I mean, you're talking about stories. They can be anything you want. Have you never read a comic book where Superman or Batman concerns himself not with the doings of leaders or gods, but average folk?
D&D General Gaming From Above vs Gaming From Below
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Sure, because Batman is a hero, which I mentioned above I never assume for PCs. Also, his heroic identity is revered as one of the world's greatest champions, and his civilian identity is a beloved billionaire industrialist. He is absolutely trading on the ardor of society.
You are missing my point. You said that power meant the characters could only interact "from above." I feel like that is a narrow view of the possibilities.
But carry on. It's not for me to convince you.
TheSword
Legend
Ok great - good way of presenting it. So the thread is asking this question… As a DM so you prefer those 3-5 things to involve the high and mighty or involve common folk. The high priest of Tyr in his gold robes or the peripatetic priest with the sore feet? The lord or lady of the town or the underpaid watchman?Or don't, as the case may be.
I don't like games where things are planned out and prefer sandbox settings. Tell me about the 3-5 things going on in my area and let me choose my own fate.
Because I think whoever is setting the quests and getting the interaction time is also helping set the tone of the world you’re creating.
Last edited:
ezo
I cast invisibility
As a DM, I do both and things in-between. High and mighty folk, common folk, creatures, or whatever can be the representative of the adventure hook / option.
For me this simply means the adventure can come from anywhere. There is no set rule or even guidelines for it.
Probably doesn't help much, but that's the way it is both when I DM and for most of the DM's I've played with. With other DM's I can say that the source of adventures often follow the trend of common folk to high and mighty as levels increase.
kigmatzomat
Hero
Why does the" quest giver" dictate the overall interaction? Won't most of "the quest" be outside their presence? The high priest of Tyr may only be in the first and last scenes of a story.
The rest may be spent talking to the underpaid watch, buying them drinks and food so they tell the PCs about the strange things in the mist. The neighborhood priest may be their guide, to an unfamiliar area, providing context "from below".
By the same token, perhaps the quest originated from the neighborhood priest, who approaches the popular and well respected heroes because the local authorities are refusing to stop illegal press gangs and the priest doesn't know how high the rot goes. The bailiff of the ward? The baroness of the city? The duke commands the navy, is he to blame?
A campaign should cover a mix of elites, authorities, military, merchants, workers, outcasts, and monsters where each can be the role of petitioner, informant, assistant, obstruction and villain.
What I got from OP is that the setting books were exclusive to the "top down" view, which is often disconnected and with fewer direct personal connections ("..the armies of Dunwaid invaded the eastern territories, claiming much land..") while "bottom up" views are often more personal ("...then Big Ulric took Jeb's good iron plow and left him that bent wreck..").
The "quest" thing is adventure design, while setting books often don't have adventures. One thing that Shadowrun did in their settings was to have "in-character" books (i.e. a pirated PDF of "The Far East, by Jeff McHero") with a "sidebar" that was an internet forum, giving you an "official" story and public discourse on a topic. You learned which posters were skeptics, conservative, liberal, sock puppets, etc and could get an idea how different stratums of society perceived events.
Earthdawn, also from FASA, interspersed letters and documents that were "in-game" to provide the context. Perhaps more of that would help.
Last edited:
aco175
Legend
This seems to be the best point for me. I can say a lot about the rulers of a place by describing the locals and how they look and feel. How they speak about the lord or high priest. The players should have some notion on what to expect walking into the lord's house. Not that the quest comes from the lord himself as often at low-level especially, the PCs deal with a chamberlain or head of the watch or something and never meat the lord. There might be a party for the Pcs if a good deed is done in his name though.
I think people making adventures and locations have a certain page count of stuff to develop and making NPCs is one task. All the stuff on how to be a better DM and how to maximize your prep time talks about only making what you need. Who is the PCs likely to deal with are the people in charge, so they get more of a write-up than the serving girl at the tavern- until that person becomes something more.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
I know this is D&D general, but the topic makes me think of my Traveller games. There is a social attribute score. The higher the score the more "above" the character is/was in the setting, and lower "below". It was often good to have at least one character who ranked high in social attribute for navigating the upper class of administration and nobility. The idea did dawned on me that a lower score means the character likely knows more about blue collar living. They will fit in better and navigate the working class avenues.
Anyway, I tend to create situations for both above and below as a GM in my games. I think there should be a path for every group and this thinking has led to giving my players a lot of different disparate options to resolve any situation.
Anyway, I tend to create situations for both above and below as a GM in my games. I think there should be a path for every group and this thinking has led to giving my players a lot of different disparate options to resolve any situation.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
While it obviously varies, my campaigns tend to have a "low" feel. For example, in my Revenants of Saltmarsh campaign, the PCs have spent significant downtime working in a refugee camp that sprung up outside town when commoners were forced to flee their coastal villages due to sahuagin attacks. (we don't play it out, unless it becomes relevant, but it is described and becomes a source of NPCs for information and influence). They also have donated a lot of treasure to the cause of feeding and clothing these folks. Their current adventure has them supporting a human and halfling miner unionization effort, though they were sent to help negotiate between those miners and the dwarven leaders of a city by the leaders of Saltmarsh because the work slowdowns and sabotage were effecting preparations for the coming war.
In my "Primordial Evil" campaign the PCs have mostly been helping shepherds and miners and the closest to "upper crust" they have dealt with are village headmen and constables.
In my "Primordial Evil" campaign the PCs have mostly been helping shepherds and miners and the closest to "upper crust" they have dealt with are village headmen and constables.
CreamCloud0
One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
why is this presented as an alternative to what @Micah Sweet said? it's just the same thing phrased differently,Or don't, as the case may be.
I don't like games where things are planned out and prefer sandbox settings. Tell me about the 3-5 things going on in my area and let me choose my own fate.
'i provide options' = 'tell me about 3-5 things going on'
'the PC do as they will' = 'let me choose my own fate'
unless you're saying that the PCs don't do as they will when presented with the choice to? i mean, i guess some groups require a bit of a kick up the pants by the plot lest they faff around in town for hours on end comparing the prices of fresh produce and asking the blacksmith about how the family is.
