anatomy. Scrubs is exaggerated, sure, but (according to this person, I'm not a doctor) it's fairly believable and relatable.

It's like, if you have a modern-day drama, it's probably going to include some break ups, maybe divorce even, deaths in the family, falling out between friends, probably some infidelity. These are all very realistic events, even if (hopefully) they don't happen very frequently. If one of the main characters were to win the lottery however, the show would be a lot less believable. It's not that people don't win the lottery. Winning the lottery isn't an unrealistic event in the sense that it happens several times per year. It does make the show less believable though.

You could say, "it's not common for people to win the lottery, but the story will follow exceptional people who just happen to win the lottery", it will still be unsatisfying to a good chunk of the audience.

My point is that there are people who want their TTRPG games to be believable, like the example with the deaths, breakups and fights, and not like the example with the lottery. There are people who just like living a normal fictional life. I don't know how common it is, but I can guarantee you there are at least 2 or 3 I know personally.

[Tanarii]

Do they play games like warhammer fantasy RPG? Because that seems like the kind of game that someone who wants to play somebody that's a normal if exceptional person dealing with believable (in universe) somewhat common occurrence events as opposed to winning the lottery events.

It's a dark world that the events PCs are likely to encounter are believably common occurrences. But by golly, your Rat Catcher will try to deal with them and not die in the process! Or at least fight their way out of the mess to somewhere safer. :smallamused:

[GloatingSwine]

And first, I need to make a clear distinction that you haven’t made. “Realistic” or “believable” are not synonymous with “statistically unremarkable”. I’m one of the people who want a game to be believable and to have verisimilitude. I want the world to represent “a fairly believable model of how people behave in the real world.” That does not mean I want my PC’s life to be statistically unremarkable. PCs’ lives are only statistically unremarkable in a game of Fields and Farmers, or Markets and Merchants, or Homes and Housework. An adventure is inherently statistically remarkable.



But is it?

If something turns out to be a viable way to make money, even if it's inherently dangerous, people will start doing it for money. If duffing up monsters and stealing all their stuff is profitable, then people will be doing it in the world the game takes place in, and that's how the person hiring adventurers knows that there are adventurers available to be hired. It's *not* statistically remarkable for the world they live in. It's a thing that a local lord knows he can find within a reasonable timeframe and cost.

If going on adventures was statistically remarkable for his world, he wouldn't have tried to hire someone to do it because it wouldn't be something he would think of as a viable solution to the problem.

Settings where adventures are statistically remarkable cannot also be setting where adventurers are hired, they need to be settings where the adventures come about from more dramatic causes.

[Pauly]

To answer the question “why hire adventurers?” is a question that comes with 2 baked in assumptions.
1) Adventurers exist (in at least sufficient numbers to consider using them for a task).
2) They can be hired.

Not every game setting meets both requirements. In traditional superhero setting the heroes don’t travel and don’t take on quests for coin,

[Mechalich]

Settings where adventures are statistically remarkable cannot also be setting where adventurers are hired, they need to be settings where the adventures come about from more dramatic causes.

They also aren't settings where adventurers persist. There may be heroic individuals who occasionally undertake some epic quest that qualifies as an adventure, but there won't be people who spend the majority of their lives - usually from the onset of adulthood until they either die or get 'too old for this s***' - adventuring. Depending on how a game is structured the ability to do the latter, to always have the next quest waiting in the wings, may be extremely important.

[Endarire]

Because game. But you probably already knew that.

Perhaps the local lord wants to appease the advisor who recommended hiring these 'adventurers.' Advisors have family, and perhaps this advisor was sent to oversee said lord and ensure things went his way.

[Jay R]

But is it?

If something turns out to be a viable way to make money, even if it's inherently dangerous, people will start doing it for money. If duffing up monsters and stealing all their stuff is profitable, then people will be doing it in the world the game takes place in, and that's how the person hiring adventurers knows that there are adventurers available to be hired. It's *not* statistically remarkable for the world they live in. It's a thing that a local lord knows he can find within a reasonable timeframe and cost.

If going on adventures was statistically remarkable for his world, he wouldn't have tried to hire someone to do it because it wouldn't be something he would think of as a viable solution to the problem.

Settings where adventures are statistically remarkable cannot also be setting where adventurers are hired, they need to be settings where the adventures come about from more dramatic causes.

It is not true that only statistically unremarkable people get hired. It just isn't.


It is statistically remarkable to have a Ph.D. Nonetheless, universities and research companies deliberately hire people with Ph.D.s
It is statistically remarkable to have been the MVP of a NBA championship team. Sponsors nonetheless deliberately hire such people.
Fewer than two dozen people have ever been to the moon. Nonetheless, companies have specifically hired people who have been to the moon.
Thor Heyerdahl was an adventurer. In 1947, he sailed across the Pacific Ocean in a hand-built raft from South America to the Tuamotu Islands. For the rest of his life, he had no trouble getting funding or support for his next adventures.
Jacques Cousteau was an underseas adventurer. That's why some television companies hired him to film The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau.
Amelia Earhart was a statistically remarkable adventurer. After becoming the first woman to fly across the Atlantic, she has jobs and job offers and sponsors for the rest of her life.
Meriwether Lewis and William Clark were adventurers who explored the Mississippi. Afterwards, President Jefferson appointed Lewis to be governor of the Louisiana Territory, and Clark to be the brigadier general of the militia in the Louisiana Territory.


And stories tend to be about statistically remarkable people. We have stories about remarkable people -- Beowulf (who slew Grendel); Hercules (who defeated the Nemean lion); Dian Fossey (who spent twenty years living with gorillas). We have no stories about the unremarkable -- ordinary turnip farmers and townsfolk. [We only have a story of a Brave Little Tailor because he wound up slaying a giant.]

Let's remember that "unremarkable" means not worth remarking on.

If a dragon is raiding my lands, and there are only three known dragon slayers in the world, then I want to hire one of those three statistically remarkable people.

People with difficult tasks to be done tend to seek out statistically remarkable people to do them.

[Witty Username]

You only need one Beowulf, for Beowulf to be a solution for your Grendel problem.

[Pauly]

You only need one Beowulf, for Beowulf to be a solution for your Grendel problem.

Trouble is you have to wait 12 years for Beowulf to turn up, and Grendel visits every night.

[Mechalich]

Trouble is you have to wait 12 years for Beowulf to turn up, and Grendel visits every night.

Right. To unpack the Beowulf example a bit further, it's absolutely a case where regular troops can't be used. It's just that in this case it's because the regular troops are insufficient to the task at hand. Hrothgar has troops and he absolutely does have them attempt to fight Grendel. It goes very badly for them. Beowulf also contains a representation of the risk of calling in someone so powerful. After Beowulf does his daring deeds Hrothgar, in a moment of weakness, offers to make Beowulf his heir. This is an extremely dangerous situation for a lot of reasons, one that could very well destroy the kingdom. Beowulf refuses, magnanimously, of course, because he's an Anglo-Saxon paragon and he's got a kingdom of his own coming anyway, but the scene shows authorial awareness of the potential problems heroes who are more awesome than everyone else put together showing up.

[KorvinStarmast]

but there won't be people who spend the majority of their lives - usually from the onset of adulthood until they either die or get 'too old for this s***' - adventuring. Our recent campaign ran, In World, for a bit over a year and a half. My bard is now retired (Lvl 20) at age 24/25 ish, is about to have a child (the father is a gold dragon) and is part owner/Chief Operating Officer, of a small shipping company. She has a multi album contract with a greedy music company on the astral plane but she does get decent royalties from them. (Her own touring has been somewhat curtailed, by her own choice, but she does offer private performances to select customers/friends).
She has already hired two adventurers to do a few things for her (one was a dead adventurer-cleric who she managed to cast a True Resurrection on) to further her various goals and objectives. In the main, she's not out adventuring anymore, but she keeps her hand in and if something earth shaking arises, she may be available. Her simulacrum does some traveling and information gathering for her, or, does the weapons training for all of the sailors on the company's ships.

Perhaps the local lord wants to appease the advisor who recommended hiring these 'adventurers.' Advisors have family, and perhaps this advisor was sent to oversee said lord and ensure things went his way.
Nice. :smallsmile:

[Pauly]

. After Beowulf does his daring deeds Hrothgar, in a moment of weakness, offers to make Beowulf his heir. This is an extremely dangerous situation for a lot of reasons, one that could very well destroy the kingdom.

For a real life example of sending a roaming adventurer on a one way suicide mission to deal with pirates with a promise of half your kingdom if they return successfully we have James Brooke the white rajah if Sarawak.
Whilst the exact details of the promises made are a bit unclear in the end the madman willing to run headfirst into pirates nests got his own principality over the objections of the local lords.

[KorvinStarmast]

For a real life example of sending a roaming adventurer on a one way suicide mission to deal with pirates with a promise of half your kingdom if they return successfully we have James Brooke the white rajah if Sarawak.
Whilst the exact details of the promises made are a bit unclear in the end the madman willing to run headfirst into pirates nests got his own principality over the objections of the local lords. I wonder if Hernando Cortez Hernán Cortés fits that mold, or not? Probably not, since Mendoza was made viceroy.

[Pauly]

I wonder if Hernando Cortez Hernán Cortés fits that mold, or not? Probably not, since Mendoza was made viceroy.

Pizarro was the sequel that turned it up to 11, although Cortez and Pizarro were both taking someone else’s empire, not claiming a slice of the original kingdom.

[Mike_G]

Pizarro was the sequel that turned it up to 11, although Cortez and Pizarro were both taking someone else’s empire, not claiming a slice of the original kingdom.

I think they both qualify as adventurers though. I can see a "Conquer this land in the name of the crown and you can rule it, provided you send me some taxes" approach to a campaign.

This is why this thread annoys me. We have loads of RL examples of "adventurers" being hired by state and non-state entities to do stuff that state institutions like the army or police traditionally do. But when those get brought up, people split hairs to try to define mercenaries or privateers or explorers as "not adventurers"

[hamishspence]

I can see a "Conquer this land in the name of the crown and you can rule it, provided you send me some taxes" approach to a campaign.

It's a theme in Power of Faerun's "frontier leader" concept. And in the FRCS, in the Cormyr section (Stonelands), it mentions that "for decades, Cormyr's rulers have offered generous land grants to adventurers willing to tame these lands and carve out human holdings".

[Satinavian]

I think they both qualify as adventurers though. I can see a "Conquer this land in the name of the crown and you can rule it, provided you send me some taxes" approach to a campaign. Yup. Have done a couple of those. They are generally quite fun.

I could even see the Cortez-Mendoza dynamics as an interparty conflict. Admittedly Mendoza did not take part in the original conquring so coule be a new group addition or a replacement PC.


This is why this thread annoys me. We have loads of RL examples of "adventurers" being hired by state and non-state entities to do stuff that state institutions like the army or police traditionally do. But when those get brought up, people split hairs to try to define mercenaries or privateers or explorers as "not adventurers"I disagree. People have quite consistently identified adventurers as mercenaries.
As for privateers, you only get privateers when you have targets that are less dangerous but rich in potential loot. That wouldn't work for "get rid of goblin bandits" who are assumed to be both a threat and quite poor.

[Witty Username]

Could be fun to ransack some wealthy upstate goblins though. Maybe giving offerings of gold to the local river gods, if you want your party to feel decidedly Spanish conquistador.