Why Hire Adventurers?

[Eladrinblade]

Let me start with a story.

Your whole post sounds like a good reason to hire adventurers, until the very last line which threw me. You only pay them when they do the job; what do you have to lose?

[Lord Raziere]

Your whole post sounds like a good reason to hire adventurers, until the very last line which threw me. You only pay them when they do the job; what do you have to lose?

Yeah, they either die weakening your foe or succeed and if there isn't a written contract proving that you agreed to pay them, no one can even prove you sent them to do that and you can pretend that you just met them and they did it out the kindness of their hearts and thank them for being such good-hearted adventurers doing the celestial's work but how dare they try to get money out of doing everyone's holy duty to fight against monsters and evil, how selfish of them, isn't the stuff they looted off their corpses payment enough?

sure the adventurers will be mad. But in character you have no reason to suspect that they are army-killing super-murderhobos and a GM shouldn't be too attached to one character anyways if the PCs decide to kill the NPC for their own mistake of not covering their contractual bases. Now, "this was a verbal agreement and not really binding by the local law of uh...oh right ME." is a jerk move and probably not a NPC I'd play unless I specifically set out the tone of the game to make sure players know to make sure they get a more binding agreement from the get-go so they don't end up in that situation, but it is a thing a noble can technically do, given how most quests are picked up which is by verbal agreement after saying there is a problem they can help with randomly. Not exactly the most official manner of getting a job to do.

[Satinavian]

Your whole post sounds like a good reason to hire adventurers, until the very last line which threw me. You only pay them when they do the job; what do you have to lose?

If you find idiots fightin your enemies without upfront pay who also agree to only get paid if they win and without knowing the enemy's strength... sure, go for it, there is little rist. But you really call your knights anyway because such idiots are certainly not too premising when it comes to solving the problem.

Yeah, they either die weakening your foe or succeed and if there isn't a written contract proving that you agreed to pay them, no one can even prove you sent them to do that and you can pretend that you just met them and they did it out the kindness of their hearts and thank them for being such good-hearted adventurers doing the celestial's work but how dare they try to get money out of doing everyone's holy duty to fight against monsters and evil, how selfish of them, isn't the stuff they looted off their corpses payment enough?

Yes, not paying mercenaries is such a brilliant idea that surely won't lead to them becoming your enemies and taking the pay via looting (and causing much more damage on the way out) while telling everyone what you did. That is why no one actually ever pays mercenaries.
And no, that is not only relevant for army destoying PCs. If the mercenaries were powerful enough to get rid of the goblins, they could nearly always cause more problems than the goblins could in the first place.


Also you should not expect mercenaries to fight "to the death" against the goblins just to weaken them or even to accept serious losses to get rid of them.

[Tanarii]

If you find idiots fightin your enemies without upfront pay who also agree to only get paid if they win and without knowing the enemy's strength... sure, go for it, there is little rist.

Also known as "adventurers".

Including, in many games, some with the power of demigods. But even if these adventurers are not those demigod level adventurers, they're still quite possibly more powerful AND cheaper than your own forces.

But you really call your knights anyway because such idiots are certainly not too premising when it comes to solving the problem.

Usually adventurers are far more powerful than knights, having the power of the gods and arcane wizardry on their side, as well as levels. Which is also something local lords usually don't have access to (for reasons) in the typical oldie fantasy-medieval scenario.

Now, that doesn't have to be the case. But it does certainly seem to be weirdly common that there's this almost totally non-magical world in place, except for the the PCs, villains, and monsters.

[Mike_G]

Also known as "adventurers".

Including, in many games, some with the power of demigods. But even if these adventurers are not those demigod level adventurers, they're still quite possibly more powerful AND cheaper than your own forces.

Usually adventurers are far more powerful than knights, having the power of the gods and arcane wizardry on their side, as well as levels. Which is also something local lords usually don't have access to (for reasons) in the typical oldie fantasy-medieval scenario.

Now, that doesn't have to be the case. But it does certainly seem to be weirdly common that there's this almost totally non-magical world in place, except for the the PCs, villains, and monsters.

That's more or less the premise of fantasy RPGs in general. Certainly of D&D, which is why I really don't see why people are arguing so hard against it.

And throughout history, plenty of people have hired mercenaries or specialists to do combat type jobs. People here have given a dozen reasonable justification for why a local lord might hire a band of professional adventurers to deal with this kind of threat.

Look to any kind of literature, fantasy, western, Samurai, and you see this. Seven Samurai is almost this exact situation. A village hires some wandering fighters to deal with bandits that are beyond their own abilities. The Magnificent Seven was a pretty straight remake as a western. Half of all westerns follow this pattern. The local vassals/militia/law/sheriff/army is not up to the threat because they are spread too thin or are corrupt or has just been ambushed/wiped out/lead away/has better things to do, so

If you really want to poke holes in one of the most basic adventure tropes, you're probably looking for something different in your gaming that most typical players.

[Tanarii]

The real key is the cost to hire the adventurers. If they typically work on commission of loot found, with a possible "quest" reward that's not excessive after the fact, they're a good buy. If they're mercenaries that charge going rates (and given their power those rates could be much higher than standard military) and want half up front, probably not a very good deal.

In systems that reward XP for defeating enemies, and enemies often having decent loot (including magical items), adventurers have a strong underlying incentive other than cash payment from their "quest giver" to take on threats.

[Satinavian]

The problem is the "found loot" expectation.

We are not digging through a ruin with ancient treasures or attacking a dragon with a hoard. We have goblins, or a bunch of primitive humanoids that only recently moved here(likely not with a lot of stuff) plundering villages (with most of the loot probably being foodstuff.) The loot adventuers should expect would be pretty negligible, so the quest giver has to pay.

On the other hand, if there was a lot of valuable loot to expect, that would also not be a reason to let adventurers do it. Because valuable loot is something the knight would gladly take as well.


I mean, let's take some 3.5 numbers. Let's assmue a 5 1st lv adventurers take the task and after a series of increasingly difficult encounters with goblin scouts, guards, bandits and maybe a shaman, traps and local animals they reach level 3 in 3 weeks. The total goblin loot could be sold for 30 GP, making 6 per person or something like that. Now the group would be ~12k GP and the difference between loot and WBL is usually the quest reward. And that is how much "hire adventurers" actually costs in the 3.5 economy. And that gets more and more stupid with even higher levels.

Of course if you prefer to have primitive humanoids raiding villages to actually carry riches worth more than the yearly budget of the whole barony to provide the appropriate loot, youcould do that but i really don't think that should be an assumption.
Mostly because if the baron would expect a bunch of primitive raiders to have a 12k+ stash somewhere, he certainly would try to claim it himself instead of hiring adventurers.

[Sapphire Guard]

Wouldn't the XP be its own reward in that case?

[Stonehead]

If you find idiots fightin your enemies without upfront pay who also agree to only get paid if they win and without knowing the enemy's strength... sure, go for it, there is little rist. But you really call your knights anyway because such idiots are certainly not too premising when it comes to solving the problem.

If the arguments in this thread are mostly about believably, a kingdom that has enough knights to handle every single goblin raid, permanently on retainer doesn't seem very believable to me. Random goblins don't coordinate their raids such that there's always a steady stream of attacks, they're completely independent events. And independent events will, by chance, clump up on certain days and then go long stretches without happening again.

If you have enough knights to handle the three goblin raids that happened this week, you need to keep paying all three groups during the next week when there's only one.

Give the adventurers a chance to wipe out goblin horde A, while the knights on retainer wipe out goblin horde B. If the adventurers fail, or take to long, then the knights can handle it.

[Lord Raziere]

Wouldn't the XP be its own reward in that case?

Adventurer, IC: "Wots this "Ex-pee" ye talking 'bout mate? Izzit some sort of gold? or can I eat it? Or is it like when people try to pay me bard friend in exposure? cause that never ends well for anyone."

[Sapphire Guard]

That's the point, this scenario only functions when you start the premise by metagaming and then suddenly stop.

[Satinavian]

If the arguments in this thread are mostly about believably, a kingdom that has enough knights to handle every single goblin raid, permanently on retainer doesn't seem very believable to me. Random goblins don't coordinate their raids such that there's always a steady stream of attacks, they're completely independent events. And independent events will, by chance, clump up on certain days and then go long stretches without happening again.

If you have enough knights to handle the three goblin raids that happened this week, you need to keep paying all three groups during the next week when there's only one.

Give the adventurers a chance to wipe out goblin horde A, while the knights on retainer wipe out goblin horde B. If the adventurers fail, or take to long, then the knights can handle it.

Well, that was my inititial suggestion. Hire adventurers when your regular troops are busy/ have taken heavy losses recently. It makes a lot of sense, because goblins starting more agressive raiding when they see a weakened realm is quite plausible.


I only always argued against "adventurers are cheap" and "even if you knight/militia are available you still should send the cheaper/expendible adventurers instead". Adventurers are useful, but the more costly solution. Which is why you don't use them for everything.

The whole reason for feudalism to exist is running a country for cheap by letting your army do all the bureaucrative duties as well. Hiring mercenaries when you need the army for fighting it not money saving in this system.

[Mike_G]

Well, that was my inititial suggestion. Hire adventurers when your regular troops are busy/ have taken heavy losses recently. It makes a lot of sense, because goblins starting more agressive raiding when they see a weakened realm is quite plausible.


I only always argued against "adventurers are cheap" and "even if you knight/militia are available you still should send the cheaper/expendible adventurers instead". Adventurers are useful, but the more costly solution. Which is why you don't use them for everything.

The whole reason for feudalism to exist is running a country for cheap by letting your army do all the bureaucrative duties as well. Hiring mercenaries when you need the army for fighting it not money saving in this system.

It's not cheaper this week, but it can be cheaper overall.

If you normally have enough troops, but now you have a temporary big problem, hiring a band of specialist to do this one job and then go away can be a lot cheaper than recruiting and training and maintaining a bigger force indefinitely. Especially if we're talking about specialists that would take longer to train but who might not be useful at day to day patrolling kind of thing.

Hiring temporary staff for a big project is pretty common practice in any field. And it's cheaper because it's temporary.

[KorvinStarmast]

Adventurer, IC: "Wots this "Ex-pee" ye talking 'bout mate? Izzit some sort of gold? or can I eat it? Or is it like when people try to pay me bard friend in exposure? cause that never ends well for anyone."

Unless the bard has a side hustle as an exotic dancer. Then...profit!

Well, that was my inititial suggestion. Hire adventurers when your regular troops are busy/ have taken heavy losses recently. It makes a lot of sense, because goblins starting more agressive raiding when they see a weakened realm is quite plausible.

... or when the Fyrd can't be raised, or when the nobles have already done their 40 days per year required service, or when ... concur with your second sentence a lot. When the victim is vulnerable is when the raider/bandit/goblin/pirate is most likely to strike.

Adventurers are useful, but the more costly solution. Which is why you don't use them for everything.

It depends on how you reward them.
Tax free for a year...(defer the cost/spread it out)
This land to build a dwelling on with title guaranteed.
Two of the best horses from my stable.
The hand of my daughter/niece/cousin/sister in marriage (she has huge tracts of land)
And so on.
Cash need not be the reward.

Hiring mercenaries when you need the army for fighting it not money saving in this system.

They are a once-in-a-great-while expense (and in some cases can be paid off with a bullet ... )
And they are then, absent one of those other offers being on the table, invited to leave town.

[Stonehead]

Well, that was my inititial suggestion. Hire adventurers when your regular troops are busy/ have taken heavy losses recently. It makes a lot of sense, because goblins starting more agressive raiding when they see a weakened realm is quite plausible.


I only always argued against "adventurers are cheap" and "even if you knight/militia are available you still should send the cheaper/expendible adventurers instead". Adventurers are useful, but the more costly solution. Which is why you don't use them for everything.

The whole reason for feudalism to exist is running a country for cheap by letting your army do all the bureaucrative duties as well. Hiring mercenaries when you need the army for fighting it not money saving in this system.

Oh, that's my bad, I misunderstood, or got you mixed up with someone else, or something.

It's not cheaper this week, but it can be cheaper overall.

If you normally have enough troops, but now you have a temporary big problem, hiring a band of specialist to do this one job and then go away can be a lot cheaper than recruiting and training and maintaining a bigger force indefinitely. Especially if we're talking about specialists that would take longer to train but who might not be useful at day to day patrolling kind of thing.

Hiring temporary staff for a big project is pretty common practice in any field. And it's cheaper because it's temporary.

Cheaper overall when compared to maintaining a comparable army yes. But cheap overall I don't think so.

Maybe real life mercenaries were cheap, I don't have enough historical knowledge to say, but it's pretty much impossible to argue DnD adventurers are cheap at any level except maybe 1. The exponential curve of the amount of gold you're expected to have at each level means PCs, by default, are really bringing in big money. Especially because the books usually list average wages for other professions. The two just don't compare.

I'm going to use Pathfinder numbers, because that's what I'm most familiar with. I assume it applies to most editions of DnD as well. A 4th level character is expected to have 6000 gp, while a 5th level character is expected to have 10,500 gp. That means that in the time it takes to advance a single level, a formerly 4th level character will earn about 4500 gp. The listed wage for a "Trained hireling" which includes mercenary warriors and off duty city guards is 5 sp (0.5 gp) per day. So unless if it is taking multiple decades to advance a single level, we can conclude that adventurers are much more expensive than npc warriors.

[Mechalich]

Unless the bard has a side hustle as an exotic dancer. Then...profit!
... or when the Fyrd can't be raised, or when the nobles have already done their 40 days per year required service, or when ... concur with your second sentence a lot. When the victim is vulnerable is when the raider/bandit/goblin/pirate is most likely to strike.
It depends on how you reward them.
Tax free for a year...(defer the cost/spread it out)
This land to build a dwelling on with title guaranteed.
Two of the best horses from my stable.
The hand of my daughter/niece/cousin/sister in marriage (she has huge tracts of land)
And so on.
Cash need not be the reward.They are a once-in-a-great-while expense (and in some cases can be paid off with a bullet ... )
And they are then, absent one of those other offers being on the table, invited to leave town.

For the most part, assets are assets. A horse, a relative, land, these are all assets that the local leadership is aware of, and spending them on adventurers means not spending them on something else.

The key exception, however, is a paper asset that cannot presently be utilized. Traditionally this has been land that under the nominal, but not actual, control of the leadership, often because some 'hostile tribe' is currently occupying it. Adventurers can therefore be paid by an act of imperialism - kill hostile locals and take their land. The local leaders then either grant the adventurers title to the land for development or they pay the adventures off but have the long-term profits from the land to utilize. Either way, the real source of the funds involved belonged to the people who were living on that land.

In general, this sort of activity tends to discomfort modern players, especially Americans, as there are extremely uncomfortable historical parallels. One of the bits of genius of D&D is converting what would otherwise be some other group of humans occupying marginal territories on the edge of state control into literal 'monstrous humanoids,' who are evil and can be safely slaughtered. This is the core gameplay loop of D&D and basically every loot-based game that has followed it: 'Kill evil, take its stuff.' Over time, of course, people have grown less comfortable with oppressing the monstrous humanoids - OOTS literally chronicles this development - and successor games have turned to ever-more-irredeemable sources of easily plundered wealth.

[Tanarii]

Wouldn't the XP be its own reward in that case?

Yes, absolutely. That's one reason adventurers are motivated to go adventuring, not just for magical loot.

Of course, when found GP was the primary source of XP, it was mostly about trying to loot non-magical and magical loot. In many games nowadays, there's not such a direct link between the player's motivation and the adventurer's motivation. But whatever you want to call it in game, the net result is something is causing adventurers to decide to go do things where XP is the primary reward being sought.

[Mechalich]

Yes, absolutely. That's one reason adventurers are motivated to go adventuring, not just for magical loot.

Of course, when found GP was the primary source of XP, it was mostly about trying to loot non-magical and magical loot. In many games nowadays, there's not such a direct link between the player's motivation and the adventurer's motivation. But whatever you want to call it in game, the net result is something is causing adventurers to decide to go do things where XP is the primary reward being sought.

If XP it to serve as a motivator, that means people in the game are aware of what XP is and to some degree how it works and the world will reorient accordingly. In particular, groups will seek to control and secure XP sources for themselves, and also that society will restructure on personal power gradients. Works that explore this do exist, as in the case of various LitRPG novels and comics but it tends to get weird and also awfully dark- because you've created a world in which the path to superpowers is mass slaughter.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the most part, assets are assets. A horse, a relative, land, these are all assets that the local leadership is aware of, and spending them on adventurers means not spending them on something else.

Hardly. Cash is harder to come by in the feudal setting, so other means of recompense must often suffice. And, it can be a grant that may take some work to realize the value of - land being a case in point if the generally feudal model of land as wealth is being applied. If you are granted land and the rights thereunto in a feudal setting, you have just taken a step up in the world.

In general, this sort of activity tends to discomfort modern players, especially Americans,

1. I don't have those issues.
2. Please don't be so vaguely insulting by painting with such a broad brush about people whom you do not know.
3. Your last paragraph presents the CRPG loop, the video game loop, the console game loop. (Yeah, Diablo III (among others) is a great example of that mode).

Actual TTRPG's are not hard coded to that loop beyond an utter lack of imagination.
And while I am at it: perhaps the author you praise so adoringly is not a prophet, but is rather a victim of limited experience.
I'll edit in Dave Arneson's observation on that broken assumption when I dig it up. It's in my notes somewhere, brb.
EDIT: Here ya go, from one of his on line articles

All the types love each other and the player whose group they join. They will follow the player anywhere and happily die at the player's command.
The stories endeavor to not get in the way of the killing, or finding the ultimate evil bad guy to kill. Many plots for adult films have better stories.
Ohhh.... cool...so this is role playing?
Nah...

[Lord Raziere]

Unless the bard has a side hustle as an exotic dancer. Then...profit!

"Och, Nine Hells no, them bards have it worse. One dumb or drunk bloke gets handsy and suddenly everyone in tavern is bleeding out their ears from the psychic screams of fury."

[KorvinStarmast]

"Och, Nine Hells no, them bards have it worse. One dumb or drunk bloke gets handsy and suddenly everyone in tavern is bleeding out their ears from the psychic screams of fury."

Well, most bars have a "look but don't touch" rule - one's actions tend to have consequences, even in the tavern over there. Drinking is no shield from that.

[Tanarii]

If XP it to serve as a motivator, that means people in the game are aware of what XP is and to some degree how it works and the world will reorient accordingly. In particular, groups will seek to control and secure XP sources for themselves, and also that society will restructure on personal power gradients. Works that explore this do exist, as in the case of various LitRPG novels and comics but it tends to get weird and also awfully dark- because you've created a world in which the path to superpowers is mass slaughter.

It's a motivator for the players, which means it's a motivator for the characters. How they conceptualize this motivation, if at all, is up to the players. It's not required the characters conceptualize it one way or the other or at all. Maybe it's a mystery why adventurers behave the way they do.

But since it's a motivator, it results in certain common behavior that may be observable. To whit, adventurers commonly appearing to work for next to nothing, or just for potential phat lootz.

[Stonehead]

It's a motivator for the players, which means it's a motivator for the characters. How they conceptualize this motivation, if at all, is up to the players. It's not required the characters conceptualize it one way or the other or at all. Maybe it's a mystery why adventurers behave the way they do.

But since it's a motivator, it results in certain common behavior that may be observable. To whit, adventurers commonly appearing to work for next to nothing, or just for potential phat lootz.

Real world training/practice is a valid motivation. I'm pretty sure that's Ryu's whole thing, although I haven't actually played Street Fighter, so I'm not sure.

I don't think I would enjoy a game world where "xp" was a measurable thing, like fire or gravity, but a group of eccentrics who take ridiculously difficult tasks to improve their strength isn't that immersion-breaking to me.

[Yora]

"Rich important people hire adventurers. Poor people who can not afford to hire adventurers do not hire adventurers."

[KorvinStarmast]

"Rich important people hire adventurers. Poor people who can not afford to hire adventurers do not hire adventurers."

You remind me of a game that started very badly some years ago. The DM set up the scenario of a group of local villagers whose flocks were being savaged by wolves, and some kidnappings. (Werewolf was the larger problem, as it turned out). Two of the players took the old "what's in it for us to help you?" line, and of course the villagers had little to no money. More of the players took their call for help as an adventure hook and suggested we help them. An argument (between players) raged across the table between "why should we risk our lives for nothing?" and "why are you being such a jerk?" positions for a while before the DM called for a break.

Sodas sipped, chips munched, cigarettes smoked (this was before the anti-smoking mania took on the nasty tone that it currently has).

When we reconvened, the cleric was asked to promise to "heal me first" the two 'what's in it for me?' PCs. So she did.
And play began.

GP for XP, and the use of treasure maps (however burned, broken or brittle) and the planting of various rumors goes a long way to avoiding that kind of start since 'loot' provides its own motivation.

[Chauncymancer]

If XP it to serve as a motivator, that means people in the game are aware of what XP is and to some degree how it works and the world will reorient accordingly. In particular, groups will seek to control and secure XP sources for themselves, and also that society will restructure on personal power gradients. Works that explore this do exist, as in the case of various LitRPG novels and comics but it tends to get weird and also awfully dark- because you've created a world in which the path to superpowers is mass slaughter.

Real world training/practice is a valid motivation. I'm pretty sure that's Ryu's whole thing, although I haven't actually played Street Fighter, so I'm not sure.

I don't think I would enjoy a game world where "xp" was a measurable thing, like fire or gravity, but a group of eccentrics who take ridiculously difficult tasks to improve their strength isn't that immersion-breaking to me.

Based on the function of level-draining, xp consuming spells as well as the process of crafting magic items, it would appear to be the case that spell casters at least should be aware that xp is some kind of a resource that can be drawn out of other people. "When you kill a man part of his soul dwells forever in you." is not an alien belief to real world human history.

[Bohandas]

I don't think I would enjoy a game world where "xp" was a measurable thing, like fire or gravity

Wasn't that basically the premise of Highlander?

[Stonehead]

Based on the function of level-draining, xp consuming spells as well as the process of crafting magic items, it would appear to be the case that spell casters at least should be aware that xp is some kind of a resource that can be drawn out of other people. "When you kill a man part of his soul dwells forever in you." is not an alien belief to real world human history.

I mean, HP damage also exists, and people generally don't like viewing HP as a measurable in-universe number (at least from what I've seen). I see both xp and hp as numerical representations of in-universe concepts, namely experience and health. IRL we have some concept of experience and health, we know people get better at something the more they do it, and that eating fruit is good for your health, but getting stabbed isn't.

The jump from a concept to the measure of that concept being perceptible in universe is what I'm objecting to. It's looking at a dagger and saying "That will deal between 1 and 4 points of hp damage", or looking at a group of goblins and saying "Killing those goblins will give me enough xp to advance a level", that would kinda ruin my immersion. Also, I don't think many games give npcs xp, so for the vast majority of people in the world, xp doesn't apply.

Also, I should clarify, at this point I'm just stating preferences. There's nothing wrong with other people liking a setting idea that I don't.

[Yora]

I struggled with the problem of how do you have heroic adventurers for hire and make it look plausible under closer examination for years. And ultimately it let me to the conclusion to not run campaigns about heroic adventurers for hire. That premise in itself does not hold up to scrutiny of you want to have your setting (loosely) reflect actual human society and behavior.

Mercenary parties work.
Treasure hunter parties work.
Smuggler parties work.
And heroic defenders who watch over an area work.

The firat three groups can find themselves in situations where they feel compelled to do heroic things, but they didn't plan to. They didn't go looking for evils to fight.
Characters who are looking for evils to fight don't go around looking for payment for their deeds.

Either PCs are looking for pay, or they are looking for wrongs to right. Trying to have the players be both at the same time doesn't work.

[Mike_G]

I struggled with the problem of how do you have heroic adventurers for hire and make it look plausible under closer examination for years. And ultimately it let me to the conclusion to not run campaigns about heroic adventurers for hire. That premise in itself does not hold up to scrutiny of you want to have your setting (loosely) reflect actual human society and behavior.

Mercenary parties work.
Treasure hunter parties work.
Smuggler parties work.
And heroic defenders who watch over an area work.

The firat three groups can find themselves in situations where they feel compelled to do heroic things, but they didn't plan to. They didn't go looking for evils to fight.
Characters who are looking for evils to fight don't go around looking for payment for their deeds.

Either PCs are looking for pay, or they are looking for wrongs to right. Trying to have the players be both at the same time doesn't work.

I disagree.

I'm a paramedic. I picked that job so I could help people. But I need to pay my bills.

Heroes have to eat. Nothing wrong with taking on good causes but asking for reasonable payment.