• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Commoners as Adventurers: Possible?

Dust

First Post
I was just reading over mmadsen's post about what we can learn from CoC and apply to D&D, and I really liked the idea of a group of heroes who start out as really being nobodies.
Essentially, I was thinking about whether it would be possible to start out a campaign where the heroes are all just everyday folks (with the possibility of greatness) who get cought up in something beyond their control and are sucked out of their normal lives into the adventure. I was thinking about setting it up like this:

1. The campaign begins in a local setting: a village, a town, a fortress, perhaps even a city (or a distinct neighborhood or section within a city). All the characters have roles within this community: they're just average folks who act like normal people do in the towns and locales that PC's visit all the time.
2. Along these lines, all PC's begin at first level, but their choice of class is limited to the NPC classes from the DMG. The heroes are farmers, blacksmiths, scribes, scholars, soldiers in the local militia, apprentices of the town wise woman, craftsmen of various sorts.
3. I like the feel of a more heroic, 28 point buy game. For these purposes, however, I'd start with the PC's at 25 points, or possibly even lower. As they gain their first few levels, however, the potential they have begins to show itself (whatever doesn't kill you, and all that). Each level they gain, 2-5, they get an ability point to distribute (rather than just at 4th).
4. The action begins when something happens that the townsfolk can't ignore, or let the heroes solve, and the PC's get tangled up in it.
5. As they begin to sort things out, and gain exposure to the outside world, they can begin taking "heroic" classes and such.

Anyone tried anything like this? Ideas? Comments? Would it work and/or be fun as a player?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

d20Dwarf

Explorer
Our in-house D&D game is like this now. We all had to take NPC classes for the first 2 levels (was going to be 3, but read on...). The power level was not too different at first level, we didn't feel it that much except for lack of starting funds (I took Aristocrat and was the envy of the group with my chain shirt and rapier, man that chain shirt saved my life more than once). By 2nd level, though, our party strength overall was noticeably suffering, and CR 2 creatures were very strong comparatively. At least we convinced Greg to give us 150% XP while we were NPCs. :)

Challenges still need to be moderated, in my opinion, and we've come very close to getting totally wiped out a few times. It is tough going in the D&D universe, where combat is simply a matter of course. Even in a game with less combat and more role playing, I think the NPC classes would severely limit our options because they are weaker than core classes, especially in skill selection.

My opinion is that the game really suffers for the decision. When I'm a player, I want options, and NPC classes limit those options. I think a better way to simulate that feel would be by limiting starting gold, and then moderating treasure at a much lower level than is suggested by the DMG. NPC classes are just too confining, and it gets worse faster as you start to rise in level.

Anyway, that's one person's experience.
 

Kaptain_Kantrip

First Post
It's Harn. Harn adventures are just like you mention wanting. I have 100 Bushels of Rye and this is exactly the type of adventure you need to get started. It also goes into detail about feudal life for serfs. An entire village and manor is detailed complete with NPCs. The adventure is actually a murder mystery---who's killing the peasants? The local lord wants to find out fast, because the serfs are refusing to harvest the 100 bushels of rye the lord needs as tribute to his king. The serfs are terrified that their wives and children will be killed while they are out working the fields, and it's the lord's job to protect them... Unfortunately, the lord is broke and can't hire mercenaries to root out the maniac or monster responsible. It's a very well done low magic/low fantasy adventure, typical of the high standard of excellence one finds in Harn products. I also recommend HarnWorld and HarnManor.

Go to http://www.columbiagames.com for more about Harn.
 

Mordax_sighs

First Post
I like this style of game, but I think D&D isn't good for it.

- Characters level too quickly.
The one "commoners" game I played in was great. We played 25 pt GURPS Fantasy characters - teenagers from a village that got wiped out by orcs.

Well, those of us who enjoyed it (about three out of six), loved the game...right up until we started learning spells, and getting real weapons (hit 50 pts). That just killed the feel.

In D&D, you usually hit 2nd level after the first session, and 3rd after one or two more, and you're out of that "Joe Average" sweet spot.

- Low level combat is excessively deadly in D&D.
For some genres, this is okay. I don't mind losing characters left and right in a Mythos game (D&D Conan is gonna rule, when I get around to it. :) ).

However, in a heroic game, this is bad. (Another place where GURPS or Hero would do a better job.)
 

Kaptain_Kantrip

First Post
Why not just alter the XP table to say, double the amount per level? Or make HP 1d6 + Con mod per level for everyone? There's always a way around it... I have played in such low power games before and they do lose their charm once the characters start to get some power to them. Using NPC classes might help reduce the power level.
 

Riekhan

First Post
In the beggining, you could just avoid fighting and keep exp. low for the first few sesions. The beggining could be focused on (in the example above) escapeing the village, finding food and shelture, and making to the nearest town. Then the players start gaining real levels, and at a certain point (level 3-4), all NPC levels are switched for PC levels.

This would bind the characters together (suffering and surviving together tend to do that to people), it would keep the players in a non-heroic/average-guy-in-an-above-average-situation mindset for the first few sessions, it would give the characters a strong sense of "backround", and it would not seriously impede their fighting power later on. The level switch would be akin to a "heroic-awakening" of sorts.
 
Last edited:

Kaptain_Kantrip

First Post
There's nothing more fun than playing a terrified peasant on the run from evil forces they have no chance against, LOL. Or a peasant witch with one lousy sleep spell per day being her only real defense against torch-wielding mobs out to "save her soul" (through burning at the stake, of course).

It's great fun to play slaves, serfs and other "peasant scum" with no power but who keep an eye out for a chance to somehow better their dismal lot.
 

Ulrick

First Post
The 1st edition campaign I play in started out with all the characters being 0-level. If was a lot of fun...still is.

We all practiced our future classes as the game went along. IF you wished to be a magic-user, then you'd study that spell book you found. If you wanted to be proficient in with the longsword--steal the sword from the fallen guard.

Ulrick
 

Numion

First Post
"I really liked the idea of a group of heroes who start out as really being nobodies. "

Thats normal D&D for you! Just start at first level. The characters are quite nobodies.
 

Mordax_sighs

First Post
I'm not saying it can't work with D&D. I just don't see the point in trying to force D&D to do it, when other games handle it better.

Numion:
Thats normal D&D for you! Just start at first level. The characters are quite nobodies.
Nah, it's not the same thing at all. 1st level D&D characters are very, very competent - they Power Attack, they cast spells...it's just not the same.
 

Remove ads

Top