Would a typical D&D town allow adventurers to walk around?

[Umbran]

Depends where you are talking about. China certainly had formal travelling papers, and god help you if you were a peasant without them if you caught the attention of the powerful.

Yes, but that's in a *completely* different cultural context than the typical D&D game. The Qin dynasty, in which that sort of thing started in China, was an outright rejection of feudal systems, and was attempting to establish stability and conformity and direct governmental control on a scale not previously seen on Earth.

In such a situation, "adventurers" would not be a thing.

While it's true that photo ID requires photography, recall also that forgeing hand writing and signatures is not a simple task when your 'mark' has an experienced eye and knows the writing of the person you're trying to forge.

Yes, and that makes it all the more profitable, and therefore all the more certain that some will study it. Remember - making something illegal creates a tidy profit for those willing to risk breaking the law! Heck, right on my e-reader, I've got a fine novella by Brandon Sanderson, titled, "The Emperor's Soul", which is about exactly that - how forgery (mystical forgery, at that) becomes a major thing in such a culture.

The governing classes, even in a place as massive as China, tend to be fairly small and to know each other.

The common man doesn't interact with the higher-ups of the ruling class. He interacts with underlings, low-paid functionaries. It isn't a high magistrate himself checking papers at the gates, you know.

Oh, hey, that brings up something else, in addition to forgery. Bribery! Oh, goodness, was the Qin dynasty loaded with *that*! Woohoo!

Heraldry is an example of a medieval means of positive identification. It's regulation has to be understood in that context, and its elaborateness functions as a barrier against forgery.

No, the barrier to forgery was the extreme cost of the equipment such a person was expected to have. Anyone can paint a shield, sew up a banner. I know a dozen people who do it on a regular basis, even today! The armor, however, was another matter entirely. That you couldn't get just anywhere.

But 'positive identification' exists as a ritual even before objects were used as the most trustworthy marker of identification. Good example would be the means by which Beowulf identifies himself when challenged, or the ways in which Odysseus and others are identified in the Odyssey.

Which is to say, *poorly*, and in an ad hoc manner. Odysseus has to prove his is who he says he is by way of scars on his feet, and stringing a bow nobody else could draw, and remembering that one leg of his bed (that presumably nobody but his wife and loyal servants gets to see) is a living olive tree. Clearly, no *SYSTEM*, or accepted general method, of positive identification exists if he has to resort to these sorts of contortions to prove who he is. It required a pre-established relationship between the people in question. It demonstrates that proving identity between strangers is nearly impossible in Odysseus' world.

 

[Celebrim]

I've got a fine novella by Brandon Sanderson, titled, "The Emperor's Soul", which is about exactly that - how forgery (mystical forgery, at that) becomes a major thing in such a culture.

It is a fine novella, but that's not what it is about.

No, the barrier to forgery was the extreme cost of the equipment such a person was expected to have. Anyone can paint a shield, sew up a banner. I know a dozen people who do it on a regular basis, even today! The armor, however, was another matter entirely. That you couldn't get just anywhere.

It's not like people ran around 24/7 in mail. And there is a reason robbers generally stole a person's clothes - it was generally the most valuable thing they possessed. The regalia of nobility in cloth was just as much beyond the means of a peasant as the mail was.

It demonstrates that proving identity between strangers is nearly impossible in Odysseus' world.

Yes, it does. Which demonstrates that prior to the introduction of passports and other positive means of identification, strangers and particularly strangers across cultural boundaries simply didn't trust each other. Odysseus, Frodo, Beowulf, Aragorn and the like are not trying to establish that they are strangers - they are trying to establish that they are not strangers. Much of the free commerce - and I mean that in the older sense of the word and not merely the modern - of modern society is built on the idea that we don't need to establish trust. We don't worry over much about our honor and our reputation because we don't need these things to function in the society. We don't worry about being shunned. We assume our money is good everywhere. People don't care who we are or who they are doing business with. In a world of unstable currency, no financial institutions, no credit ratings, no criminal background checks, no means of establishing identity or a person's history, being known is essential to ordinary relationships. The markers of ones identification is the tangible witness of ones body. If someone can't vouch for you - "I know him, he has a scar on his shoulder" - what can you do? That's why branding was such a terrible, effective, and arguably needed punishment. It let someone imprint an identity on you that a stranger could recognize.

If two strangers had to establish their identity, they had to do so through a mutual acquaintance. Who do you know? Beowulf isn't known to the border guard. So he proves his identity by recounting the experiences someone who was Beowulf would have to know. "You can believe I am Beowulf, because I know who Beowulf is, and you can trust me because someone has shared with me the intimate details of the lives of people you trust." Aragorn does the same thing. "You don't know me, but you can believe I'm a friend, because I know things about you and your people only a friend would know." It's like saying, "I'm a friend of a friend, and I can prove it because I've been reading your facebook feed." Faramir asks the same thing of Frodo. "If you really knew my brother, describe him to me. By what signs was Boromir known?"

So the world without passports is hardly easier for the game of D&D to handle than the Qin dynasty. That's why I don't really do a fully medieval game. Not only is it just about impossible for players to mentally handle, but the entire concept of 'adventurers' as its usually done in D&D doesn't make much sense in a society were almost no one has the right to travel or bear arms. You could do it, and it might be interesting, but the social roles the PC's would initially find themselves in would be constraining.

 

[Andor]

Yes, but that's in a *completely* different cultural context than the typical D&D game. The Qin dynasty, in which that sort of thing started in China, was an outright rejection of feudal systems, and was attempting to establish stability and conformity and direct governmental control on a scale not previously seen on Earth.

In such a situation, "adventurers" would not be a thing.

Well, adventures in the sense of Murder-Hobos who wander around killing the ugliest people in any given area would not be a thing. Adventurers in the sense of a small band of competant and powerful people who solve problems could still be done. Those rotating beaurecrats took small teams of people with them as support staffs. Functionally the same as the adventuring party tailing after the Knight in Celebrims game.

As a model I'll point to the "Judge Dee" mystery novels, which as an added bonus often had supernatural elements.

It's not like people ran around 24/7 in mail. And there is a reason robbers generally stole a person's clothes - it was generally the most valuable thing they possessed. The regalia of nobility in cloth was just as much beyond the means of a peasant as the mail was.

Not only is it just about impossible for players to mentally handle, but the entire concept of 'adventurers' as its usually done in D&D doesn't make much sense in a society were almost no one has the right to travel or bear arms. You could do it, and it might be interesting, but the social roles the PC's would initially find themselves in would be constraining.

Well to be fair, as you just pointed out simply having arms and a horse was proof enough that you were a knight. Proof enough to let you enter a tourney or get a nights lodgings with the local lord anyway. Although if you spoke like a peasant you'ld get challanged to a duel pretty quickly, and if you weren't a trained combatant the sword and chain isn't going to do much to save you from someone equally well armed and actually skilled.

 

[Lalato]

So the world without passports is hardly easier for the game of D&D to handle than the Qin dynasty. That's why I don't really do a fully medieval game. Not only is it just about impossible for players to mentally handle, but the entire concept of 'adventurers' as its usually done in D&D doesn't make much sense in a society were almost no one has the right to travel or bear arms. You could do it, and it might be interesting, but the social roles the PC's would initially find themselves in would be constraining.

I agree, and that's why I'm looking for ways in which society and culture might evolve with these types of people around. I don't just want to handwave it. I want the culture to have it built into its DNA... and for that DNA to express itself in weird and wondrous ways. The world of D&D is a fantasy world after all.

 

[Umbran]

Well, adventures in the sense of Murder-Hobos who wander around killing the ugliest people in any given area would not be a thing.

Correct. That's what we were talking about. Mind you, the Qin Dynasty didn't put up their paperwork for security. It wasn't, "There are dangrous peope about, and you need to prove you aren't them." It was, as noted above, about taxation and economic control. The Qin Emperor had gotten rid of the middle-men feudal lords, and was trying to manage a large empire without them. The paperwork was about keeping people put doing the jobs that needed doing, and making sure the Imperial Throne got a cut of everything. It wasn't so much about giving positive identification as it was about providing receipt of purchase.

Adventurers in the sense of a small band of competant and powerful people who solve problems could still be done. Those rotating beaurecrats took small teams of people with them as support staffs.

Yes. But now heaven help your game if the PCs don't really want to work for the government. As soon as you institute paperwork ID, the first thing in the player's mind will be "How do I get fakes?" See previous notes about bribery and forgery. And outright theft of documents, too.

Basically, as soon as you say, "people must present ID", the issue of false ID will come up, in a big way. Is that something you want to bother with in your game? Is that *fun*? If yes, good. If not, then I question its inclusion, however "realistic" it may be.

 

[Andor]

Yes. But now heaven help your game if the PCs don't really want to work for the government. As soon as you institute paperwork ID, the first thing in the player's mind will be "How do I get fakes?" See previous notes about bribery and forgery. And outright theft of documents, too.

Basically, as soon as you say, "people must present ID", the issue of false ID will come up, in a big way. Is that something you want to bother with in your game? Is that *fun*? If yes, good. If not, then I question its inclusion, however "realistic" it may be.

Fun? Sure. In fact faked documents and imposters are a runnng theme in a lot of asian dramas. It was a major element in Iron Monkey as I recall. One of the Barry Hughart novels had the scroll "which should have been placed on the altar of the god of forgery." The Mission Impossible series basically ran on forged papers and the "alter Self" spell.

In "The Warriors Apprentice" by Lois BuJold our hero tried to pass his ragged group of wanna be merchants off as mercenaries to avoid being robbed by another group of mercenaries. Things ... snowballed until he really was running a mercenary company and had essentially conquered the system. With no one left to oppose him he happily went home, where a political enemy pointed out that having more than 20 private troops was treason with an automatic death sentence. Miles was forced to improvise again.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Depends where you are talking about. China certainly had formal travelling papers, and god help you if you were a peasant without them if you caught the attention of the powerful. While it's true that photo ID requires photography, recall also that forgeing hand writing and signatures is not a simple task when your 'mark' has an experienced eye and knows the writing of the person you're trying to forge. The governing classes, even in a place as massive as China, tend to be fairly small and to know each other. In fact the Chinese beauracracy would rotate officers throughout the empire, both to ensure they knew each other and to prevent them from building local power bases. Plus modes of speaking and writing vary by social class, and it's very hard to fake your way up or down. Frex in "The Hidden fortress" when the princess traveling in disguise had to pretend to be mute, as there was no way she could fake speaking like a peasant.

Japan and various parts of Europe in calmer times had similar levels of "lockdown" at certain times, with papers needed to go anywhere and so on. They functioned quite powerfully in times without war, significant rebellions, and so on, where a largely unified bureaucratic empire was able to impose control.

However, that is not at all the default/normal D&D situation. In virtually all D&D settings, the world is in chaos or semi-chaos, with roaming bands of humanoids, dragons, monsters of all descriptions and so on meaning that there is absolutely no way that the place in that level of lockdown. In the FR, for example, there is no unification across most areas, no real bureaucracy, just dozen and dozens of city-states (or smaller units, even!), or partially-broken countries, and there is absolutely no way they are running a setup like this. There may be individual nations which manage a degree of lockdown, but even they are pretty pathetic compared to the peak of Chinese bureaucracy.

I think it depends on where the table is located. Here in the states a lot of people seem to have a very hard time indeed grasping the concept of showing respect and deference when speaking to others. See the "Mouthing off to the BBEG" thread.

"Mouthing off at the BBEG" has nothing to do with historicism or understanding history. It has everything to do with drama and so on. If you are running a game where the PCs have to bow and scrape before the BBEG who they know is the BBEG, that's a pretty specialist game, and one that eschews what is dramatically appropriate and exciting for a certain kind of tension. You absolutely need player-buy-in for that, and you need to make it clear beforehand that it's "that sort of game". It really has nothing to do with whether people understand real history.

Further, if you expand "not understanding how respect and deference work", then, both in my personal experience and reading about/hearing about other people's games, and indeed from this thread, it seems to me that Dungeon Masters are actually the prime offenders here (if we exclude hormonal teenage boys), frequently creating situations where NPCs are abusive and disrespectful towards PCs who are vastly more powerful than them on every possible level, and then expecting the PCs to "just take it", because the DM has decided that they must, or where they expect PCs to behave in a certain manner, but totally fail to clue them in to it, or give them a reason to behave that way. Back in 2E I saw a lot of pre-written TSR and Dungeon adventures which seemed to involve some NPC being horribly rude and disrespectful towards a powerful (i.e. 7th level+) group of adventurers who he wanted to do something for him, too, when he obviously was only hiring them because he didn't have the resources to deal with the issue in a more direct manner. That's pretty silly stuff. Anyway, short of it is that if you expect the PCs to be respectful and so on, you need to have NPCs treat them with appropriate levels of respect, which are actually rather higher than D&D typically skews. Obviously things can go downhill, but if you start out with NPCs sneering at the PCs (as a lot of DMs have, ime), trying to demean them, trick them, and so on, you're setting up a more disrespectful, "Wild West"-ish world, rather than a more medieval one. Insults, sneering, and NPCs looking down on the PCs should be a cause for comment in such a setting, not the norm.

There are obviously situations where an NPC will regard himself as so high and mighty that he would sneer to deal with such "mercenaries" (though this breaks down when you consider many PCs are going to men of the cloth, bards/minstrels, and others who are, by societal tradition, typically treated with respect), but in that case he should send an underling of appropriate rank who can deal with the PCs respectfully.

Given the dearth of interest in history, historical fiction, and historical wargaming among the under-40 crowd, I suspect it's a generational thing. Fantasy has largely taken the place of historical knights and sagas in the popular imagination. And precious little fantasy these days gives more than a passing nod to the gritty reality of medieval society. George RR Martin is the big exception, but part of his popularity comes from the fact a gritty medieval world is actually a refreshing change from most other mainstream fantasy over the last 20 years.

Hmmmm. I see absolutely no evidence that this is an "under-40" thing, except with historical wargaming. There is an issue were over-40s are always more interested in history than younger people, as a whole, but that's no more or less true now than in 1980, AFAICT.

I'm 36, and it's easy for me to see that there is VASTLY more historical fiction and quasi-historical fantasy on TV now than there was 15 or 25 years ago, yet if it was a 40+ thing, that wouldn't be true, because you're on the edge of the main group for TV at 40+. Actual history and archaeology shows are a huge part of the British TV schedule (I can't comment on America there). Movie-wise, there are just as many historical movies now as there were two decades ago, and indeed the situation is certainly improved from the '90s, not degraded.

Looking at books, fantasy and historical fiction continue to do very well. I don't see any evidence of a decline there.

As noted though, historical wargaming? Yeah that's on the way out, for a few reasons - it was on the way about by the 1990s, though, if not the 1980s. Financial cost, space required, time-cost-vs-reward, plus the availability of computer games which fill many of the same needs (whether the Total War series or Mount & Blade or Crusader Kings II or whatever) mean it's just not viable. Particularly in the UK, where, to do proper miniature painting and games, you basically need an entire room devoted to it (and not a tiny one), something few people have to spare in this era. None of that is to do with less interest in history.

As for your " a gritty medieval world is actually a refreshing change from most other mainstream fantasy over the last 20 years.", sorry, no that appears to be completely wrong. You mean, perhaps, the 20 years before 1995? Which was when GoT came out. Or the 20 years before 2000, perhaps? By 2000, the fantasy market had changed vastly. Tolkien-esque and quasi-Arthurian/Celtic settings which were non-gritty were long on the way out by then. Since 2000, we've seen more and more gritty, grim, scary fantasy, to the point where it's certainly the core of the non-merchandised fantasy market, and even the lightest stuff is pretty gritty compared to, say, Terry Brooks or Tad Williams. In fact, for the last 5+ years, the standard whine from people who actually read a lot of fantasy is "It's all so dark!". So yeah, no, definitely NOT "the last 20 years". Perhaps "fantasy from people's childhoods" or "fantasy from before 15 years ago".

I mean, GoT is 1995, Assassin's Apprentice is 1995, Gardens of the Moon is 1999 (Malazan), Perdido Street Station is 2000, Prince of Nothing is 2004, The First Law trilogy is 2006, KJ Parker has been writing super-grim fantasy since 1998, and so on. GoT was the vanguard of a grim and gritty revival that continues to this day. It was published 19 years ago.

Judging by the most popular D&D settings and supplements out there, few players have any interest in the game world being anything more than superficially medieval - basically, no steam-powered or later technology. Socially, most published fantasy worlds are a cross between late 19th century American homesteaders and early 21st century suburban Seattle.

I agree, but this absolutely no different now to 1990, say. When 2E launched, it was with two settings - the FR, via FRA, and Taladas. Taladas was vastly more true-to-history in a way completely relevant to this discussion than, well, any D&D setting since and arguably before (certainly vastly moreso than Greyhawk or Mystara). Which of those flopped, and which did great? We all know the answer. So this is nothing new.

 

[Umbran]

Fun? Sure.

The point is that the question has to be answered on a campaign-by-campaign basis. You cannot answer for everyone.

For those who want to get into that sort of thing, go to! However, it is quite a different game than, "kill things and take their stuff," which a lot of people are also into.

In fact faked documents and imposters are a runnng theme in a lot of asian dramas.

Yep. But, D&D isn't built with those in mind. Given that the term "forgery" appears only in the equipment section of the 5e Basic rules (in describing the forgery kit, and *nowhere* else), and "bribery" appears not at all, I think it safe to say that the game design doesn't include these as a major elements. You can ad hoc it, or write your own rules, of course. But when the question is, "In a D&D world, does X happen? one of the first thoughts should be, "In the D&D rules, does X happen?"

 

[Andor]

The point is that the question has to be answered on a campaign-by-campaign basis. You cannot answer for everyone.

Wasn't trying to speak for everyone. I assume that people understand the word "fun" is personal.

Yep. But, D&D isn't built with those in mind. Given that the term "forgery" appears only in the equipment section of the 5e Basic rules (in describing the forgery kit, and *nowhere* else), and "bribery" appears not at all, I think it safe to say that the game design doesn't include these as a major elements. You can ad hoc it, or write your own rules, of course. But when the question is, "In a D&D world, does X happen? one of the first thoughts should be, "In the D&D rules, does X happen?"

Two places. It's also listed as a possible Int check in the skill section.

I would use Investigation as the logical skill to detect a forgery, but oddly enough they don't mention that under the skill. Which is weird since they have explicitly introduced the concept of forgeries into the game in two places. Which, as you say, is not a major element, but still.

Bribes are not mentioned at all. Personally I'd run a bribe as granting advantage on a Persuasion check, but if you fail you have offended the target. Similar to the 'raising the stakes' rule discussion thread.

Although probably the reason we don't see more about forgeries and bribes is that it's sort of a DM purview area, and will hopefully be addressed in the DMG. Or maybe not. We'll see.

Although come to that forgeries and bribes can both play into the whole "How does the town react to adventurers?" question in this thread. They could deal with hostile villagers by forging a document showing the party to be some sort of officials from the King/Parliment/Council of Elders/Whatever. Or they could simply buy their way into peoples affections. With cash for the high-ups, or if they'd rather have grassroots support a few restoration spells and a purify food/water could go a long way towards convining people that the heavily armed wanderers are allright.

 

[pemerton]

Once a town or city has a wall it will control everyone who goes in (and taxes).

That's really a player expectation problem than a world-building problem. Unless the players are specifically playing psychopathic amoral murderhobos, then they're going to recognize and respond to civil authority despite their own personal power.

In the contemporary world, many people with personal power don't recognise and respond to civil authority (eg tax evasion). I don't see why we should expect the PCs in a fantasy world to be radically different.

This also speaks to the issue of "control". How is a town/city going to "control" high level PCs.

From an inword, sociological point of view the key to stability is integrating powerful people into the social system. This is a mixture of structrual features (eg making the powerful people officials or rulers) and value features (ie morally/ethically integrating the powerful into enduring social institutions - making them officals/rulers can be a way of doing this too!).

From a real world, game play point of view, a GM who wants the players to play their PCs as respecting civil authority, and subjecting themselves to its control, needs to give the players a reason to do so. [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION]'s comments upthread about NPCs being respectfl to PCs is one way of trying to achieve this.

possible[/i] to put all that aside to do a simulation of a medieval or renaissance , but it's not easy.

My personal experience is that a lot of people have a relatively limited understanding even of their own society and social system! So what we get is some sort of bowdlerised mixture of the present and the (historical) past.