Why Hire Adventurers?

[Bohandas]

I'm not sure if this angle has been covered yet, but whatever problem is at hand might be one that's clearly going to require magic, and you can't get magic by conscripting pesants. So if whatever specialist they usually keep on hand is occupied, or if it's a minor lord or minor government that can't afford to keep someone on retainer at all, then they're going to have to go out and hire someone.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure if this angle has been covered yet, but whatever problem is at hand might be one that's clearly going to require magic, and you can't get magic by conscripting pesants. So if whatever specialist they usually keep on hand is occupied, or if it's a minor lord or minor government that can't afford to keep someone on retainer at all, then they're going to have to go out and hire someone.

What if the system being used is one where magic is pretty weak, or dangerous, even very likely to be eventually fatal to the user?

[KorvinStarmast]

What if the system being used is one where magic is pretty weak, or dangerous, even very likely to be eventually fatal to the user?

Adventurers are expendable, so I am not sure the lord/earl will see that as a problem.

[Tanarii]

Adventurers are expendable, so I am not sure the lord/earl will see that as a problem.

Sure. I guess the part I'm questioning is that magic is required to solve the problem. In a system where magic is either weak or not common due to danger, that might not be the case.

Adventurers in such a system might have non-magic capabilities that make them uniquely qualified for the job.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure. I guess the part I'm questioning is that magic is required to solve the problem. In a system where magic is either weak or not common due to danger, that might not be the case.

Adventurers in such a system might have non-magic capabilities that make them uniquely qualified for the job.

My brain just went to A Song of Ice and Fire RPG from a few years back, which we never got to play because of RL dropping a turd into our gaming punch bowl ... Part of the appeal of that game was it's "low magic" baseline.

[Jay R]

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

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

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

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[VonKaiserstein]

From a cynical, ruler standpoint, you hire an adventurer because they work on commission. And they are tremendously expendable. If they kill the threat, great! Mission accomplished, cost acceptable to the kingdom, on your way.

If they don't, ah well, threat reduced, no expenses incurred, and put the wanted sign back in the window.

You are in a no lose situation.

Florida does the same thing with invasive species bounties- they'll pay you for killing pythons, or lionfish. Why? Because it removes a pest, and it's a sight cheaper than paying their professionals to remove them safely. You've got to worry about equipment and medical expenses if it's your employees getting hurt on the job- but just pay for the kills if it's a bounty. And if some fools take up the task, go into the Everglades get drunk and don't find anything? Well, they've got a lovely story, Florida pays nothing, and that's that.

[Berenger]

Florida does the same thing with invasive species bounties- they'll pay you for killing pythons, or lionfish.

What could go wrong?

[Jay R]

One other consideration:

What is an adventurer? It's somebody who is on an adventure.

Whether they were adventurers yesterday or not doesn't matter. Today, when they try to stop the goblin raids, or escort the princess to the capital, or kill the mad lich, then they have become adventurers.

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

Maybe he's a smuggler, or a hermit in a cave, or a moisture farmer. But when he goes on an adventure to blow up the death star, then he has become an adventurer.

Maybe she's just a thirteen-year-old girl. But when she travels around the universe by tesseract to save her father (and eventually her rother) from IT, then she has become an adventurer.

Maybe they are just four soldiers off duty in Paris. But when they ride off to London to get the Queen's diamonds back, then they have become adventurers.

Whoever you hire to go on the adventure, they are now adventurers.

[Tanarii]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

They might live, but they're far more likely to die. Just like all the other adventurers.

Your old school is showing.

[Bohandas]

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

Your old school is showing.

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

So the concept that characters must survive in order to continue their 'story' doesn't seem to be a given.

Besides AW's godfather (Baker) being a Forgite his own self, yeah, there's a rich and varied pile of literary genres that include "the hero dies while striving mightily" that is well served by many RPG formats.

Or they've taken the bit and have goals to accomplish.

Is that why my teeth always hurt?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is that why my teeth always hurt?

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

[Talakeal]

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

I have been trying to explain this concept for years.

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

[Yora]

Except in games where it isn't.

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

[Talakeal]

Except in games where it isn't.

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

No, that's because you seem to find new ways of getting punched, slammed, kicked and otherwise beaten.

Not to mention the hot lava bath at that low quality spa.

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

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

[Stonehead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

Legendary: 11+ (there are exactly 2 groups of legendary former adventurers known in that area)

IIRC, one of those adventurers is now an officer in, or the head of, one of the adventuring guilds - that was the plan, anyway. (A certain vertically challenged halfling).

With the number of "adventurer" stories in both published modules, and homebrew campaigns, a lot of people started to accept heroes or adventurers as a reasonably common in-universe thing.

Heck, back during AD&D 1e days some of the FR novels included references to and interactions with official adventuring guilds (the one I am thinking of included Finder Wyvernspur's stories, but it also might have been a different one - been over three decades since I read those books).

[Tanarii]

Except in games where it isn't.

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

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

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

[Yora]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

Being unheroic cowards and cheats to run off with the treasures is the name of the game.

But nobody at the tavern knows that, so you can spin them whatever yarn you like about how you arrived with that treasure in your possession.

[Jay R]

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

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

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

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

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

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