Is adventuring a thing?

[Mordante]

Hello all,

I was thinking about something and wanted to know how you do it in your world. Do adventurers exist in your world? Are there such things are adventurer guild or groups? In the games I have played being an adventurer mostly isn't something you would do willingly. The PC might a wealthy persons child who got kicked out for being a general nuisance, a Wizard collage drop-out, someone who lost everything due to an event (war, storms etc) a shady person who had to leave their town in a hurry. The list goes on. But maybe they find someone who takes care of them in return for some errands, maybe they end up in a tavern were the job are offered to the willing. It could be that they join a group of mercenaries etc.

Being a low level adventurer isn't glamorous. If you are lucky you own a tent and traveling gear. The first levels (say 1 to 6) you take almost any job you can get. Somewhere between level 8-11 you can maybe own a house and you will not have to look for jobs but people will come to you. Around level 12-14 you might gain to fame and not only the locals might know you but even a neighboring city might have heard of you. Around level 15-17 your character should be able to retire and leave the active life. Live in a modest house and some luxuries.

That is how I more or less see the life of an adventurer/PC.

But I was wondering how other people see this? How is their world?

[Chronos]

If it is possible to live as an adventurer, then there will always be some who choose that life. Not necessarily all adventurers: Some might still just be victims of circumstance. But some of them will choose it.

[Wintermoot]

Let me think back on my last few games:

Last game: The players were all members of a quasi militia each from one of three different military/governmental groups, tasked to work together to prove that there could be unity between the three groups. They went on police like investigations/actions

Prior game: The players were adventurers who joined up to explore undermountain. Classic adventurers

Prior game: They players were nominally recruited by a wealthy merchant to find out what happened to a remote mining operation, so they were acting as mercenaries/adventurers. They discovered a threat that could destroy the world and decided to pursue stopping it as pure adventurers.

Prior game: The players met up to throw their money together and buy a ship at a ship auction intending to become freelance merchants. Instead they ended up on a quest to save the world. classic adventurers.

Prior game: Post apocalyptic world, the players happened to live in a small community together and teamed up to go explore a ruin to try and find lost technology (classic adventurers). Later when their community was destroyed, they ended up on the run and investigating a secret to save the world. classic adventurers.

So, for my groups, we do a lot of "here's the paper thin reason you are getting together, but expect to be on a world saving quest by level 5 or so"

[Zanos]

Low level adventurers are usually going to be on the fringe of society; unproven novices who are taking on great risk to life and limb for the possible chance of riches beyond anything a normal person will see in their lifetime. That doesn't mean there's no official organizations for adventurers, but the kind of people who decide to take out a local goblin encampment on their own instead of joining the military or the militia or just living their life are going to be fairly unusual compared to regular folks. Greed and desperation aren't the only motivation though, they could just feel a much higher than normal responsibility to solve extraordinary problems.

Higher level adventurers are going to be adventuring for reasons other than being able to afford living a life of luxury. They might still be doing it for treasure, but if you only wanted wealth to retire comfortably, you could have done that a long time ago.

[pabelfly]

A 1st-level commoner NPC makes around 2GP a week.

A 3rd-level NPC character should have around 2,500GP in gear. That's about twenty-five years worth of wages for the commoner NPC.

There's going to be a small number of people that are going to look at that comparison and say, "I'm willing to take a few risks for the chance to be rich beyond my wildest dreams."

[gijoemike]

1st : Mercenary groups absolutely exist. A lord or lady can hire muscle for a job. This is how adventurers make gp with profession rolls. New job every few weeks.

2nd : It isn't an adventure. We are going as a group on a short expedition with a visualized end goal. Scope creep of plot hooks ensue.

3rd : We are a group traveling a long distance through some dangerous territory. We need to be safe out there. The travel takes us far off the path like Odysseus in the Odyssey.

4th : I and my posh noble friends are going on a hunting trip with our servants. We will spend the season traveling out to the savage land, and spend all of the next season hunting, fishing, and partying with banquets in our tents.

Guess what! All of these people are adventurers and PCs. The group of people may not call themselves adventurers, they may not call what they do an adventure. So it exists in all aspects of society.

[zlefin]

It depends how thoroughly I'm building the world, and how serious it's all being. In general the more serious it is, the less there are adventuring guilds and such, though individual adventurers still exist to an extent. Of course there are still mercenaries, which are similar to adventurers, but generally not quite as tolerant of the high level of risk. Of course part of the conceit of the game is that the party is often given suitable tasks so they don't get slaughtered by accidentally running into something more dangerous than expected.

Ultimately I tend to prefer having the world be relatively low level, and have the PCs be local notables or related to local notables, thus explaining why they're being given tasks at all. As such they'r enot adventurers, they're simply a part of the local power structure doing their appropriate work.

When I have adventurers, its mostly because we just more explicitly accept the conceits often used to let the settings work, and gloss over the parts that don't make sense.

The basic issue is that PC wealth, even at pretty low levels, very quickly gets high enough to set you up for life in ever improving standards of living; so why PCs keep adventuring rather than simply stopping at some point is unclear, unless they're irrationally driven or have some goal that requires really high end powers or wealth.

[Crake]

Being a low level adventurer isn't glamorous. If you are lucky you own a tent and traveling gear. The first levels (say 1 to 6) you take almost any job you can get. Somewhere between level 8-11 you can maybe own a house and you will not have to look for jobs but people will come to you. Around level 12-14 you might gain to fame and not only the locals might know you but even a neighboring city might have heard of you. Around level 15-17 your character should be able to retire and leave the active life. Live in a modest house and some luxuries.

Youve got your numbers wayyy off here.

Level 11 is in game considered legendary, as per the legend lore spell. By this point, your character will have, at least, region-wide renown, and homes, as per cityscape, cost 100-400gp to buy a cheap apartment, 1000-4000gp to buy a good apartment or cottage, and 2000-16000gp to buy a villa/manor, so with normal wbl, you can afford a house by 3rd level, and an expensive manor by 7th level if you choose to retire and sell all your adventuring gear at half price. By 11th level you can start looking into actually affording and populating a personal stronghold with your wbl

[Drakevarg]

My games never have 'adventurers,' at least not in the sense D&D puts it, where you make an actual living out of wandering around performing heroics and uncovering vast sums of wealth as a literal profession. Explorers, sure. Mercenaries, sure. But they're people with actual professions or specific goals in mind. I've always been inclined to downplay the specialness of the PCs in the grand scheme of things. If the players can have 20 class levels, so can the NPCs. If the players can have good stats, so can the NPCs. If the players have access to magic items, so does everyone else. The players become special for what they accomplish, not for what they are.

Evidently this is an 'incorrect' way to run things, since I find myself having to argue the point every time it comes up.

[Crake]

Evidently this is an 'incorrect' way to run things, since I find myself having to argue the point every time it comes up.

Definitely not incorrect. At worst, just not aligned with the desires of your players, but I would very much so lean toward this approach myself.

[Mordante]

Youve got your numbers wayyy off here.

Level 11 is in game considered legendary, as per the legend lore spell. By this point, your character will have, at least, region-wide renown, and homes, as per cityscape, cost 100-400gp to buy a cheap apartment, 1000-4000gp to buy a good apartment or cottage, and 2000-16000gp to buy a villa/manor, so with normal wbl, you can afford a house by 3rd level, and an expensive manor by 7th level if you choose to retire and sell all your adventuring gear at half price. By 11th level you can start looking into actually affording and populating a personal stronghold with your wbl

I think a decent stronghold will cost about 100k+ gold. That is without the costs of running it. Not sure how you can afford that at level 11? Renown is optional as far as I know. You can be a level 20 character and still be completely unknown to most people in the world.

[Mordante]

My games never have 'adventurers,' at least not in the sense D&D puts it, where you make an actual living out of wandering around performing heroics and uncovering vast sums of wealth as a literal profession. Explorers, sure. Mercenaries, sure. But they're people with actual professions or specific goals in mind. I've always been inclined to downplay the specialness of the PCs in the grand scheme of things. If the players can have 20 class levels, so can the NPCs. If the players can have good stats, so can the NPCs. If the players have access to magic items, so does everyone else. The players become special for what they accomplish, not for what they are.

Evidently this is an 'incorrect' way to run things, since I find myself having to argue the point every time it comes up.

I agree with you on this. Most of the games I play the PCs even at higher level are not famous people. Cities or countries are run by people/entities that are considerably more powerful compared to most PCs.

[Gnaeus]

I think a decent stronghold will cost about 100k+ gold. That is without the costs of running it. Not sure how you can afford that at level 11? Renown is optional as far as I know. You can be a level 20 character and still be completely unknown to most people in the world.

Strongholds and kingdoms are free. In most published campaigns there are at least general descriptions for major NPCs. For example, the pirate king of Riddleport in golarion is a Fighter 7/Expert 5. Any reasonably built PC party 10 can take it without undue risk, especially in a sandbox where they can plan their coup. When my sorcerer 18 walked in, the named low-teens NPCs scrambled to get out of his way. He could trivially have soloed the entire city counsel + their guards.

Thats going to vary by campaign, of course. The NPCs in Eberron, for example, tend to be a bit stouter. But even there, a 10th level party is at least a regional power, capable of seizing and holding a sizeable or strategic settlement as long as it is out of the way or they are politically connected enough to not be stepped on by a national boss. The king of Breland is about a match for the pirate kind of Riddleport, as a Fighter 8/Expert 3. Now Breland, an actual country, might be harder to RULE than Riddleport. You would probably need to Diplomance or coerce some of the nobles into supporting you. But still, well within the abilities of a typical party if they wanted to play that game. Azalin Rex is probably the biggest combat threat in Ravenloft, and he is an 18th level lich. So a reasonable challenge for an upper-mid teens party, or a pretty easy one at level 20.

As to whether the PCs would describe themselves as adventurers, that would vary by campaign. My current game we are the principals of essentially an organized crime ring. In Skull and Shackles, they are a pirate crew. In another game I ran they were an investigative agency. Sometimes PCs are a random group of people sucked across dimensions and forced to pursue common goals. But yes, sometimes they are murderhobos (adventurers).

Which is not to say that there arent campaigns where city guards are level 10 and 20th level characters are nothing special. But it very much is not the default. In pretty much any published setting, a 10th level group is a big darn deal. Maybe the strongest power in a mid sized country. Maybe only a major player in a medium sized city. But definitely only those guys at the tavern if they want to be.

[Crake]

I think a decent stronghold will cost about 100k+ gold. That is without the costs of running it. Not sure how you can afford that at level 11? Renown is optional as far as I know. You can be a level 20 character and still be completely unknown to most people in the world.

The cost of real estate for a stronghold starts at 800gp in the vicinity of a small town, and rises up to 110,000gp in the vicinity of a metropolis. The cost from there then scales based on how big and fancy you want to make your stronghold, but you can DEFINITELY make something sizable and noteworthy for less than 100,000gp, especially if you do it out in quieter regions of the world.

If you're retiring, then retraining a feat into Landlord, if it makes sense thematically, is also a good way to get extra funds, which you can pick up at level 9, giving you up to an extra 100,000gp to work with for your stronghold, if you invest 25,000gp of your own.

As for renown, if you've done things worthy of getting you to level 11, then people will probably have caught on, whether you want them to or not. Of course, ymmv between campaigns, it's possible to get to level 20 by having done things completely in the wilderness without having interacted with anyone, but that's the exception, not the rule. By default, as per the legend lore spell, level 11 is considered legendary, regardless.

As for the costs of running, those are actually surprisingly small. Like, neglidgible compared to the actual costs of construction and materials, and you can make it practically free with leadership and/or magic.


Strongholds and kingdoms are free. In most published campaigns there are at least general descriptions for major NPCs. For example, the pirate king of Riddleport in golarion is a Fighter 7/Expert 5. Any reasonably built PC party 10 can take it without undue risk, especially in a sandbox where they can plan their coup. When my sorcerer 18 walked in, the named low-teens NPCs scrambled to get out of his way. He could trivially have soloed the entire city counsel + their guards.

Thats going to vary by campaign, of course. The NPCs in Eberron, for example, tend to be a bit stouter. But even there, a 10th level party is at least a regional power, capable of seizing and holding a sizeable or strategic settlement as long as it is out of the way or they are politically connected enough to not be stepped on by a national boss. The king of Breland is about a match for the pirate kind of Riddleport, as a Fighter 8/Expert 3. Now Breland, an actual country, might be harder to RULE than Riddleport. You would probably need to Diplomance or coerce some of the nobles into supporting you. But still, well within the abilities of a typical party if they wanted to play that game. Azalin Rex is probably the biggest combat threat in Ravenloft, and he is an 18th level lich. So a reasonable challenge for an upper-mid teens party, or a pretty easy one at level 20.

As to whether the PCs would describe themselves as adventurers, that would vary by campaign. My current game we are the principals of essentially an organized crime ring. In Skull and Shackles, they are a pirate crew. In another game I ran they were an investigative agency. Sometimes PCs are a random group of people sucked across dimensions and forced to pursue common goals. But yes, sometimes they are murderhobos (adventurers).

Which is not to say that there arent campaigns where city guards are level 10 and 20th level characters are nothing special. But it very much is not the default. In pretty much any published setting, a 10th level group is a big darn deal. Maybe the strongest power in a mid sized country. Maybe only a major player in a medium sized city. But definitely only those guys at the tavern if they want to be.

You can certainly coup your way into a stronghold, but I was talking about an adventurer settling down and building a stronghold of their own with their adventuring funds. Point is, you don't need to be 20th level to be able to afford a small house and settle down, you can do that as early as level 3.

[Reathin]

Most of my games have "Adventurer" as a polite near-synonym for mercenary. It's not 1-to-1 however, as "mercenary" carries with it undertones of willingness to do morally questionable work, while a person hiring an adventurer is much more likely to have a more morally acceptable (or at least neutral) job, or be willing to make it look like one, at minimum.

However, I tend to think of it as more of a temp-work thing. Career, professional adventurers are rare, not only due to the high risk and unpredictable nature inherent in that work, but due to it being fairly rare for a single place to need them regularly (and if they DO, they tend to be warzones, fresh frontier locations and places plagued by ongoing disasters). Most with adventurer training find other, more stable uses for those skills:

Bards serve the community as not only muscians in taverns, but some form more permanent theater troops, while others run libraries (with their knowledge of lore).

Clerics tend to temples and provide minor miracles for the town's populace,

Wizards exist as a sort of magical equivalent to scientific researches (they tend to collaborate like actual scientists do, with published results tending to earn both prestige among their own community and project opportunities).

The local rogue might work mainly as a private investigator as his/her main career, only dungeon-delving on rare occasion. Some have organized crime connections of course, but their sheer versatility means a rogue could be anything from a detective to a particularly skilled craftsman.

Druids don't tend to operate in civilization too much (with notable exceptions), but form their own remote communities (circles). My personal distaste for Druidic magic tends to manifest in petty ways, making every Druid at best a bit annoying but well meaning, or at worst an eco terrorist.

Monks might operate cloisters or schools, depending on the nature of their particular martial art. Some arts require isolation from civilization to remove distraction, while others thrive on the interactions between people to help spread word of their techniques. I enjoy the idea of playing up the different "flavors" of monks, as I'm fond of the class more than most melee combatants. How the swagger of a Red Palm Initiate contrasts the Disciples of Bareva the Frozen Heart. Dangerous or illegal style in particular become interesting plot points. The arrival of a gently smiling Monk of the Obsidian Maw, whose every touch sucks the life from their opponent, is likely hiding an adventure by itself, to say nothing of the impossible rumors that fly free whenever the forbidden art of Ki Rata is so much as whispered.

Some classes tend to be more suited to "career" adventuring than others. Sorcerers, Warlocks, Barbarians (whose style is less compatible with army work or militia in most cases), and especially Paladins tend to be on the move more often than not. When one of them roll into town, it tends to bring up gossip if the location is small enough.

[Gnaeus]

You can certainly coup your way into a stronghold, but I was talking about an adventurer settling down and building a stronghold of their own with their adventuring funds. Point is, you don't need to be 20th level to be able to afford a small house and settle down, you can do that as early as level 3.

I just rarely find a need to buy a house. By level 3-4 in our current campaign, we had cleared a goblin cave which we could have used as a base if we wanted, and recaptured a farm from an evil druid who had killed all the inhabitants. We are now level 7, and I think up to 5 houses cleared. One has another rightful owner. But 2 were owned by the thieves guild we destroyed. Technically, I think we did "buy" one, at a fraction of value in what was essentially a police auction in which we were the only bidders. But anyway, unless your party is too nomadic to stay in place for long, I generally see housing as a by-product of adventuring, rather than an expense. (and even if you are nomadic, things present themselves. The boss of the next campaign arc has some kind of floating base, which I doubt will present any line of title issues when he is dead.)

My ravenloft party, by contrast, is level 5, and I think we also have cleared about 4 houses, with one on the menu for Friday, and only one is too haunted to live in. I have my eye on the evil mayor's house now that we have brought him to justice, and I don't think anyone is going to stop us from taking it. Its not a fortress, only a comfortable furnished 3 level suitable for habitation. As a changeling, I'm not even going to take his/my clothes out of my closet when I take his bedroom. If I bother paying rent, it will be to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Barovia, which means moving money from my right pocket to my left.

[Jay R]

Different DMs will have different answers, and there's nothing wrong with that.

My current world (Gaea, or the Broken World) has had very few adventurers in the last four centuries. There was almost no magic, and the magical beasts and monsters were gone. The PCs, at first level, went to investigate some major changes in the world (involving the return of magic and magical creatures). But even the people who asked them to go didn’t think of them as “adventurers”. They were simply the folks in town who didn’t have jobs and could go take a one-time trip.

So of course there could be no “adventurers guilds” except for mundane mercenary companies or thieves guilds. At about fourth level, the PCs had some trouble with a “guild” – really a street gang – of teenagers who had suddenly discovered they had first-level magic abilities.

In general, I would never include a generic “adventurers’ guild” in a medievaloid world, because that misses the point of medieval guilds. They existed to push forward their tiny, specialized field.

In London, the carpenters and joiners had separate guilds, depending on whether you did your woodcraft with nails or adhesive. The tailors, clothmakers, and haberdashers were separate guilds. There were two candle-making guilds, based on whether they use wax or tallow.

General merchants and spice merchants have separate guilds (the first two, in fact). So do cooks and bakers. J ust for a dinner in medieval London, you need to deal with several guilds – the mercers, grocers, fishmongers, butchers, etc.

So while someday I might make a world with a mercenary guild of fighters, a Bardic College, a Thieves’ Guild (which would be hidden), a wizards’ school, and an order of friars cleric’s retreat, I would never have a generic “adventurer’s guild”. I have trouble with the idea of paladins and rogues in the same guild. And I’d prefer a Ranger or Druid I found in the woods than one I found in a guildhall in town.

Also, we have no evidence of the idea of a real adventurers’ guild, and lots of evidence against it.

In any society we know about, adventurers have existed, as a very small minority. Twentieth century adventurers include Robert Ballard, Jacques Cousteau, Amelia Earhart, Jane Goodall, Thor Heyerdahl, Edmund Hillary, Tenzing Norgay, Chuck Yeager, several mercenary groups and pirates, etc. But there is no guild that they all belong to.

Some of the 19th century adventurers were called archeologists. They went to explore wilderness areas, explored ruins from previous civilizations, and brought home the treasures they found there. [I suddenly want to start an Adventurer’s Guild called the British Museum.]

These are my answers. I repeat, different DMs will have different answers, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Gnaeus]

In general, I would never include a generic “adventurers’ guild” in a medievaloid world, because that misses the point of medieval guilds. They existed to push forward their tiny, specialized field.

In London, the carpenters and joiners had separate guilds, depending on whether you did your woodcraft with nails or adhesive. The tailors, clothmakers, and haberdashers were separate guilds. There were two candle-making guilds, based on whether they use wax or tallow.

General merchants and spice merchants have separate guilds (the first two, in fact). So do cooks and bakers. J ust for a dinner in medieval London, you need to deal with several guilds – the mercers, grocers, fishmongers, butchers, etc.

You aren't wrong. And some guilds still function that way today. If you violate my guild rules, for example, you get arrested for unauthorized practice of law, because my guild is manipulating legislation for its members.

On the other hand, what tends to be called an adventurers guild in fantasy fiction isn't really a guild at all. They aren't hunting down people for killing monsters without a license. Its basically an employment agency that serves as a clearinghouse for jobs, holds rewards, and MAYBE offers other services. And while the word guild is misleading, there isn't really a reason that couldn't exist in a world that regularly needed a team of people to go kill the death slugs in farmer Steve's fields or recover a magic flower from goblin woods.

[Rynjin]

My games never have 'adventurers,' at least not in the sense D&D puts it, where you make an actual living out of wandering around performing heroics and uncovering vast sums of wealth as a literal profession. Explorers, sure. Mercenaries, sure. But they're people with actual professions or specific goals in mind. I've always been inclined to downplay the specialness of the PCs in the grand scheme of things. If the players can have 20 class levels, so can the NPCs. If the players can have good stats, so can the NPCs. If the players have access to magic items, so does everyone else. The players become special for what they accomplish, not for what they are.

Evidently this is an 'incorrect' way to run things, since I find myself having to argue the point every time it comes up.

The only issue you run into with this approach is the "why isn't Jim-Bob the level 20 Barbarian handling this instead of us?" problem.

The PCs not being "special" essentially cuts off a lot of narrative avenues as far as large scale "save the world" style plots. I find it frustrating to play within the Forgotten Realms setting for this reason. Pathfinder sidesteps the issue by making characters above level 10 EXCEPTIONALLY rare, though not non-existent. This at least allows for the "right place right time" clause to kick in.

Of course if you're mostly focused on smaller scale adventures and episodic stories this problem entirely disappears to begin with.

[pabelfly]

The only issue you run into with this approach is the "why isn't Jim-Bob the level 20 Barbarian handling this instead of us?" problem.

Jim-Bob the Barbarian has any number of reasons to be doing his own thing. He mightn't have his own party available, he could be in the middle of solving some other problem, he could be protecting his own interests, be it a family or town or whatever, or he might just say that the party is capable of solving the problem and he'll leave it to them.

It's easy enough for a DM to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why Jim-Bob, and all the other characters like him, aren't solving the problem.

[Rynjin]

Jim-Bob the Barbarian has any number of reasons to be doing his own thing. He mightn't have his own party available, he could be in the middle of solving some other problem, he could be protecting his own interests, be it a family or town or whatever, or he might just say that the party is capable of solving the problem and he'll leave it to them.

It's easy enough for a DM to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why Jim-Bob, and all the other characters like him, aren't solving the problem.

That only works for, as mentioned, the small scale threats. When you get into stuff like "the plucky heroes have stumbled onto a plot to free Rovagug and need to stop the bad guys within 3 weeks or the whole world explodes" type stuff it makes less sense.

[False God]

I've had some DMs have it, others not.

I personally like to include "adventuring" as a known activity, though its popularity, function and support are all relative to the campaign. More or less, adventurers are mercenaries who deal in more "fantastical" problems(kill monsters, find artifacts, etc...) than actual mercenaries who tend to deal in more human problems(protect a town, attack a town, support the army against another army...).

I don't generally show it as a glamorous profession outside of very high-magic, high-powered settings, "famous" adventurers tend to be so more because they spend more time talking about how awesome they are than actually doing things, because this isn't the modern era and noone can fact-check them. Most of the time adventuring is likely to get you killed, but a few people make it big. The most notable value is that adventuring is demonstratable a way to acquire skills faster, and often further than other methods (like studying or practicing).

IMO, if there isn't some in-game rationale to support at least the players adventuring and being able to find "quests", the game feels weird.

I also find that "adventuring guilds" with rules and guidelines and support for adventurers helps keep my parties from going all murderhobo.

[Tzardok]

That only works for, as mentioned, the small scale threats. When you get into stuff like "the plucky heroes have stumbled onto a plot to free Rovagug and need to stop the bad guys within 3 weeks or the whole world explodes" type stuff it makes less sense.

Then maybe don't have plots like that happening until the characters are actually the very best to solve those? Like, unless it's a "nobody knew about it beforehand, you just stumbled over it and you can't contact the high level veterans of the organization to deal with it before things go to ****" situation, why not have those 20 level veteras save the world in the background while the characters do the (level-appropriate) stuff that keeps happening in the mean time until it's time for them to be those veterans?

[Eldonauran]

I absolutely have adventuring groups and adventuring guilds in the worlds that I run. Who else is going to resolve the hooks and other problems that the PCs don't get around to handling? It gives the PCs an organization to belong to if they wish, or a source of support they can call on, regardless of where they are in the world. It is an exceedingly dangerous profession if you are not careful or are simply unlucky with your choice of quests. You do have to pay dues being members but that pays for a great many things and is based on your current standing in the guild.

[Rynjin]

Then maybe don't have plots like that happening until the characters are actually the very best to solve those? Like, unless it's a "nobody knew about it beforehand, you just stumbled over it and you can't contact the high level veterans of the organization to deal with it before things go to ****" situation, why not have those 20 level veteras save the world in the background while the characters do the (level-appropriate) stuff that keeps happening in the mean time until it's time for them to be those veterans?

I dunno, ask the writers of every single published Adventure path ever made for at least all of 3.5 and Pathfinder why they do that?

Though personally I like the main characters mattering and being part of the plot for a reason, and quite frankly if Elminster et al. were deleted from FR tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear.

[False God]

Though personally I like the main characters mattering and being part of the plot for a reason, and quite frankly if Elminster et al. were deleted from FR tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear.

The rest of y'alls conversation aside, I wholeheartedly agree with this.

[pabelfly]

That only works for, as mentioned, the small scale threats. When you get into stuff like "the plucky heroes have stumbled onto a plot to free Rovagug and need to stop the bad guys within 3 weeks or the whole world explodes" type stuff it makes less sense.

You can still come up with reasons why Jim-Bob isn't stopping Rovagug being freed. Jim-Bob mightn't want to put his life in the hands of a group of people he's never met and has no reason to trust. Jim-Bob could be solving some other problem elsewhere. Jim-Bob mightn't be able to leave because his movements and actions are of national interest and he could be deterring other major powers from acting against the nation he's in. Jim-Bob could say: "if I don't let other people become more powerful and learn to solve problems, what's going to happen to everyone when I die?"

You can still find reasons for Jim-Bob to not be helping.

[Gnaeus]

You can still come up with reasons why Jim-Bob isn't stopping Rovagug being freed. Jim-Bob mightn't want to put his life in the hands of a group of people he's never met and has no reason to trust. Jim-Bob could be solving some other problem elsewhere. Jim-Bob mightn't be able to leave because his movements and actions are of national interest and he could be deterring other major powers from acting against the nation he's in. Jim-Bob could say: "if I don't let other people become more powerful and learn to solve problems, what's going to happen to everyone when I die?"

You can still find reasons for Jim-Bob to not be helping.

But not if Jim-Bob is common. Jim-Bob is solving issues of national interest makes sense if Jim-Bob is a national asset. If there are a dozen level 20 characters in every town, they should be floorstomping any reasonable national or world level threat that could be handled by sub-20 adventurers.

[Rynjin]

But not if Jim-Bob is common. Jim-Bob is solving issues of national interest makes sense if Jim-Bob is a national asset. If there are a dozen level 20 characters in every town, they should be floorstomping any reasonable national or world level threat that could be handled by sub-20 adventurers.

Exactly; the entire conceit was that high level individuals are common, making the PCs "not special".

Also:


You can still come up with reasons why Jim-Bob isn't stopping Rovagug being freed. Jim-Bob mightn't want to put his life in the hands of a group of people he's never met and has no reason to trust.

This would be a reason FOR Jim-Bob to take over, not against.




Jim-Bob mightn't be able to leave because his movements and actions are of national interest and he could be deterring other major powers from acting against the nation he's in.

Yeah but like...none of that matters if the planet blows up though.


Jim-Bob could say: "if I don't let other people become more powerful and learn to solve problems, what's going to happen to everyone when I die?"

You can still find reasons for Jim-Bob to not be helping.

Ah, the Goku principle. "If I whup Buu's ass, how are Gohan, Goten, and Trunks gonna learn how to protect everyone?"

What's the worst that could happen? Total human extinction?

...Oh, wait.

[Tzardok]

I dunno, ask the writers of every single published Adventure path ever made for at least all of 3.5 and Pathfinder why they do that?

Sadly I can't. That's why I'm asking you here. :smalltongue:


Though personally I like the main characters mattering and being part of the plot for a reason, and quite frankly if Elminster et al. were deleted from FR tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear.

Yeah, but there's a lot of room between "The characters matter" and "The characters have saved the world thrice by level 2". Give yourself some room to grow the scope; the world is still gonna be there tomorrow.

[Chronos]

Sure, there will be some people who become adventurers because they consider the risks to be worthwhile, given the possibility of vast treasures. But there are also going to be some who become adventurers because of the risks. Some people just plain enjoy risk-taking. Heck, there's an entire big city in the middle of the desert, where the only thing to sustain life is selling risk to people who want it. And slaying dragons is probably more fun than just pulling a lever on a slot machine all day.

[Rynjin]

Sadly I can't. That's why I'm asking you here. :smalltongue:



Yeah, but there's a lot of room between "The characters matter" and "The characters have saved the world thrice by level 2". Give yourself some room to grow the scope; the world is still gonna be there tomorrow.

That room is what I'm talking about. The players won't have saved the world by level 2, but they will usually have gotten some hint of the plot unfolding. Eg. in Carrion Crown (a Pathfinder adventure) by about level 7 the players will have discovered that a mythical (and Mythic) threat from the path is going to be released from his imprisonment; this is a Lich who fought a literal god to a standstill and was only defeated (not destroyed) by the destruction of a Major Artifact.

In-story, the PCs work to defeat the lich's agents and prevent him from being released.

If this took place in a setting like the Forgotten Realms, why wouldn't they just ask one of the random level 16 "retired adventurer" bartenders to get together a couple of his friends and clap undead cheeks for them?

[Drakevarg]

That room is what I'm talking about. The players won't have saved the world by level 2, but they will usually have gotten some hint of the plot unfolding. Eg. in Carrion Crown (a Pathfinder adventure) by about level 7 the players will have discovered that a mythical (and Mythic) threat from the path is going to be released from his imprisonment; this is a Lich who fought a literal god to a standstill and was only defeated (not destroyed) by the destruction of a Major Artifact.

In-story, the PCs work to defeat the lich's agents and prevent him from being released.

If this took place in a setting like the Forgotten Realms, why wouldn't they just ask one of the random level 16 "retired adventurer" bartenders to get together a couple of his friends and clap undead cheeks for them?

How have stories from the dawn of history resolved this? Quite easily - Heracles never once took down a threat that was on the verge of destroying all of Greece, let alone the world. King Arthur never protected the entirely of the British Isles from sinking into the sea. And both Perseus and Percival were quite capable of having their own adventures without asking why the former two weren't helping.

The world is big. A threat can be dire without risking all of it, or even a particularly large part of it. Plus, one can't assume that when high-leveled characters are common that all - or even most - of them are heroes. Maybe Jim-Bob the Barbarian can't help with Nefarioso the Lich because he's off trying to save the kingdom from the Dark Lord Steve. Or maybe Jim-Bob the Barbarian isn't even a hero at all, he's just a mercenary whose rates you can't afford and who doesn't believe the lich poses a global-scale threat that makes it his business by default.

[Rynjin]

How have stories from the dawn of history resolved this? Quite easily - Heracles never once took down a threat that was on the verge of destroying all of Greece, let alone the world. King Arthur never protected the entirely of the British Isles from sinking into the sea. And both Perseus and Percival were quite capable of having their own adventures without asking why the former two weren't helping.

I think all of these arguments fall apart when high level "heroes" are a dime a dozen rather than being rare enough to make this excuse worthwhile. Even for smaller scale threats, when Candlesilver Moonkeep (not be confused with Moonsilver Candlekeep) is attacked by the armies of Evil Frank, the Murdermaker (a level 8 Fighter with an army of level appropriate encounters) why don't the 23 level 16+ individuals living in the city (as designated by the city statblock indicating spells and services of X level and above are available) step up to wipe out the threat?

The entire logic breaks down at a certain critical mass of high level dudebros, because the entire idea is that the PROTAGONISTS (the heroes you're citing) should be rare and special. If they're not, you need to account for that, or handwave it and accept your setting doesn't make much sense.

There's nothing wrong with the latter, but you do still need to make that choice.

[Jay R]

In the ideal campaign, the adventures are sufficiently exciting that players never ask these questions.

[Drakevarg]

I think all of these arguments fall apart when high level "heroes" are a dime a dozen rather than being rare enough to make this excuse worthwhile. Even for smaller scale threats, when Candlesilver Moonkeep (not be confused with Moonsilver Candlekeep) is attacked by the armies of Evil Frank, the Murdermaker (a level 8 Fighter with an army of level appropriate encounters) why don't the 23 level 16+ individuals living in the city (as designated by the city statblock indicating spells and services of X level and above are available) step up to wipe out the threat?

The entire logic breaks down at a certain critical mass of high level dudebros, because the entire idea is that the PROTAGONISTS (the heroes you're citing) should be rare and special. If they're not, you need to account for that, or handwave it and accept your setting doesn't make much sense.

There's nothing wrong with the latter, but you do still need to make that choice.

Then logically, a city with 23 level 16+ individuals is not going to be invaded by Evil Frank, because at 8th level he's a wannabe bandit king who gets punched out by the Captain of the Watch as soon as he marches up to the gates. The two dozen high-level characters don't even look up from their drink, for the same reason the two dozen deadliest people in a modern city don't take any particular notice when a street fight with some gangbangers breaks out. Evil Frank is, at best, taking over a small frontier town and hoping that this doesn't annoy the city enough for them to bother sending more than a posse of rangers after him.

The problem doesn't come from the protagonists not being the only competent people in the setting. It comes from trying to tell a story that assumes they are and then remembering mid-stride that there's 50 other people within a day's ride that could also handle this. The existence of the army does not stop westerns from happening, nor does the FBI preclude slashers movies from happening. If you literally can't tell a story unless the players are ONLY HOPE for the ENTIRE WORLD, that's not really the fault of other competent people existing in your world.

[Rynjin]

Then logically

You're assuming setting writers think logically. =p

Look, this entire discussion is a thinly veiled takedown of Forgotten Realms. Nothing you say is wrong, but you also seem to think I'm pulling this from nowhere, but these examples are things that actually happen in some established settings.

[Tzardok]

That room is what I'm talking about. The players won't have saved the world by level 2, but they will usually have gotten some hint of the plot unfolding. Eg. in Carrion Crown (a Pathfinder adventure) by about level 7 the players will have discovered that a mythical (and Mythic) threat from the path is going to be released from his imprisonment; this is a Lich who fought a literal god to a standstill and was only defeated (not destroyed) by the destruction of a Major Artifact.

In-story, the PCs work to defeat the lich's agents and prevent him from being released.

If this took place in a setting like the Forgotten Realms, why wouldn't they just ask one of the random level 16 "retired adventurer" bartenders to get together a couple of his friends and clap undead cheeks for them?

The point I'm making is that such an adventure would (or maybe should) never happen in such a setting. If an adventure could be solved by simply asking a high level character to solve it for you (and doing so is easier than solving it yourself), don't have that adventure happen.
Do you want your adventurers to be the most special and go from one world saving, earth shattering adventure to another? Have the world around them be low-level and them the only ones who can do it. Do you want low scope, low stakes? Have the world around them be high level and save itself while they deal with lesser, but still important problems like saving the city from the orc horde or uncover the treacherous vizier's plot. That's all I'm saying. Or, to be more pithy, play stories for low power settings in low power settings. Don't transfer them to high power settings and then complain that things broke.

[Drakevarg]

You're assuming setting writers think logically. =p

Look, this entire discussion is a thinly veiled takedown of Forgotten Realms. Nothing you say is wrong, but you also seem to think I'm pulling this from nowhere, but these examples are things that actually happen in some established settings.

Fair enough. I exclusively run custom campaigns so I can really only speak to how DMs directly should handle things. Not professional module writers with deadlines to meet who don't want to explain for the hundredth time why Flash or Superman don't just rush in and solve all of the crime in Gotham in twelve minutes.

[Rynjin]

The point I'm making is that such an adventure would (or maybe should) never happen in such a setting. .

Indeed; which is why you have to account for that problem in your worldbuilding.

[northernbard80]

Shadiversity talked about the realism of fantasy adventuring and how they'd fit into a world. He makes some good pionts.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWHZ6HEpAZk

[vasilidor]

I generally have my world filled with things that like to eat people. These things are of varied power and threat. Often the best, or only, defense against some of the threats is a bunch of guys grab some swords and axes and have at otherwise this thing is going to eat the village and then move onto the next one. Frequently these are going to be things that know that they could be possibly overwhelmed if the villagers manage to gather enough courage to group together to track them down. Lords pay good gold to take care of such problems as well. Adventurers that prove reliable are often offered retainers to stick around in case of future problems, sometimes turning characters into minor nobility. This makes adventuring, for the victorious survivors, a path to upward social mobility for any willing and able to go monster hunting.

[Crake]

The only issue you run into with this approach is the "why isn't Jim-Bob the level 20 Barbarian handling this instead of us?" problem.

The PCs not being "special" essentially cuts off a lot of narrative avenues as far as large scale "save the world" style plots. I find it frustrating to play within the Forgotten Realms setting for this reason. Pathfinder sidesteps the issue by making characters above level 10 EXCEPTIONALLY rare, though not non-existent. This at least allows for the "right place right time" clause to kick in.

Of course if you're mostly focused on smaller scale adventures and episodic stories this problem entirely disappears to begin with.

I actually stumbled upon a solution for this a while back completely by accident.

The trick is to set up a red herring for all the high level characters to deal with, while in the mean time the lower level characters stumble upon the real issue.

In my case, I was running the ashardalon adventure path, but, out of pure happenstance, the players managed to tip the right dominos and bring about the resurrection of Lolth (most of the gods in my setting were dead), which then triggered a drow revolution which occupied everyone else, meanwhile Ashardalon kept doing his thing. Funnily enough, Lolth actually recognized the threat he posed, and ended up getting the players on board with getting rid of him.

[vasilidor]

My problem to the Jimbob level 20 barbarian not solving the problem is he is busy with another potentially world ending threat.

[Zanos]

That room is what I'm talking about. The players won't have saved the world by level 2, but they will usually have gotten some hint of the plot unfolding. Eg. in Carrion Crown (a Pathfinder adventure) by about level 7 the players will have discovered that a mythical (and Mythic) threat from the path is going to be released from his imprisonment; this is a Lich who fought a literal god to a standstill and was only defeated (not destroyed) by the destruction of a Major Artifact.

In-story, the PCs work to defeat the lich's agents and prevent him from being released.

If this took place in a setting like the Forgotten Realms, why wouldn't they just ask one of the random level 16 "retired adventurer" bartenders to get together a couple of his friends and clap undead cheeks for them?
The plot of most modules makes no sense whether or not other high level characters exist. I would absolutely bail if I was level 7 and you told me the guy I'm fighting is a mythic level 20 lich that tussels with Gods. There's no rational reason to expect that the baddies sort themselves into a nice and neat progression for you to level up. At best, I'd go and do something else I can actually handle until I was stronger.

But really that's only a problem if you run campaign spanning modules. If my adventuring party doesn't want to tackle something because it's beyond our abilities or we just have too much to do, there are competent people we can inform and they might have their own motivations for handling it. There's nothing wrong with the not having the PCs be the only heroes marked by fate that can possibly resolve a global apocalypse, although I agree most shouldn't be average joes.

[Crake]

The plot of most modules makes no sense whether or not other high level characters exist. I would absolutely bail if I was level 7 and you told me the guy I'm fighting is a mythic level 20 lich that tussels with Gods. There's no rational reason to expect that the baddies sort themselves into a nice and neat progression for you to level up. At best, I'd go and do something else I can actually handle until I was stronger.

But really that's only a problem if you run campaign spanning modules. If my adventuring party doesn't want to tackle something because it's beyond our abilities or we just have too much to do, there are competent people we can inform and they might have their own motivations for handling it. There's nothing wrong with the not having the PCs be the only heroes marked by fate that can possibly resolve a global apocalypse, although I agree most shouldn't be average joes.

Most modules, in my experience, don’t immediately tell you who the end guy is, you more tend to naturally work your way up the food chain, discovering the hierarchy as you go.

[Rynjin]

The plot of most modules makes no sense whether or not other high level characters exist. I would absolutely bail if I was level 7 and you told me the guy I'm fighting is a mythic level 20 lich that tussels with Gods. There's no rational reason to expect that the baddies sort themselves into a nice and neat progression for you to level up. At best, I'd go and do something else I can actually handle until I was stronger.

That's not the guy you're fighting; you're trying to fight the cult who's trying to release him. Tar-Baphon being released is a FAILURE STATE for the campaign, full stop, there is zero way for the party even at endgame to take him on.

The psuedo-sequel (Tyrant's Grasp) is the one where the PCs are meant to fight him, and that requires a lot of "chosen one" plot stuff (the pieces of the Major Artifact that defeated him the first time is embedded in their souls) that gives the PCs innate advantages against him.

Carrion Crown actually has quite a good progression into the plot; it starts off as "investigate the murder of your mentor" then book 2 is "carry out the last will of your mentor", leading into book 3 (track down the killer of your mentor) and killing him gives you insight into the bigger plot that was in play that led to his death in the first place; the game assumes you are now invested in stopping the ritual from here by preventing the Whispering Way from getting their hands on the various Macguffins needed. So it's save the world shenanigans, but it's also PERSONAL.

[Crake]

That's not the guy you're fighting; you're trying to fight the cult who's trying to release him. Tar-Baphon being released is a FAILURE STATE for the campaign, full stop, there is zero way for the party even at endgame to take him on.

The psuedo-sequel (Tyrant's Grasp) is the one where the PCs are meant to fight him, and that requires a lot of "chosen one" plot stuff (the pieces of the Major Artifact that defeated him the first time is embedded in their souls) that gives the PCs innate advantages against him.

Carrion Crown actually has quite a good progression into the plot; it starts off as "investigate the murder of your mentor" then book 2 is "carry out the last will of your mentor", leading into book 3 (track down the killer of your mentor) and killing him gives you insight into the bigger plot that was in play that led to his death in the first place; the game assumes you are now invested in stopping the ritual from here by preventing the Whispering Way from getting their hands on the various Macguffins needed. So it's save the world shenanigans, but it's also PERSONAL.

Yeah, this sort of natural progression is how most adventure paths go in my experience, not “you’re level 1, and grug-shub the 20th level warlock-lich threatens the realm, you must gird yourself and take on his army!”

[Mordante]

That's not the guy you're fighting; you're trying to fight the cult who's trying to release him. Tar-Baphon being released is a FAILURE STATE for the campaign, full stop, there is zero way for the party even at endgame to take him on.

The psuedo-sequel (Tyrant's Grasp) is the one where the PCs are meant to fight him, and that requires a lot of "chosen one" plot stuff (the pieces of the Major Artifact that defeated him the first time is embedded in their souls) that gives the PCs innate advantages against him.

Carrion Crown actually has quite a good progression into the plot; it starts off as "investigate the murder of your mentor" then book 2 is "carry out the last will of your mentor", leading into book 3 (track down the killer of your mentor) and killing him gives you insight into the bigger plot that was in play that led to his death in the first place; the game assumes you are now invested in stopping the ritual from here by preventing the Whispering Way from getting their hands on the various Macguffins needed. So it's save the world shenanigans, but it's also PERSONAL.

or me it's hard to say anything about modules. I have never used them nor do I know anyone who has ever used them. All the worlds we play in are fully made up on the spot as we play. If we need a city I will make-up a city or area, region or whatever we need for the adventure.

The level 17 party I'm in busy fighting an Avatar of Taal (a made up deity). But very few people actually knows that we are doing this. I think it is normal that most big power struggles go completely unnoticed by 90% of the populace.

[Quertus]

Do adventurers exist in your world? Are there such things are adventurer guild or groups?

Depends on the world. But "the merchants don't rip off the starting noobs because the King and the Royal Mage are former adventurers, who will murder said unscrupulous merchants, not to mention that the former adventurer Arch Priest will excommunicate the merchants, and damn their souls to the lower realms if their Divinations or the former adventurer Psion / Assassin said so" isn't that much different than "the merchants play nice because the adventurers have a guild backing them".

But it really depends on the world, and the system. Humans are worse than monsters, and will get away with anything they can if there's not systems in place to prevent it. And it's not like it's limited to fantasy worlds; today, we have plenty of words like "price gouging" and "scams" to explain the importance of being able to deal with these problems.

Regardless, dealing with such problems is not something I generally care to waste time on in my Elf Games. Also, what else is the PC 3rd son of a noble going to do but start their own business, and with the "adventurer's guild" trope being so pervasive, if there's not already such a guild in the world, it stands to reason that there will be one by the end of the campaign.

So, I guess, moving forward, I'll probably making most of my worlds already have adventurer's guilds, to save time.


That only works for, as mentioned, the small scale threats. When you get into stuff like "the plucky heroes have stumbled onto a plot to free Rovagug and need to stop the bad guys within 3 weeks or the whole world explodes" type stuff it makes less sense.

Yeah, the implementation of a lot of "end of the world" threats can feel pretty dumb, particularly wrt the reaction of the rest of the world to said existential threats. Usually IME it's an issue of the module writers / GMs failing at world building / accounting for world building, and effectively trying to tell a story with all the logic of having the muggle janitor of the building across the street from the Justice League take down the alien invaders.

[Thunder999]

Most stories published adventures I've seen handle big threats tend to do it by having the PCs stumble upon something relevant that doesn't seem nearly so bad early on and by the time it actually looks like it's a threat to the world/entire country/plane etc. they've reached high enough level that they're the most powerful people available.

[rel]

In my games, low level adventurers are just assumed to be mercs, while adventurers of any significant level are recognised as 'adventurers', but treated less like people and more like nation states.
You aren't going to be arrested, but if you play your cards wrong enough, someone might declare war on you.

So there aren't any guilds specifically for adventurers because they don't really operate on a personal scale and tend to dislike authority.
You don't make a habit of walking into the deep places beneath the earth to steal cosmic power from the hungry dark if you don't mind working 9 - 5, and paying your taxes.

[Rynjin]

Yeah, the implementation of a lot of "end of the world" threats can feel pretty dumb, particularly wrt the reaction of the rest of the world to said existential threats. Usually IME it's an issue of the module writers / GMs failing at world building / accounting for world building, and effectively trying to tell a story with all the logic of having the muggle janitor of the building across the street from the Justice League take down the alien invaders.

Yeah. It's a big part of why I prefer Golarion, and I think a big part of why Pathfinder Adventure Paths were so successful, where other published content historically was a novelty, pretty much.

James Jacobs had a guiding hand on every Adventure Path for a good long while, and with a few minor stumbles I think every Adventure Path makes perfect sense in terms of worldbuilding (plotting is...a different story, but there's still more good than bad in there). It helps that they implemented the "unless explicitly stated otherwise it is never assumed that the events of an Adventure Path took place" so there's not a constant lore shift going on. Every AP is self-contained with a few exceptions (eg. Jade Regent assumes that Rise of the Runelords happened), so it sidesteps a constant shifting status quo and the "the world is in danger! ...Again." fatigue a lot of ongoing settings have.

It's not perfect, but it did a better job of creating a usable setting for GMs to springboard off of than any other published setting I've seen, and it's good to take notes from what worked and what didn't when making your own setting IMO.

[Peat]

Generally not. We'd be constables, or mercenaries, or agents of some noble lord. Our enemies would be the same, or monstrous races.

[Jay R]

There are lots of possible answers:

First of all, even if Jim-Bob the 20th level barbarian will decide to save the world, he isn't standing where the PCs are. When the orcs invade the village in front of the PCs, then the PCs need to defend the village.

Maybe all the great heroes of the world are facing the ultimate evil army so you can sneak in and end the threat, like Frodo.

Maybe you happened to be the one who found the Ring of Power, like Bilbo.

Maybe you blundered into where the bad guys are holding the princess hostage, like Luke and Han.

Maybe a family member or two were killed, and so you decided to devote your life to fighting evil, like Batman or Spider-Man.

Maybe a prophecy declares that only you can defeat the Witch, like Lucy, Edmund, Susan, and Peter.

Maybe the evil wizard put his mark on you when you were a baby, like Harry Potter.

Maybe the world’s most powerful hero is your cousin, and you need to try to live up to that legacy, like Supergirl.

Maybe you killed seven flies at once, and when you said, "I killed seven with one blow," they thought you meant giants, and sent you out to slay a giant, like the Brave Little Tailor.

Maybe the great hero everyone was counting on just broke her leg, and now it’s up to you. Like Peggy Sawyer, you're going out a youngster but you've got to come back a star!

Or maybe it’s absurd that it’s all on your shoulders:

“I want you to investigate the uncanny disappearances in the swamp of Telkar.”
“Aren’t you supposed to have a corps of ninjas who are reputed to be the best in the world at this sort of thing?”
“Yes. I’m sending you in to find out what happened to them.”

You're asking philosophical questions. Neither the answer nor the question can possibly improve your game. The PCs should be focused on tactical questions.

"The trolls are attacking you. Are you going to wait for Jim-Bob the 20th level barbarian to show up, or are you going to fight back?"

[Rynjin]

You're asking philosophical questions. Neither the answer nor the question can possibly improve your game. The PCs should be focused on tactical questions.



Nah. Asking the question is ABSOLUTELY going to improve your game. You gave a bunch of answers, and all of them give the campaign immediately more depth, context, and reality.

I think people got lost in the sauce on my initial post. All I said was that it's something you need to account for; if those are the answers you're using to account for it, that's all gucci.

[InvisibleBison]

You're asking philosophical questions. Neither the answer nor the question can possibly improve your game. The PCs should be focused on tactical questions.

It is true, I suppose, that if your game has a plot that stops making sense when the players think about what's going on then the players thinking about what's going on would ruin the game. But that's not a reason for the players to not think about what's going on, its a reason for you to write better plots.

[Eladrinblade]

But I was wondering how other people see this? How is their world?

Definitely no adventuring guilds, and its not a recognized profession. There are adventurers, including teams of them, but the players will be the only ones who do it "full time" and for its own sake. There are military types, scouts and knights and such, who do dangerous things for their faction. There are mercenaries, who go out and fight (or threaten to fight, or guard) for money, but typically thats lower level stuff and in large numbers. There are thieves and groups of thieves who will tackle a dangerous "job" for riches and a bit of fame. There are sages, mages, explorers, etc, who go out to learn something or find a thing. Finally, there are clerics who will possibly go on quests for religious reasons.

Rarely, you will get a combination of these types and thats when you start getting into "adventuring party" territory, but even then its because they need each other somehow, not because they want to, and its a temporary thing. A full adventuring party, with each member being a different class, where they team up for extended periods of time and for multiple "adventures" (call it a "campaign") without some outside structure putting them together (like service to a faction), is rare enough to be unique; that's for the players.

A thing to note is that in my setting civilization has a low population and is kinda points-of-light.
edit: and it caps at 12th level (for players and npcs, though not at CR 12), and there are no world-ending threats, just up to civilization-ending or "wiping out your people"

[Mordante]

Definitely no adventuring guilds, and its not a recognized profession. There are adventurers, including teams of them, but the players will be the only ones who do it "full time" and for its own sake. There are military types, scouts and knights and such, who do dangerous things for their faction. There are mercenaries, who go out and fight (or threaten to fight, or guard) for money, but typically thats lower level stuff and in large numbers. There are thieves and groups of thieves who will tackle a dangerous "job" for riches and a bit of fame. There are sages, mages, explorers, etc, who go out to learn something or find a thing. Finally, there are clerics who will possibly go on quests for religious reasons.

Rarely, you will get a combination of these types and thats when you start getting into "adventuring party" territory, but even then its because they need each other somehow, not because they want to, and its a temporary thing. A full adventuring party, with each member being a different class, where they team up for extended periods of time and for multiple "adventures" (call it a "campaign") without some outside structure putting them together (like service to a faction), is rare enough to be unique; that's for the players.

A thing to note is that in my setting civilization has a low population and is kinda points-of-light.
edit: and it caps at 12th level (for players and npcs, though not at CR 12), and there are no world-ending threats, just up to civilization-ending or "wiping out your people"

Why the cap at level 12 I'm curious. I think a level cap can be good. I just wonder how people decide what they find a good cap. How do you deal with PrC requirements do you change them at all? Some PrC require some "bad" feats, like dodge or skill focus. If you level is capped at 12 then feat slots are even more precious.

[Eladrinblade]

Why the cap at level 12 I'm curious. I think a level cap can be good. I just wonder how people decide what they find a good cap. How do you deal with PrC requirements do you change them at all? Some PrC require some "bad" feats, like dodge or skill focus. If you level is capped at 12 then feat slots are even more precious.

Here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22405664&postcount=1) you go. E6 feels way too limited to me. I like a lot of the 6th and 7th level spells, and most of my favorite monsters are about CR 13. Basically I eyeballed it for the feel I was aiming for; 12 is solidly heroic without getting superhero-y.

[Mordante]

Here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22405664&postcount=1) you go. E6 feels way too limited to me. I like a lot of the 6th and 7th level spells, and most of my favorite monsters are about CR 13. Basically I eyeballed it for the feel I was aiming for; 12 is solidly heroic without getting superhero-y.

Interesting rules, not sure I understand all of them. I know of no DMs that actually use XP. In the 3 parties I play in. The DM just announces that everyone is a level up once in a while.

[Gnaeus]

I see a lot of games end in the low teens because of 3 reasons.

1. The caster/mundane disparity can really begin to kick in at those levels. 13 is 7th level spells.
2. It can become really hard for battles to have meaningful but not game ending results. PC death is kind of a speedbump at that point.
and 3. The game starts very rocket tag for the first couple of levels. Then IME 3-10 ish are kind of based on damage. And after the low teens if the muggles are relevant at all damage tends to be at instakill levels, and casters of course have lots of you lose buttons.

[Eladrinblade]

Interesting rules, not sure I understand all of them. I know of no DMs that actually use XP. In the 3 parties I play in. The DM just announces that everyone is a level up once in a while.

I don't think I've ever had a DM who didn't use exp. Anyway, most of them are balance changes, but many are also personal preference on my part. If you have any questions you can PM me; I don't want to derail this thread any further.

[Asmotherion]

The answear depends heavyly on the setting. In Eberron, being an adventurer is a common enough occupation to have an established system. In Forgotten Realms, you're more probable to be a Faction Agent or a member of some Trade's Guild/Society etc.

In less defined settings, I often use an adventurer's guild when I want an easy way for the PCs to meet and form a group, or when I want to create a more sandbox story, using the classic "Job Board" kind of thing, with bounties and odd jobs for them to pick.