D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[billd91]

Well, why not?

I think because this sort of thing is best handled by negotiation with the GM and used more as a setting element or plot device than a resource of a PC. This sort of characteristic - high nobility, royalty - should be a significant factor in many things the PCs do and in many people with whom they interact. The GM pretty much absolutely needs to be on board for this to fly.

 

[pemerton]

Like I said, I think any time you go outside of the player character mechanics describing the character himself, I think you're on thin ice.

I know you said this, but I still don't understand why? What is the risk? What are you envisaging going wrong?

Because those types of mechanics can cause headaches for the DM.

Well, presumably the group has already agreed to a certain system before they start, so this has been dealt with.

What to do if his adventure setting doesn't allow a mount-animal companion/etc. to come along? What to do if the political situation in the world doesn't make followers practical?

In systems in which status can be purchased as part of PC build, the GM is generally expected to shape the ingame situation to reflect those choices. Just as, in classic D&D, if a player wants to play a paladin, the GM doesn't present, as the first scenario, an orphanage massacre. (Three Days to Kill, an early d20 adventure, has a more subtle discussion of this sort of issue, to which it potentially gives rise.)

Conversely, that a system both (i) builds a mount into a PC's advancement, and (ii) doesn't give the GM any advice on how to handle this, is a weakness in the system.

What to do if the DM wants to change the magic item frequency in his campaign, but those items are assumed parts of character advancement that differentially affect different character types?

Again, the GM can't. Not without changing the PC build rules. Just as a 3E GM can't change the frequency of scrolls without changing the PC build rules that give all wizards Scribe Scrolls for free.

the "assumed" wealth of a high-level D&D character is quite an extreme imposition on the game world; arguably an even greater one.

I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind here, but obviously a system in which certain benefits are purchased using PC build resources has to be careful about handing out other ways of acquiring the same benefits: be that items, feats, skill points, or whatever (contrast 3E, for example, with RuneQuest or Burning Wheel: in the latter two games you can improve skills by adventuring, or by paying for training; in 3E, you can only improve skills by adventuring - presumably 3E is limited in this way for balance reasons).

Should the player of King Arthur the character be able to declare his character a King as well?

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on how the game is set up. It doesn't follow that, just because the game supports items as part of the PC's build it supports status, nor vice versa. The Dying Earth permits items but not status. HeroWars/Quest likewise. As you yourself note, classic D&D permits status but not items. (As well as the rule you mention, there are the rules in AD&D Oriental Adventures for a samurai PC becoming an estate overseer at (I think) 5th level, and a provincial governor at (I think) 7th level.)

HARP permits both (although I wouldn't say that HARP is an especially good example of how to do either - it doesn't have the requisite GM advice on scene framing or adjudication of consequences to support them).

 

[pemerton]

I think because this sort of thing is best handled by negotiation with the GM and used more as a setting element or plot device than a resource of a PC. This sort of characteristic - high nobility, royalty - should be a significant factor in many things the PCs do and in many people with whom they interact. The GM pretty much absolutely needs to be on board for this to fly.

What range of games have you got in mind?

In Traveller, a PC can start with a Social Standing of up to 15 (Duke/Duchess), and does not need any special dispensation from the GM to do so. The game assumes, I think, that the GM will take this into account as appropriate in play.

And in Burning Wheel, a player can build a PC who is a noble without needing the GM's permission anymore than a player who builds a PC who is a villager or a merchant. It is a clearly expressed assumption of the game both that (i) their will be a high degree of collaboration between and among players and the GM in conceiving the gameworld, the PCs, their starting situation, etc, and (ii) that once the players have built their PCs, the GM's role is then to frame situations that reflect these character-building choices.

The only exception to the above is if a player wants his/her PC to be a Prince of the Royal Line - which requires the express permission of the GM and every other player. Of course, no game rules can control how a group approaches PC building and setting up a game! As I read it, in the broader context of the rulebooks, the point that BW is making via this special rule for Royal Princes is that while the details of a PC are, in general, something for the player concerned to work out, in this one case the consequences for the game will be so marked that everyone should be consulted for buy-in.

Neither Traveller nor BW lets a PC start as a king. But I don't see any inprinciple reason why a game could not be like that.

I also don't see why being a noble is inherently more problematic than being a priest or paladin - both of which are also very significant social statuses, at least in the typical mediaeval fantasy world, and both which have long been permissible choices in D&D.

 

[Bluenose]

Is backstory that far from 'the character himself?' Arthur's backstory included pulling a sword from a stone when he was a kid. In some versions, that sword was a powerful magical weapon called Excalibur, in others it just marked him as the rightful king...

You can /declare/ yourself a king, sure. Seriously, though, social class is also a matter of backstory. It is, indeed, something that describes the character, itself, much like race or gender - also accidents of birth.

And in the King Arthur case, having the sword that marks him as the rightful king made him a target. Logres has been in ruler-less for years, and is in a bad state. Being King of Logres annoyed the other kings. Even some of his vassals were not at all happy about this boy who now sat on the throne. The sword is just a sword, and if it has special powers he doesn't know how to use them. Once he "levels up" those abilities increase, because now Logres is starting to recover, his vassals are more loyal, some enemy kings have been defeated and others elected to support him, etc. None of this has to make him more powerful/effective at solving in-game problems than another character.

 

[D'karr]

None of this has to make him more powerful/effective at solving in-game problems than another character.

This would be an extremely sensible way to handle this. Being King actually might be more difficult, gamewise, than being a commoner. All of a sudden a lot of responsibilities can be brought to bear that would not be imposed on a commoner. Treaties, vassals, raising an army, protection of the "citizens", all of a sudden become much more important than going "adventuring". At least if you want to remain king.

This in no way has to increase the "power" of the character. It increases his breadth as more situations can be brought forward. It also increases his "influence", but the DM will probably need quite a bit of help to develop these situations.

In addition, the game can and probably will change focus if these are the types of situations the players are going to be dealing with. Adventuring is really not the focus of this type of play, IMO.

 

[Emerikol]

What range of games have you got in mind?

In Traveller, a PC can start with a Social Standing of up to 15 (Duke/Duchess), and does not need any special dispensation from the GM to do so. The game assumes, I think, that the GM will take this into account as appropriate in play.

Traveller had a built in world.

And in Burning Wheel, a player can build a PC who is a noble without needing the GM's permission anymore than a player who builds a PC who is a villager or a merchant. It is a clearly expressed assumption of the game both that (i) their will be a high degree of collaboration between and among players and the GM in conceiving the gameworld, the PCs, their starting situation, etc, and (ii) that once the players have built their PCs, the GM's role is then to frame situations that reflect these character-building choices.

The only exception to the above is if a player wants his/her PC to be a Prince of the Royal Line - which requires the express permission of the GM and every other player. Of course, no game rules can control how a group approaches PC building and setting up a game! As I read it, in the broader context of the rulebooks, the point that BW is making via this special rule for Royal Princes is that while the details of a PC are, in general, something for the player concerned to work out, in this one case the consequences for the game will be so marked that everyone should be consulted for buy-in.

Neither Traveller nor BW lets a PC start as a king. But I don't see any inprinciple reason why a game could not be like that.

I also don't see why being a noble is inherently more problematic than being a priest or paladin - both of which are also very significant social statuses, at least in the typical mediaeval fantasy world, and both which have long been permissible choices in D&D.

The difference is that the DM will design his world based on the existance of those classes. Or he will ban those classes which is an option but we are talking the general case here. What infuriates me more than nearly anything as a DM, is a player showing up with a big backstory without even once consulting with the DM. I'm for players designing characters that fit the world well. But players that ignore the world aren't worth my time. The game is about adventuring IN the campaign world. If the flavor doesn't suit you as a player then don't play in that campaign.

And let me emphasize. A player that learns about the world, discusses the idea with his DM, and then comes up with a backstory is doing the right thing. The DM though always has final say on social status etc... Your paladin might be a member of a secret order being hunted by the evil empire in campaign world X. He might be part of a crusade from another plane that got trapped in the campaign world and is now a power faction in that same world. Anything is possible. Part of the fun of D&D is exploring new and different worlds.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I know you said this, but I still don't understand why? What is the risk? What are you envisaging going wrong?

Well, presumably the group has already agreed to a certain system before they start, so this has been dealt with.

I think you've articulated it right there. The group agrees to a system that posits players who control one character and adopt that character's perspective, and a DM who controls everything else. Whenever a game mechanic blurs that line by giving the player control of something outside of his character, the potential for confusion and conflict between players and DM is high.

In systems in which status can be purchased as part of PC build, the GM is generally expected to shape the ingame situation to reflect those choices. Just as, in classic D&D, if a player wants to play a paladin, the GM doesn't present, as the first scenario, an orphanage massacre.

The notion of paladins imposing playstyle considerations on other players or on DMs has been a big problem for a long time.

Again, the GM can't. Not without changing the PC build rules. Just as a 3E GM can't change the frequency of scrolls without changing the PC build rules that give all wizards Scribe Scrolls for free.

I think that's precisely the issue. Most of the time, D&D makes the DM/player role distinction very clear, but you have a few places in the mechanics where the distinctions blur. Those points (the rules that take players outside of their character) tend to be where problems arise (far more so than, say, from imbalance in combat capability between PC classes or excessive workloads for DMs).

 

[billd91]

What range of games have you got in mind?

In Traveller, a PC can start with a Social Standing of up to 15 (Duke/Duchess), and does not need any special dispensation from the GM to do so. The game assumes, I think, that the GM will take this into account as appropriate in play.

In Traveller, most of those social standing heights are honorifics gained through promotion and career development and don't actually have much political significance. The PC generally doesn't sit in the Moot on Capital or run a sub-sector. I would say that any time a PC wants it to be significant for anything other than excelling in certain service branches as part of the character generation mini-game (notably the navy) or for appropriate skill checks (used much like charisma), that needs to be discussed with the GM.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because those types of mechanics can cause headaches for the DM. What to do if his adventure setting doesn't allow a mount-animal companion/etc. to come along? What to do if the political situation in the world doesn't make followers practical? What to do if the DM wants to change the magic item frequency in his campaign, but those items are assumed parts of character advancement that differentially affect different character types?

That issue can go for almost any mechanic and almost any player choice. What if the DM wants a grittier world where healing takes weeks? What if he's not running a clone of the Dying Earth, and doesn't want wizards forgetting their spells? What if the locale he's created has a superstitious fear of Druids? What if he finds martial-arts-inspired Monks inappropriate for his Camelot-inspired setting?

 

[Hussar]

Traveller had a built in world.




The difference is that the DM will design his world based on the existance of those classes. Or he will ban those classes which is an option but we are talking the general case here. What infuriates me more than nearly anything as a DM, is a player showing up with a big backstory without even once consulting with the DM. I'm for players designing characters that fit the world well. But players that ignore the world aren't worth my time. The game is about adventuring IN the campaign world. If the flavor doesn't suit you as a player then don't play in that campaign.

And let me emphasize. A player that learns about the world, discusses the idea with his DM, and then comes up with a backstory is doing the right thing. The DM though always has final say on social status etc... Your paladin might be a member of a secret order being hunted by the evil empire in campaign world X. He might be part of a crusade from another plane that got trapped in the campaign world and is now a power faction in that same world. Anything is possible. Part of the fun of D&D is exploring new and different worlds.

This is very much a play style thing. You might want to be careful here of a bit of onetruewayism. After all, lots of DM's start with characters first and THEN build the campaign world. I know I've done that in the past. I might have a very, very rough world in mind, maybe a starting point, but, that's about it. In bottom up world design, that's all you need. So, the campaign world is developed in response to the players.

What you are advocating is top down campaign design, which is also perfectly fine.

In bottom up play though, it becomes much easier to have a campaign that is about THESE characters. It's all about what your priorities are. In a bottom up campaign, I'd prefer the players come with tons of hooks. The world designs itself through play. What's behind that hill? I dunno, you tell me.