"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"

[Maxperson]

I've missed something here: why does every monarch need to be at least a F-9 in order to comply with PC build rules?

Not just monarchs, but apparently every master chef, master architect and master gardener have to be able to single handedly be able to take out dragons and giants.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've missed something here: why does every monarch need to be at least a F-9 in order to comply with PC build rules?

Because it is strawman they're latching unto. We are talking about representing intrinsic capabilities of a creature, and they're talking about social standing which I would not count as such, nor does D&D model as rules. Being a king, mayor, etc is not a rule quality, it is just backstory, fictional positioning.

 

[Manbearcat]

Because it is strawman they're latching unto. We are talking about representing intrinsic capabilities of a creature, and they're talking about social standing which I would not count as such, nor does D&D model as rules. Being a king, mayor, etc is not a rule quality, it is just backstory, fictional positioning.

You have some (not full, but certainly some) inclinations toward simulation of process/internal causality within ruleset. @Lanefan , you do as well (until you don't!...the boundaries for both of you appear to be somewhere around the intersection of laborious prep and table handling time...its not clear to me exactly where that is on any given rules component).

What do you guys think about the social statistic of Precedence in Torchbearer? It is a rating that serves two purposes:

1) By comparing your relative ratings (Adventurers start at 0, High Clergy at 6, Sovereigns at 7), Precedence gates those who can outright Convince, Haggle, Convince Crowds, and Trick.

2) If your Precedence is greater than your opponent’s, you gain +1s per point greater in Negotiate, Convince and Convince Crowd conflicts.

+1 Successes are added to passed or tied rolls. So its a huge deal, especially when Margin of Success is important (like in Conflicts).


What do you think about Precedence? As a piece of game tech, it (along with its cousin Might; for physical conflicts) mightily serves challenge-based play priorities. But I would think it would do work for you guys with some of your Sim priorities.

 

[Hriston]

What you've written about that Angel here cause me to imagine the following exchange.

Player: How about my character has some part of the gifts of all the other angels and goes out into the void to search for the power of creation for himself so he can make his own world?

GM: Your angel character flies out into the void all alone to do just that, now, please roll up a new character for this campaign that is interested in the campaign premise and working as part of the group.

It sounds like your GM has a preference for fiction about characters who cooperate with one another. My GM, if it wasn't obvious, enjoys fiction with the dramatic conflict of something like The Silmarillion. What if the players in your GM's game all decide to collaborate with the first player in having their characters explore the void? Would your GM find that fiction acceptable?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You have some (not full, but certainly some) inclinations toward simulation of process/internal causality within ruleset. @Lanefan , you do as well (until you don't!...the boundaries for both of you appear to be somewhere around the intersection of laborious prep and table handling time...its not clear to me exactly where that is on any given rules component).

What do you guys think about the social statistic of Precedence in Torchbearer? It is a rating that serves two purposes:

1) By comparing your relative ratings (Adventurers start at 0, High Clergy at 6, Sovereigns at 7), Precedence gates those who can outright Convince, Haggle, Convince Crowds, and Trick.

2) If your Precedence is greater than your opponent’s, you gain +1s per point greater in Negotiate, Convince and Convince Crowd conflicts.

+1 Successes are added to passed or tied rolls. So its a huge deal, especially when Margin of Success is important (like in Conflicts).


What do you think about Precedence? As a piece of game tech, it (along with its cousin Might; for physical conflicts) mightily serves challenge-based play priorities. But I would think it would do work for you guys with some of your Sim priorities.

So I assume this is basically a measure of one's social rank? One one of my "maybe I do something with this at some point" setting ideas is sort of Celtic/Arthurian dark ages setting, where social rank like this is very important, and I've though it might be good idea to model it in some way. But the issue with stats like these is that they only work for very homogenous societies, and more diverse and multipolar the world is, less sense they make. Like in my current setting of Artra the clans of the desert orcs or the human hunter gatherer's of Xendu really wouldn't give a toss if your father was some super posh noble from Ilum or Marut. Conversely to the Marutians the priestly class is very important, and the nobles that are related to the priest-king himself are held in high esteem as they're though to share his sacred blood. But Marutians wouldn't really care one bit if some orc's ancestor was a honourable and mighty warrior, even though that would be a big deal in the orc society.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Having more than 1d6 hp isn't a pathway that will enable playing a character the same as a NPC with 1d6 hp.

I thought it was similarity of rules. There's a pathway for PCs with 9d6 hp, so I would expect a parallel development for NPCs with similar HD.

If we're focusing on solely first level PCs, then, no, there isn't a formal way for them, PC or NPC with 1d6 hp to a level of status or rank.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So I assume this is basically a measure of one's social rank? One one of my "maybe I do something with this at some point" setting ideas is sort of Celtic/Arthurian dark ages setting, where social rank like this is very important, and I've though it might be good idea to model it in some way. But the issue with stats like these is that they only work for very homogenous societies, and more diverse and multipolar the world is, less sense they make. Like in my current setting of Artra the clans of the desert orcs or the human hunter gatherer's of Xendu really wouldn't give a toss if your father was some super posh noble from Ilum or Marut. Conversely to the Marutians the priestly class is very important, and the nobles that are related to the priest-king himself are held in high esteem as they're though to share his sacred blood. But Marutians wouldn't really care one bit if some orc's ancestor was a honourable and mighty warrior, even though that would be a big deal in the orc society.

This is going to vary by setting but I do think the social standing thing can be notable here, where you might want a system that inhibits players from making Kings out of the gate, but allows it after they have achieved a certain number of levels, a certain amount of experience, etc. You can easily envision that there would still be kings in the setting who aren't 15th X's or Y's (sort of how strongholds and followers worked in AD&D----an NPC might simply have the social capital and influence without being a leveled fighter to attract them). Granted the GM can rule that a PC could as well, but that does again raise balance considerations.

I can also give an example from my own game, where the focus is on making martial heroes in a wuxia setting. There are no classes, but there are Qi ranks, which determine what kung fu you can attain; there are also skill points which you can a lot to a variety of skills, including knowledge skills. To be a scholar official, you have to pass a series of exams (and these rely on a variety of knowledge skills). Out of the gate, it is incredibly difficult to make a PC who can pass those exams (this is meant to reflect how difficult the exams were). Every PC in the game is a presumed to be a martial hero so that is how the system is set up for character creation. However, plenty of scholar officials exist in the setting who aren't martial heroes and who have no Qi ranks. If I applied the logic of character creation and leveling to the world, then only people who go out fight, kill, steal manuals, etc would develop the skills needed to be a scholar or even just a skilled tradesman. When I am making NPC martial heroes, I tend to stick to the character creation system (though I will make allowances for unusual characters and I will let them go over some of the skill allotments if it makes sense for that character). However if I am making an official who isn't leveled, I will assign the knowledge skills I think that person should have.

Now if a player really wants to play a scholar official who has been appointed to a position, we can discuss that, and I would probably seek input from other players to make sure it doesn't raise any concerns. But generally speaking, this isn't parity between how a PC martial hero is made and how an NPC scholar official is made

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Honestly, I think this is a little bit backwards, mostly because of the way D&D in general presents this information as player-facing first. The 8th-level magic-user pirate is like a Chainmail wizard figure operating at such and such a level. One of the features of playing a PC magic-user, once you've gotten your character to 8th level, is having the capabilities of that type of figure. So absolutely, the 8th-level magic-user pirate should attack with THAC0 19 and have 8d4 hit points like an 8th-level magic-user and should also be subject to the armor and weapon restrictions of a magic-user. But there are other things, like ability scores, that are mostly PC only and which you can probably dispense with.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but is there a game-text reason for this? I mean, IMHO it's equally effective to reason that this is a pirate who learned magic and thus behaves as such. In fact I would think this would be a more thematic option.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've missed something here: why does every monarch need to be at least a F-9 in order to comply with PC build rules?

You wanted NPCs to follow the PC rules...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not just monarchs, but apparently every master chef, master architect and master gardener have to be able to single handedly be able to take out dragons and giants.

No, those are mundane skills not parts of a class. But if all magic casters must be Wizard class then why would not all castle owners be name-level fighters?