Why Hire Adventurers?

[Yora]

Of course ypu get a wage. But that's kinda the point. Someone is paying people a regular wage to be ready to do the work when their services are requored. Police and doctors don't wander the street asking around of anyone has paying work for them.

You can have heroic PCs, no issue at all with that. But those aren't wandering mercenaries looking to get rich.

[Lord Raziere]

the only adventurers that can do hero work without payment/income are druids and rangers. wilderness survival skills and nature magic are kinda vital to that lifestyle.

rogues don't count, they steal and neither does paladins/clerics as they would need a institutionalized religion to get all their gear and holy symbols from and if your religion is producing warriors to protect people from evil its probable that donations are closer to taxes than anything else. though such a religion would probably be the ones to pay a wandering band of do-gooders and keep networks for the sake of protecting people. which really is the solution to this whole conundrum: nobles are jerks, DnD priests literally have good gods telling them what good is and probably have an adventurer fund specifically to pay you to help people out, accept jobs from those guys if you want your conscience appeased.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of course ypu get a wage. But that's kinda the point. Someone is paying people a regular wage to be ready to do the work when their services are requored. Police and doctors don't wander the street asking around of anyone has paying work for them.

You can have heroic PCs, no issue at all with that. But those aren't wandering mercenaries looking to get rich.

I disagree. My preferred style is that they started out as "wandering mercenaries looking to get rich" (or whatever) and become heroes over the course of the events of the campaign. They're heroes not because that's how they started (necessarily)--they're heroes because, when push came to shove, they decided to do the heroic acts.

And I dislike the idea that "virtue is its own reward, so if you're a hero you can't also get (or be looking for) more mundane rewards". That unnecessarily narrows the scope of heroism. Now sure, a real hero will do things even when they're not getting paid, just because it's right. But "professional hero" is not, as I see it, an oxymoron. "Good" =/= self-abnegating with an ascetic lifestyle.

In fact, I prefer stories where the good path is also (in the end) more successful (including financially and in terms of happiness) than the villain route. Where villains fail and (in part) defeat themselves, where evil does not prosper. In part because good people are there to prevent it, but also that evil is inherently self-destructive through blindness and infighting. Short-term, it's successful (if the good folks don't stop it). Long term, evil doesn't win because evil contravenes the proper order of nature. That's entirely my preference, but I don't think it's an unusual or an inherently self-contradictory one.

[BRC]

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.

The general solution, while not especially realistic, is to have there be a substantial amount of work that is both Heroic and Paying, such that going around doing Hero Stuff gets you paid.

If you want to be more realistic about it, you have a model where there is an organization that exists to ensure adventurers get paid for doing Heroic Stuff. Same logic as taxpayer-funded fire departments. You want people who will show up and save you from a fire, and those people need money, but you don't want to make getting saved from a fire contingent on the person whose house is on fire being able to pay, especially since fires spread, and waiting until somebody has the money on hand is a good way to let things get out of control.


So, if Goblin Attacks are a regular problem, and the local nobility wants to make sure that their serfs and townsfolk don't get attacked by Goblins, you can say they set up a fund that exists to pay Adventurers who can prove that they've dealt with some Goblins. Your wandering group of do-gooders can fight the goblins because they're wandering do-gooders, and when they do so the farmers are like "Here is the paperwork we signed validating that you have dealt with our goblin problem, turn it in at the Duke's Manor to get a reward".

It requires a bit of a sweet spot, where the local authorities care enough to pay/hire somebody to go fight on behalf of some random peasant farmers, and where this is a common enough occurrence that there is a system in place, but the local noble or whatever either doesn't care enough, or the situation isn't common enough, to justify having a standing force able to solve such problems faster/cheaper than seeing if there are any Heroic Mercenaries who happen to be in the area.

A less formal, but more sustainable system may have the "Wandering Hero" as a role in Society, with certain rules and rituals based around them. Formally recognized Wandering Heroes can show up at a noble's manor and expect to be fed and housed for a few days (The more Renowned the Hero, the longer they can mooch off a noble host), but in exchange they're expected to go deal with any problems they get pointed at. If no such problems arise, they're expected to move along, and only actually get Paid if they take care of some serious problem.

This ensures a flow of Heroes wandering the land seeking evil, who receive the support they need to travel and fight, but are still able to intervene even when there isn't much money in the work itself, since part of the Established Duties of the nobility is to, effectively, pay for the upkeep of any Adventurers who happen to be in the area. The Adventurers may be effectively working for tips (And battle-loot), since they're expected to intervene even without a promise of reward, but their basic cost-of-living is covered.

Of course, this only works so long as your Adventuring Bona-fides are up to date. Once Nobles feel comfortable slamming the door in your face without it hurting their social standing, you have to start paying for hotel rooms.

I could see it being highly ritualized, similar to Hospitality rules in a lot of cultures. An Adventurer arrives at your door, requests food and shelter for the night, and you're obligated to host them at least for a bit. Maybe the exact words they say to invoke the ritual lay out some very spartan minimums:
"Our blades and hearts are yours for but six feet of floor and a crust of bread", or something like that. You are supposed to go Do Any Rightous Violence That Needs Doing, otherwise you get branded a Coward and you lose your meal ticket. A noble who turns away Heroes in good standing loses social standing amongst their peers. Similar to how a lot of cultures treated giving elaborate gifts as a way to gain prestige, this one may have nobles or wealthy merchants raise their standing by hosting and rewarding Adventurers.

[Sapphire Guard]

It depends on your setting, but if a D&D world frequently has problems where nests of monsters need to be cleared out of nearby caves/mountains/forests/abandoned buildings etc, there will very likely be a specialised profession to solve that problem, whether it existed historically or not. In a world where this happens, it is also not difficult to envisage groups of people being highly motivated to clear those nests for a wide variety of reasons.

Re the meta logic, if the adventurers don't know about XP, they also don't know 'I'm level 3, therefore I need to be paid this much gold', so they'll take whatever the going rate is, or else the local baron just hires someone cheaper instead.

A good chunk of the disconnect seems to be a metagaming issue. Historically, the conditions that make adventuring parties useful more seldom arise, but in gameworlds, they happen quite a bit. Judging ahistorical things by historical standards runs into problems, naturally.

Do we factor in the massive disproportionate combat power of the adventurers, or not?

Do we factor in the frequency of small groups of dangerous monster nests, or not?

And so on. How do these things affect our Baron/ess' logic?

[Mechalich]

And I dislike the idea that "virtue is its own reward, so if you're a hero you can't also get (or be looking for) more mundane rewards". That unnecessarily narrows the scope of heroism. Now sure, a real hero will do things even when they're not getting paid, just because it's right. But "professional hero" is not, as I see it, an oxymoron. "Good" =/= self-abnegating with an ascetic lifestyle.

While forcing heroes to be ascetics is not necessary, heroism meshes poorly with the accumulation of excess wealth. Unless the world is utopian: total resources/total population = not enough for everyone to live comfortably. Therefore keeping more than you need to live comfortably means someone else does not have enough. There is a strong argument that accumulating resources beyond the needs of financial security cannot be good (again, unless there actually are sufficient resources, which in a fantasy world might be the case but this is not traditional).

In fact, I prefer stories where the good path is also (in the end) more successful (including financially and in terms of happiness) than the villain route. Where villains fail and (in part) defeat themselves, where evil does not prosper. In part because good people are there to prevent it, but also that evil is inherently self-destructive through blindness and infighting. Short-term, it's successful (if the good folks don't stop it). Long term, evil doesn't win because evil contravenes the proper order of nature. That's entirely my preference, but I don't think it's an unusual or an inherently self-contradictory one.

There is a wide zone, especially in business, between excessive ruthlessness that is self-destructive, and excessive generosity that inhibits growth. In D&D this is represented by neutrality and most business focused types end up with neutral alignments. Heroic adventurers may end up rich, but the truly wealthy will be the generational holders of power. In fact it is common in stories for heroic types who bridge the gap and acquire some position of sustained power - such as a noble title - to suddenly find themselves facing moral compromises.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While forcing heroes to be ascetics is not necessary, heroism meshes poorly with the accumulation of excess wealth. Unless the world is utopian: total resources/total population = not enough for everyone to live comfortably. Therefore keeping more than you need to live comfortably means someone else does not have enough. There is a strong argument that accumulating resources beyond the needs of financial security cannot be good (again, unless there actually are sufficient resources, which in a fantasy world might be the case but this is not traditional).



There is a wide zone, especially in business, between excessive ruthlessness that is self-destructive, and excessive generosity that inhibits growth. In D&D this is represented by neutrality and most business focused types end up with neutral alignments. Heroic adventurers may end up rich, but the truly wealthy will be the generational holders of power. In fact it is common in stories for heroic types who bridge the gap and acquire some position of sustained power - such as a noble title - to suddenly find themselves facing moral compromises.

Yes, but there's a wide range of what heroic means. Heroic doesn't mean ascetic. And "excess wealth" is a very squishy concept. And moral systems disagree about whether you must give away everything above some "comfortable" level to be "good" (with just about every D&D system, to keep it away from real-world ethics disagreeing strongly). In D&D, being wealthy is not inherently morally questionable, even if not everyone is at that same level. Taking from others unethically is, but simply having wealth? No. That's not part of D&D ethics at all. Vows of Comfortable Wealth are not a requirement for goodness or heroism. You can have a pure-lawful Good Gold Dragon, in fact. Who has buckets of excess wealth just sitting there. Or a Temple of Helm with richly-appointed furnishings and beyond-comfortable priests.

Hero =/= "the most restrictive interpretation of the 3e paladin's code". There's a huge range there.

In fact, being heroic in a D&D context generally means:
1. Being willing to put yourself on the line for others' benefit. Doesn't mean you can't benefit, but you're taking the risk, rather than maneuvering someone else into taking the risk. And you're doing it out of a concern for others' welfare over your own.
2. Doing cool things and fighting evil (or even non-evil, as long as it's dangerous to others--you can be heroic for stopping or diverting a Modron March from a village, for instance)
3. Doing all of this while not trampling on other people or hurting them more than necessary[1], especially innocents.

[1] People will get hurt. D&D morality does not require non-violence (or even recommend it when facing truly evil beings). But a hero doesn't take risks with other people, especially involuntarily on their part, more than absolutely necessary and is willing to suffer extra personal risk to avoid risk to others.

[Dimers]

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).

In 4e there's a rare item that lets you learn the exact HP remaining for a creature you hit. I had a lot of fun twisting the implications of that into an in-universe paradigm ... including the fact that the character could quantify her allies' max HP, if requested, but only by repeatedly smacking them.

[Tanarii]

Re the meta logic, if the adventurers don't know about XP, they also don't know 'I'm level 3, therefore I need to be paid this much gold', so they'll take whatever the going rate is, or else the local baron just hires someone cheaper instead.

It doesn't really matter if the PCs know about the meta logic driving their actions, what matters is the players know. And they will make decisions accordingly, and "adventurers" in the world will behave in a certain observable way as a result. So it'll be known that e.g. adventurers will do stupendously dangerous/exciting/interesting things for little to no offered cash payment or reward. If there's possible loot to be had, all the better.

Do we factor in the massive disproportionate combat power of the adventurers, or not?

Assuming they do in a given system, yes. That'd be observable and pretty well known.

Of course, if NPC adventurers don't exist or aren't very well known, because the PCs are either one of a kind or the system just doesn't result in something that vaguely resembles the D&D adventuring crew, it'd be a different matter.

[Lord Raziere]

It doesn't really matter if the PCs know about the meta logic driving their actions, what matters is the players know. And they will make decisions accordingly, and "adventurers" in the world will behave in a certain observable way as a result. So it'll be known that e.g. adventurers will do stupendously dangerous/exciting/interesting things for little to no offered cash payment or reward. If there's possible loot to be had, all the better.

No. five specific adventurers will behave that way. those actions will not reflect or influence the actions of other adventurers. the players don't determine how the adventurer community acts as a whole, only them.

[Stonehead]

It doesn't really matter if the PCs know about the meta logic driving their actions, what matters is the players know. And they will make decisions accordingly, and "adventurers" in the world will behave in a certain observable way as a result. So it'll be known that e.g. adventurers will do stupendously dangerous/exciting/interesting things for little to no offered cash payment or reward. If there's possible loot to be had, all the better.

Isn't making decisions as if you were a different person with different knowledge like, the definition of what "roleplaying" is? There are definitely groups that don't metagame that hard.

[Bohandas]

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.

I agree for the most part, but would point out that it can theoretically be made to work even at this level of specificity.

For example, wasn't that basically the viklain's whole thing in the movie The One? Like he knew that he just had to kill one more alternate version of himself to attain godlike power

[Yora]

It doesn't really matter if the PCs know about the meta logic driving their actions, what matters is the players know. And they will make decisions accordingly, and "adventurers" in the world will behave in a certain observable way as a result. So it'll be known that e.g. adventurers will do stupendously dangerous/exciting/interesting things for little to no offered cash payment or reward. If there's possible loot to be had, all the better.

That's how it works in practice, This is why people have been playing adventurer party RPGs for the last four decades, and these games selling very well.

Though in my opinion, that's simply ignoring the question of how the adventuring profession actually makes sense. When the question comes up, it's simply "Just play the game as it's meant to." And I would assume in most campaign, it never gets even asked by anyone. (Old Man Yelling At Clouds: Just look at fantasy anime these days!)

Most people just accept that it doesn't make sense, if they question it at all. And I wpuld guess most people who are bothered by it simply play other kinds of campaigns, with characters who are on one main quest with personal stakes, fighting for their own survival, or are just straight up mercenaries.

[Tanarii]

Isn't making decisions as if you were a different person with different knowledge like, the definition of what "roleplaying" is? There are definitely groups that don't metagame that hard.

No, player -character separation is a myth, an attempting to force it is actively metagaming. Making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment is roleplaying, but it can't be done by ignoring player motivations unless you intentionally try to metagame to do it.

Certainly in-character motivations can be considered by a player against any other knowledge and given precedence if it conflicts, or find a compromise. For example, if your character is a mercenary who wants hard cash up front, you're likely to look for ways to get XP that also get hard cash up front first. But in the absence of that, or even when it's not a total conflict, player motivations will influence decision making for the character.

Though in my opinion, that's simply ignoring the question of how the adventuring profession actually makes sense.

It probably doesn't.

[Bohandas]

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.

I had an idea for an adventure where the PCs are after a demon lord's treasure vault. After they fight their way through all the guards, the vault is empty except for a note from the demon lord informing them that the real treasure is the people they killed along the way (who incidentally provided exactly enough xp to bring the party to the next level)

[Satinavian]

No, player -character separation is a myth

Well, no.
The kind of game you describe does not match any one i have played in the last three decades.

Also most of them didn't even have something like an "adventuring profession" and those that did tried to rationalize it via worldbuilding (Shadowrunners in Shadowrun would be such an example).



Als i don't remember ever having had a game where XP were really a thing IG. And i would assume any setting that did this would instantly invent institutionalized powerlevelling and still not look like a traditional D&D experience.

[Mechalich]

Als i don't remember ever having had a game where XP were really a thing IG. And i would assume any setting that did this would instantly invent institutionalized powerlevelling and still not look like a traditional D&D experience.

Settings of this kind are fairly common in Japanese and Korean media these days, and have penetrated the Anglophone market far enough to spawn the 'LitRPG' subgenre. Most of these stories don't do anything like world-build with the consequences of this change in mind (and often, such as in cases where the world is literally a game, have perfect justification not too) but a few take the idea forward at least a little. Competition for the right to earn XP, including things like control of dungeons, timed hunting limits, and so forth have emerged. Institutionalized power leveling (often for a price) is found in worlds of this kind that have party-sharing XP mechanisms. Similarly Wuxia cultivator stories, which embrace the sort of extreme zero-to-deity power scaling of D&D, are much more open than D&D about being fantasy superheroes and have their own special rules (ex. tiered realms) equivalent to comic book logic that allow their stories to function even as the setting backdrops, in the same way as Marvel, DC, and other comic book universes, make absolutely no sense.

[Lord Raziere]

Settings of this kind are fairly common in Japanese and Korean media these days, and have penetrated the Anglophone market far enough to spawn the 'LitRPG' subgenre. Most of these stories don't do anything like world-build with the consequences of this change in mind (and often, such as in cases where the world is literally a game, have perfect justification not too) but a few take the idea forward at least a little. Competition for the right to earn XP, including things like control of dungeons, timed hunting limits, and so forth have emerged. Institutionalized power leveling (often for a price) is found in worlds of this kind that have party-sharing XP mechanisms.

Yeah but thats giving the Litrpg genre respect, and I personally think we should be above that. Like we shouldn't acknowledge litrpg as a thing, its bad. its taking fantasy and focusing on emphasizing the artificiality of the experience which is.....the opposite direction of what worldbuilding should be unless you want to do "postmodern glitch in the simulation/what do you do when reality itself is clearly fake" kind of stuff. like the best execution of the concept was Undertale, and Undertale's point was all about such a thing is horrible and leads to the creation of monsters who kill everyone to be strong jsut because they can. (or the opposite problem in Deltarune where because the plot is on rails, the few people who can see it being on rails and try to break away from it go insane because they can never succeed in going off rails)

[Satinavian]

Settings of this kind are fairly common in Japanese and Korean media these days, and have penetrated the Anglophone market far enough to spawn the 'LitRPG' subgenre.

Oh, i am aware.

But i have never played a real RPG campaign in such a setting. It is all just other media. I actually considered starting such a game myself, but surprisingly most systems would not work that well for it and more importantly, i would not find enough players for this. It takes a certain type of humor and mental adaptibility to play immersive in such a ridiculous setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

I had an idea for an adventure where the PCs are after a demon lord's treasure vault. After they fight their way through all the guards, the vault is empty except for a note from the demon lord informing them that the real treasure is the people they killed along the way (who incidentally provided exactly enough xp to bring the party to the next level)

That's kind of cynical, isn't it? Or is the point of such an adventure to just be meta for the lulz?

Similarly Wuxia cultivator stories, which embrace the sort of extreme zero-to-deity power scaling of D&D, are much more open than D&D about being fantasy superheroes and have their own special rules (ex. tiered realms) equivalent to comic book logic that allow their stories to function even as the setting backdrops, in the same way as Marvel, DC, and other comic book universes, make absolutely no sense.

And yet are extremely popular as escapist fiction.

Yeah but thats giving the Litrpg genre respect, and I personally think we should be above that. Like we shouldn't acknowledge litrpg as a thing, its bad.

This looks like a "badwrongfun" condemnation of a genre, but as I am not into litrpg, perhaps I am missing a deeper point. From one perspective, aren't all/most super hero stories shallow given the amount of "it doesn't make sense" factor smeared all over them?
(Isn't it kind of like Hunger Games or Tron? )

[Lord Raziere]

This looks like a "badwrongfun" condemnation of a genre, but as I am not into litrpg, perhaps I am missing a deeper point. From one perspective, aren't all/most super hero stories shallow given the amount of "it doesn't make sense" factor smeared all over them?

Yes you are missing the point, a lot. the problem isn't superhero stories being shallow.

the problem is emphasis on artificiality, numbers and making the world gamelike, instead of designing for naturalistic elements so that it makes sense as something that isn't an rpg game world. all litrpg do is focus on and emphasize the seams and screws of the house, putting magnifying glass on the floorboards are constructed rather than actually building the house well and decorating it so that its an actual nice house. its like a play focusing on backstage mechanics and explaining all the techniques of theater, or the magician doing a show where they focus on nothing but explaining their tricks, or a painting about explaining the mechanics of painting. its utterly pointless and missing the point of art and entertainment in general. badwrongfun would be a compliment compared to what its doing.

[Mechalich]

And yet are extremely popular as escapist fiction.

This entire thread is premised on a verisimilitude-based question. If the answer to 'Why hire adventures?' is simply, 'because that's the game' or 'because of total BS reasons X, Y, and Z' that's perfectly fine. You can always discard verisimilitude, and in TTRPG gameplay the consequences for doing so are usually low, since immersion and emotional investment tend to also be low. However, in the case where that's the answer the discussion basically ends there. That's why in forum discussions on questions of this type the default assumption is that verisimilitude is important in this case.

[Hjolnai]

I don't think this has come up yet, but in many cases the role of nobility is to lead - including in battle. More specifically, if I'm a landed knight with perhaps a dozen men-at-arms, or perhaps the baron above them, I can't send my troops to deal with a problem - I'm expected to go myself (or perhaps send my heir) to lead them. Whereas if I'm just tossing some coins to some disreputable mercenaries who are one missed meal (if that) from being bandits, I can continue overseeing my many other responsibilities. That seems like a much more attractive option than putting myself or my heir, who I probably love, to significant trouble and risk. On top of that, I probably care about the soldiers who I, personally, have trained and see every day, much more than I care about these unknowns.

A more powerful noble probably wouldn't have to go, but would still be asking a vassal - most likely a friend and often a relative - to do the same.

[Tanarii]

Well, no.

Yes.

The kind of game you describe does not match any one i have played in the last three decades.

Also most of them didn't even have something like an "adventuring profession" and those that did tried to rationalize it via worldbuilding (Shadowrunners in Shadowrun would be such an example).



Als i don't remember ever having had a game where XP were really a thing IG. And i would assume any setting that did this would instantly invent institutionalized powerlevelling and still not look like a traditional D&D experience.

The kind of game I describe is pretty much the norm IMX. XP isn't really a thing in-universe. But it's an underlying player motivation, which because player-character separation is a myth and most folks don't try to metagame to actively pretend the separation is real, means it also becomes an underlying character motivation.

Edit: if you mean "adventuring profession" being an in-universe thing, agreed. That's a conceit of some specific games, and even some specific campaigns within those specific games. But for purposes of this thread's OP, and certainly for purposes of the threads title, it is something we can assume for discussion.

Personally I've primarily been thinking of FR Cormyr's officially registered adventuring companies. But shadowrunners we're pretty much my second thought, in terms of examples/basis for my comments. Difference is they explicitly work as mercenaries for hire.

[GloatingSwine]

This looks like a "badwrongfun" condemnation of a genre, but as I am not into litrpg, perhaps I am missing a deeper point. From one perspective, aren't all/most super hero stories shallow given the amount of "it doesn't make sense" factor smeared all over them?
(Isn't it kind of like Hunger Games or Tron? )

Most LitRPGs don't do anything with the game mechanical elements they introduce. They almost never tell a story that could only be told with those as part of the setting, they just spend a significant wordcount explaining gamelike mechanics which don't actually change the story in a meaningful way because the author was young and impressionable when they watched Sword Art Online.

[KorvinStarmast]

This entire thread is premised on a verisimilitude-based question. If the answer to 'Why hire adventures?' is simply, 'because that's the game' or 'because of total BS reasons X, Y, and Z' that's perfectly fine. You can always discard verisimilitude, and in TTRPG gameplay the consequences for doing so are usually low, since immersion and emotional investment tend to also be low. However, in the case where that's the answer the discussion basically ends there. That's why in forum discussions on questions of this type the default assumption is that verisimilitude is important in this case.

Verisimilitude and immersion are similar in that they are not an off/on switch. There is a degree of depth to either. Why you feel that you need to explain verisimilitude to me is unclear.

Whereas if I'm just tossing some coins to some disreputable mercenaries who are one missed meal (if that) from being bandits, I can continue overseeing my many other responsibilities. That seems like a much more attractive option than putting myself or my heir, who I probably love, to significant trouble and risk. On top of that, I probably care about the soldiers who I, personally, have trained and see every day, much more than I care about these unknowns.

And in some cases there may be local factors that will make it more attractive for strangers to be tasked rather than someone local who may be owed a favor or {something like scutage} for "doing this thing for my liege lord". This takes us back to "these adventurers are expendable" as a solid premise.

Most LitRPGs don't do anything with the game mechanical elements they introduce. They almost never tell a story that could only be told with those as part of the setting, they just spend a significant wordcount explaining gamelike mechanics which don't actually change the story in a meaningful way because the author was young and impressionable when they watched Sword Art Online.

OK, I guess that I am glad that I gave it a miss.

Tanarii's point about XP being a player motivator (which is true) need not filter into the IC consideration of accepting or passing on a given mission. This is another point where milestone leveling has some advantages - XP itself no longer figures into player motivation, but rather a more setting based motivation may (and hopefully does) come into play.

badwrongfun would be a compliment compared to what its doing.

heh, that made me chuckle.

[GloatingSwine]

The wider point Tanarii is making though is that the player's motivations can never truly be 100% removed from the character's. Players can immerse themselves to a greater or lesser degree in their characters, but their own reality will always be part of what the character does. The foundational motivation for why Grug the Barbarian went on an adventure is that Jill the Student wanted to play a fantasy roleplaying game, everything else is built on top of that.

Now, to the original question of the thread there isn't a universal answer even within one setting, but if the GM has an answer for why this lord hired a band of adventurers instead of raising his own troops then they can use that in the adventure later.

[Easy e]

Police and doctors don't wander the street asking around of anyone has paying work for them.

You can have heroic PCs, no issue at all with that. But those aren't wandering mercenaries looking to get rich.

Pretty sure in some less developed places and other time periods; that is exactly what happens. People with special skills roam around looking for people who need those skills at the moment. Wages aren't a thing everywhere and every time period.

Since D&D was supposed to take place on some "frontier" setting on the edge of civilization I can see the "wandering skill holders" premise holding up even better. There are no safety nets and no secure sources of income.

[Yora]

Yes, firefighters showing up at a door saying "It appears your house is on fire, would you like to hire our services" did exist.

That's mercenaries. Not heroes.

[Easy e]

Yes, firefighters showing up at a door saying "It appears your house is on fire, would you like to hire our services" did exist.

That's mercenaries. Not heroes.

Crassus was pretty famous for that!

I was thinking more of doctors, but entertainers would also fit the bill too.