How common are "adventurers" in your world?

[bedir than]

My thoughts about this grew out of the discussion about low/rare magic worlds. PCs are exceptional, that's more clear in 5th edition than ever before, but they aren't the only exceptional people in the world. The decision about how common peoples that "level up" in your world is one that can cascade into so many other choices.

If 1% of your world's intelligent peoples are adventuring types (capable of leveling, magic, mighty attacks, etc) you will have a world where the contest for power is nearly constant. Make a scene in any village and the guard/militia/constables will be on you fast. They are likely more powerful than you are, because that's why they are in power and your PCs are not, yet. Every community is lead by an adventurer, even commoners are likely leveling.

Making "adventurers" about as common as pro athletes are in this real world means that they are real heroes, with tales told throughout whatever media dominates the world. Even the relatively minor ones likely have fanbases. It may start with a small hamlet liking their local folk hero, but soon that rising star gets known. She's a prospect that the largest guilds/kingdoms/faiths/schools/colleges/etc will be tracking, because she is either a threat to their power or a way to amplify it.

At this level commoners can still be rulers, because they have natural ability scores and skills that help them along the way and the 1% of the 1% of the 1% do not need to concern themselves with the mundane.

The scale has a lot more variance than this, but it is one that effects further decisions (infrequent adventuring types and lots of dragons means lots of dead commoners). Where do you set this level during your homebrew design and how do you let your players know of this decision?

 

[delericho]

About as common as professional musicians in the real world - that is, it's not all that common for young folks to have the dream, and quite a few actually try it. But most fail. Naturally, the PCs hope to be the exceptions.

(Which, yes, means that the highest level PCs are, essentially, the Beatles or similar.)

 

[Celebrim]

I've always objected to the term "adventurer". In my world, the term is rare and is almost never used to refer to the sort of person implied by the generic use of the term in RPGs. An "adventurer" is a person who journeys to distant parts of the world for amusement. It has much the same sense as the word "tourist". When people in my game world think of an "adventurer", they think of somebody like Rick Steves (of the PBS program "'Rick Steves' Europe"). Either it is a person who is too rich for their own good and lacks the common sense to enjoy it, or else they think of a sort of entertainer, who makes a living by publishing travelogues of strange and remote regions. Neither is a particularly honorable way to live, and only the fact that most people of this sort are high born allows them to get away with - aristocrats, what are you going to do? Nobs will be nobs. Adventurers are figures of comedy. They are explorers, not fighters. Often they end up dying horrible deaths by going places that they aren't supposed to, but usually the more notable ones have a reputation for being rather good at running away. The current PC party has a copy of a quite famous travelogue by an "adventurer" slash pirate, but nobody thinks of them as being adventurers themselves.

What the PC's are is mercenaries. Mercenaries are quiet common. Mercenary is not a particularly honorable profession either. You get a lot of snearing about "sellswords" and "cutthroats" and if someone wanted to be really insulting "blood merchants". But on the other hand, sometimes a lord needs some extra fighting men in a hurry, and you do what you have to do.

Mercenaries come in all sorts. The sort of mercenary that the PC's are is really unusual. They are small, diverse, multi-racial company, with significant knowledge of the arcane and uncanny specializing in neutralizing threats that regular force of arms may not be wholly effective against. Mercenaries like that are so rare, there isn't even really a special name for them. Actually, they've largely transcended at this point the stigma of being mercenaries. Instead, they are largely thought of with titles like 'heroes' or 'crusaders' or 'knights errant'. This is because they are generally operating under the auspices of recognized temples who are sanctioning their actions, and one of their member now has noble rank and another is now a full priestess by rites and rights and could reasonably serve as the equivalent of a Bishop in a large city. Because of this, the other members of the party are thought of not as mere hirelings, but as "the Lord's retainers" or companions. Indeed, the Knight-Templar Sir Gorinthar is rumored to be a Saint - a person in face to face communion with a deity. (Ironically, he's one of the few members of the party that unequivocably isn't a Saint, although he's certainly the most moral of the bunch.)

At 7th level, the PC's are now significant persons. Regionally, they are very few things like them, and collectively they are a force to be reckoned with even by "the great". They aren't yet to the point that they are the highest leveled characters where ever they go, but they are certainly among the youngest high leveled characters wherever they go, the best equipped, and the most fit. They are at the point now that any character that is higher level than them is a VIP.

It would be very rare to find a commoner as a ruler, because rulers have the sort of focused and intense training that commoners generally don't receive. His Most Benevolent Despot, Falster Dikelgard, Prince of Amalteen is a 7th level expert. His Majesty the Hinga, Alberic Saabhac II, King over Talergna is a Ftr2/Exp5, while his younger and more reckless counter-part His High Majesty the Hurin, Farmanus Karahal IV, King over Talernga and is a Ftr6/Exp2. The latter two are among the most politically powerful persons on the planet.

 

[GMMichael]

An "adventurer" is a person who journeys to distant parts of the world for amusement. It has much the same sense as the word "tourist". When people in my game world think of an "adventurer", they think of somebody like Rick Steves (of the PBS program "'Rick Steves' Europe"). Either it is a person who is too rich for their own good and lacks the common sense to enjoy it

No, I think you hit the nail on the head here.

I don't like the term "adventurer" either. No one is called that. Except maybe one of those wilderness show survival guys. More popular titles for adventurers would be "traveler" or "stranger."

Semantics aside, NPCs shouldn't gain levels unless there's a good reason for them to have levels. Read: almost no one is an adventurer. A high-level character is exceptionally good at beating death, and exceptionally good at some other tricks - like leading animal hordes, casting fireworks, or levitating during yoga. If your world is full of these people, go ahead and hand out lots of levels.

My world isn't like that. In my world, people don't fight when they're outnumbered, rulers have lots of bodyguards, and casting a magic spell is a good way to earn some dungeon time. And no, it's not a dungeon full of gold and dragons, either.

 

[tojek]

PCs are exceptional, that's more clear in 5th edition than ever before, but they aren't the only exceptional people in the world. The decision about how common peoples that "level up" in your world is one that can cascade into so many other choices... Where do you set this level during your homebrew design and how do you let your players know of this decision?

For me, it depends on the role the NPC plays in the story, whether the NPC ever assists the PCs (combat or non), or if the NPC is the face and voice of an organization/aggregate. Metaphorically, I treat PCs as lead characters in a stage play-- they are the front men and women basking in the spotlight, with NPCs and "commoners" rounding out the supporting cast. Depending on perspective, how "powerful" NPCs and commoners are relative to PCs becomes moot; PCs get the most stage time regardless.

In that regard, "does it matter?" For me, I consider the PCs lead actors/protagonists-- I don't dwell on the definition of "adventurer" overmuch, so long as the PCs are sufficiently challenged and supported by the world and its NPCs and common folk. If anything, the world should actively support your PCs. No matter what level your PCs are-- individually or as a group-- the world should provide ample challenges, both combat and non, across a bell curve. The tricky bit is figuring out where to set the curve, and sadly, there's a unique answer for each gamer table.

I get feedback from the players and PCs each session. I've gamed with my group for years-- I know what "fun" is for them. If you ask explicitly in writing, you'll get one answer. If you ask 1:1 in person, you'll get another. If you ask the group as a whole, you'll get yet another. So I decide to let the PCs decide instead. Live and in session, I'll drop in decision points: combat or non, near or far away, easy or hard, nuanced or straight-forward, and so on. If you're so inclined, modeling their decisions on a radar chart or histogram could give you visual insight into how combative, proximate, hard, or nuanced you need your world to be, and what sorts of commoners and NPCs would be needed to support it.

 

[GMMichael]

Misposted-

 

[steeldragons]

There's really no "worldwide norm" to apply here...in my world. It depends on where you are.

You could visit a town of 500 people that has an abbey or monastery with a half dozen (mostly low level) clerics, a village "wisewoman/apothecary" who has a couple levels as a wizard, a would-be thief looking to make his move to the "big time", and 2 guys with Fighter levels serving as the Mayor and Constable.

You could go to a [large] town of 5,000 and have fewer classed individuals than that.

A large trade-hub port city [10k +]with people coming and going from all points on a globe, and requiring the goods and services to do so, not to mention need for mercenaries to accompany delivers hither and yon, the city guard, a couple of feuding thieves guilds, half a dozen temples and a wizarding academy (not to mention the few private master/apprentice mages not affiliated with the academy who are around), throw in an order or two of paladin knights, a ranger's guild/lodge that operates primarily outside the city but is administrated from within,...and just retired, for-hire, and powerful heroes... you might end up with 1 in every 100 people has some amount of levels.

So, pretty much anywhere from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000. It just depends. There's really no set formula that applies to everywhere.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I'd go with about as common as professional athletes - however, while you may think of just the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL, you also have to remember there is Canadian Football and Arena Football, various European and Asian pro basketball leagues, not to mention the WNBA and women's pro leagues in Europe and Asia, each major league baseball team has several minor league franchises attached to it, and there is also minor league hockey. Not to mention both men's and women's professional soccer all over the world, and several levels of it in Europe. Plus I'm sure there are other pro sports as well.

And, while I agree with Celebrim that maybe "adventurer" isn't the best term for PCs, I'll disagree by saying it doesn't have the negative aspect of fighting only for money to it like mercenary does. What about innocent PCs pressed to heroism by potentially apocalyptic events - the farmer who maybe serves in the town militia when needed (so has weapon & armor training), but comes home from delivering his goods to the next town, only to find his family dead and his town overrun by goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, trolls, or giants, etc? I wouldn't call him a mercenary. Or, the innocent who has a divine vision and becomes a cleric because of this vision in order to make the world a better place. I would not call her a mercenary, either. Or, the arcane student whose master mistakenly summons and releases a demon, who promptly kills the master and escapes into the world, wreaking havoc, leaving the student to track down the demon... sure, the money is nice to have, but the primary focus is defeating some sort of pressing evil force.

However, one of the things I like about 3E/3.5E is the NPC classes - commoners, aristocrats/nobles, experts, warriors. A veteran sailor in a large coastal town might be an Expert 4, while one in a big port city might be an Expert 8, 9 or 10. The town guard in that large coastal town might be a Warrior 1, with the leader being a Warrior 2 or 3.

 

[steeldragons]

I will add that I tend to use the old school "norm" when figuring out just how many levels folks have, doing the whole "divided by 2 with each new level." I round down and then tally up "leftover" odd/stray levels I tend to throw in on the top end.

So, to expand on the example of the trade-port city above: population 10,000.
Saying 1 in 100, that's 100 classed individuals. Taking half to begin with gives you:
50 folks at 1st level.
25 @ 2nd level.
12 @ 3rd (1 person unused/leftover)
6 @ 4th
3 @ 5th
1 @ 6th (.5 leftover...I should probably just throw this back in at the bottom, giving me 51 1st levels...but the idea of an 8th level sounds like something I can do more with...so, extra NPC at the top end it is
1 @ 7th (using that extra/leftover person from 3rd level)
1 @ 8th.

The most fun part is deciding who all/each of those folks are!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My thoughts about this grew out of the discussion about low/rare magic worlds. PCs are exceptional, that's more clear in 5th edition than ever before, but they aren't the only exceptional people in the world. The decision about how common peoples that "level up" in your world is one that can cascade into so many other choices.

I will not accept that PCs are inherentlyexceptional, in any game I wish to play. This is especially true in a game with levels, where - regardless of how powerful the world average is set - level 1 is less powerful than that and level 20 is more powerful than that. If level 1 is already better than everyone else, then there's something seriously wrong with your scale.

The issue of class levels vs. fast-NPC-stats is not something that exists in-game. A level 12 elf assassin is not fundamentally, within the game world, any different depending on whether it's a PC or an NPC. The only difference is an out-of-game one, in that we choose to model the PC with greater depth and clarity, where we kind of fuzz over the stats on an NPC since it would take so long to model accurately.