Adventurers: "We don't want your kind around here."

[Tom Cashel]

A lot of game worlds are predicated on the notion of an "adventurer culture." PCs are treated like heroes, and eventually, demigods. There are shops that cater to their needs. Magic is a tool, like anything else (unlike every mythic tradition, the use of magic in D&D has no inherent negative consequences). When adventurers come to town, they are treated with fear and respect. While this sort of world may be a logical extension of the rules, it is not the only logical extension of the rules.

And it bores the heck out of me.

While skimming an essay on rpg.net today, one line stuck out.

The vagrants in question are, naturally, the rest of the party.

Consider a world where "adventurer" is not an acceptable occupation. Adventurers' lives are nasty, brutish and short. They wander the wilderness, hardly ever bathe, and trouble follows them like flies follow a horse's arse. They are prone to acts of horrible violence. They get into brawls and wreck taverns. Some of them steal on a whim. Some of them rationalize their stealing by killing evil beings and taking their stuff. But whether Paladin or Cutthroat, they're all thieves as far as upstanding citizens are concerned. The overwhelming majority of citizens would never consider risking their lives to run off on a dangerous "adventure."

So does anyone run a game like this? Have you tried it in the past? What is it like when the PCs are pariahs?

 

[Crothian]

It's just taking the heroics out of the game. It doesn't change the PCS it changes how people see and react to them. I've done it on occasion in the past but most of the people I game with want to be the heroes and don't enjoy this type of game.

 

[Klaus]

XPR's Magical Medieval City Guide suggests that changing the name "adventurers" for "mercenaries" might help realize where these might fit in society.

IMC, adventurer is the equivalent of a rock star. Children dream of becoming one, youngsters emulate the more famous ones and the elders don't like 'em one bit.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

I've done it before. It plays out very similarly to a typical modern western, really, where everybody simultaneously fears the wandering gunslingers, and yet depends on them to get the dirty work done.

It works best in worlds where monsters are either relatively rare, or where "legitimate authority" is strong enough to protect the average citizen from even the most powerful beastie.

Otherwise, you can run into the problem of players wondering why everyone hates them when they're the only thing strong enough to keep them safe from the orc/goblin/ogre/giant hordes.

Now, that said, I don't think it's that uncommon for many citizens to be leery of adventurers in even the most stand-up heroic settings. The average person never would consider becoming an adventurer, regardless of setting, and even in a place where adventurers are beloved heroes, most people are going to consider them a little odd for willingly throwing themselves into the path of danger again and again.

 

[shaylon]

I think it could work, but as some others have mentioned, being a hero is mostly why the pcs are playing the game. There isn't much fun in being universally hated.

Just a thought,
-Shay

 

[Wombat]

"Adventurer" is never an occupation in my gameworlds (well, hasn't been for about 25 years at least).

In my current campaign the group keeps track of social status and occupation (though a few of them are Independently Wealthy, thus taking that problem away). They all belong to the same club that is noted for its devil-may-care attitude and swashbuckling ways, so they can adventure without being "adventurers". However, time moves forward in the campaign. Often the adventures are 2-3 months apart, rather than day-to-day slogging, so there is time to work in their regular occupation, and the adventures themselves often only take up a few days of gametime.

It's one way to handle things, at least.

As for the attitudes of the populace, they are mixed. Imagine a party of Zorros...

 

[the Jester]

A couple of years ago, a low-level group I was running went to a city where adventurers had recently killed the last mayor. They were shunned and had to work hard to prove themselves to the community. It was a lot of fun- at the end of that story arc, they had to leave in return for the new mayor's aid in returning one of the pcs to life.

 

[Tom Cashel]

There isn't much fun in being universally hated.

Then how do you explain the popularity of the X-Men?

 

[Wraith Form]

But whether Paladin or Cutthroat, they're all thieves as far as upstanding citizens are concerned. The overwhelming majority of citizens would never consider risking their lives to run off on a dangerous "adventure."

It's just taking the heroics out of the game. It doesn't change the PCS it changes how people see and react to them. I've done it on occasion in the past but most of the people I game with want to be the heroes and don't enjoy this type of game.

That's funny--Spider Man was described by the populace of NYC essentailly the same way (a dirty, rotten scoundrel) in the beginning of his career as a crime fighter. Especially after J Jonah Jameson began his "smear campaign" against Spidey.

I don't see how Spidey is any less of a champion, or how his heroicism has been "stripped" in any way. He just had to earn the respect of the people of NYC, and once he did he was then recognized as a hero. Heck, even then he was still despised and regarded as suspicous by some.

 

[Mystery Man]

Then how do you explain the popularity of the X-Men?

They're super heroes.

The vagrants in question are, naturally, the rest of the party.

Nah, stupid idea. Shake it off.