Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

[slobster]

It is certainly a valid choice for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.

Yet they can't stop you. If they make character classes for use by players (pretty much a given for 5E) then they are simultaneously giving the GM everything that he needs to populate his entire world using the same rules. So I wouldn't worry too much on that account.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yet they can't stop you. If they make character classes for use by players (pretty much a given for 5E) then they are simultaneously giving the GM everything that he needs to populate his entire world using the same rules. So I wouldn't worry too much on that account.

True, at that point it's pretty much about whether those classes can support the diversity of characters the DM needs (which is typically much greater than the diversity of PC classes needed).

So... with this expectation, I think my earlier question got lost upthread.

Why does anyone take the Commoner class?

That is a good question; I take the answer to be that while they were mostly deleted from earlier editions there are still some basic requirements to take a base class (either training or ability scores, most likely) that many people can't meet.

Then again, you could ask the same question in real life. Why does anyone take a job as a [insert menial job here]? Why aren't we all Navy SEALs and brain surgeons and hollywood stars?
It's a complicated question.

 

[FireLance]

Why does anyone take the Commoner class?

Back when I was playing 3e, I used to justify it on the basis of opportunity and diligence.

Not everyone has access to the right training (opportunity) or works hard enough (diligence) to take a level in a PC class. Yes, "the PCs are special". My bias is showing again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why does anyone take the Commoner class?

Well, in 3e somewhere, I'm pretty sure it said that 70% of the human population were commoners. That makes it the most popular class, and, by reasoning ad populum, that makes it the best class! Therefor, most people rush off and become commoners... You might think they'd figure it out, but commoners have a notoriously poor skill list, and Knowledge: Critical Thinking, even if it existed, clearly wouldn't be on it.

 

[FireLance]

Well, in 3e somewhere, I'm pretty sure it said that 70% of the human population were commoners. That makes it the most popular class, and, by reasoning ad populum, that makes it the best class! Therefor, most people rush off and become commoners...

And hence, most PC-class adventurers lack commoner sense?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Really? You don't think in terms of every D&D character having six ability scores? I'm sure there are many other elements in play, but keep in mind that most people who play D&D do not DM, and character creation will be a much larger part of their experience. I think they're pretty foundational.

No. No I don't. I think in terms of every character in the game world having motivations, a job or other means of support, capabilities, and above all motivations. The six ability scores are merely part of how you write down what they can do within the framework of the D&D ruleset.

(Answering for @pmerton as I don't either)

So... with this expectation, I think my earlier question got lost upthread.

Why does anyone take the Commoner class?

Life expectancy, mostly? A commoner is the class with the greatest chance of dying in bed of old age with their family around them. Followed by expert.

I'm hearing discussion amounting to "the class system is wrong". Its not wrong, it is simply a model with inherent advantages and disadvantages.

The primary purpose of a class system is to create bundled mechanics. One of the problems with many point buy systems is that you can get very extremely specialized character.

This. Class and level system both. The good thing about both is that they work very well for people who want to be like those the system is based for. I.e. adventurers in certain set moulds. One bad thing about both is that fitting people who don't (e.g. craftsmen) is making them lie on the bed of Procrustes.

It's just I don't see it as a particularly compelling way to play what is, at the end of the day, a cooperative exercise in story building. Maybe it's me taking a break from DnD to play FATE for a long time (I'm currently in 1 DnD campaign at the moment) but the endless rules debates are leaving me colder and colder.

And here's where I perceive the problem to be. oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest. They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players. It was almost pure step on up play. 2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And here's where I perceive the problem to be. oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest. They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players. It was almost pure step on up play. 2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.

I completely agree with what you're saying about OD&D, 1e and 2e. There's a slight move toward sim in 1e, Gary starts to worry about questions such as what do monsters eat, but that's not a major aspect of the text, imo.

3e's most gamist elements are, I think, to be found in its innovations - the character build and tactical combat in the PHB, and the encounter guidelines in the DMG. Though it's true that similar ideas can be found in late 2e. The character build and combat mini-games give the players lots of choices, some are inferior and some are superior, which is a crucial aspect of gamism.

 

[pemerton]

Yes! I've also done the reverse: have such mobs 'spawn' minions when destroyed - surviving stragglers.

Cool. I might yoink that!

I'm saying that levels work if and only if you are measuring one basic axis.

<snip>

Levels are terrible world simulation.

I agree with the overall thrust of your post, but just wanted to speak up in favour of Rolemaster (and its offshoots like MERP and HARP) - heaven knows, no one else is going to! These are level systems, but the levels just dole out build points. In HARP, there is also a level-based max rank cap. And in RM and MERP, there is siloing of the build points at any one level, which produces a minimum versatility in any given PC, but no obligation to actually be any good at combat (or any other particular domain of human endeavour).

 

[Obryn]

That is a good question; I take the answer to be that while they were mostly deleted from earlier editions there are still some basic requirements to take a base class (either training or ability scores, most likely) that many people can't meet.

So ... the PCs are special?!

It's the same with the Warrior class. There's no sensible reason anyone would be a Warrior instead of a Fighter, given that there are no actual prereqs listed.

Then again, you could ask the same question in real life. Why does anyone take a job as a [insert menial job here]? Why aren't we all Navy SEALs and brain surgeons and hollywood stars?
It's a complicated question.

This isn't real life, though, this is D&D. If your players have choices in their classes, the NPCs do too. Even if level 1 is set somehow by their background, they can always multiclass - especially if they're human. If you're a farmer or Janitor, you're a better farmer or janitor if you're using the mechanics of the Expert class. Or, heck, Rogue!

And I'd argue a city guard is a better city guard if they're a Fighter instead of a Warrior. Advancing as a Warrior is senseless.

1e's 0-level makes better sense, if you need to stat out commoners at all - if you haven't adventured and haven't gained any XP from looting dungeons and killing kobolds, you don't have a level.

-O

 

[Steely_Dan]

And here's where I perceive the problem to be. oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest. They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players. It was almost pure step on up play. 2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.

Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, wrong.