Apparently adventurer WAS a profession

[WizarDru]

I enoy a good dungeon romp as much as the next guy, but some sources stretch credibility more than others. One thing that bothered me about the realms (and this is pre-3E) was that there was a base assumption that adventurer wasn't just a descriptor (and I think Celebrim describes the issues with the term's usage over time above), but that it was considered a normal, full-time occupation that normal folks could aspire to. And that, to me, cheapened the whole endeavour.

It's not that I have a problem with people being adventurers...but it wasn't, to me, a professional vocation, like a farrier, cooper, farmer or blacksmith. It was my perception (which may have nothing to do with reality) that it was fairly commonplace to find adventuring companies and guilds throughout most urban centers in Faerun...which didn't sit well with me.

I mean, let's be honest, here. Most of the examples given of real-world adventurers were people with adventurous souls, but really fell into the category of 'rich thrill-seeker' or 'adventurous professional'. Marco Polo travelled with several family members to the East to find a way to open trading, remember...it was an adventure, and he was a merchant who was an adventurer. But he didn't just set out for no particular reason at all. And this was during a period of unprecedented mobility, comparativley speaking.

D&D owes as much to legendary characters as it does to fantasy fiction, and prior to the realms, I didn't get that same somewhat-incestious implication of D&D worlds being made to explain D&D characters, instead of D&D characters explaining how they fit in the world. It strikes me as lazy shorthand, truthfully.

But it doesn't bother me that much. In the end, it's still about killin monsters and takin their stuff.

 

[jester47]

Celebrim-

I see what you are saying, and you are right that it would be hard to be a D&D style adventurer in your campaign world.

But what if your camapign world is not based off of any period of history? People make an assumption that because D&D has the trappings of a medieval society, that the society must be medieval.

Adventurer seems to imply people that are multitalented enough to the point where they could be mercenaries, explorers, spies, scouts, thieves, bandits, pirates etc. But an adventurer is not just one of these things.

The reason we see so many so-called "anachronisms" in D&D is because the whole sub-genre of D&D style fantasy is largely based off of a collection of anachronisms. The genre is stapled together from any adventure story imaginable from, Tolkein, Howard and Lovecraft to westerns, zorro, the three musketeers, jules vern, H.G. Wells, and numerous non-genre movies novels and TV shows.

You are right that adventuers as presented in D&D are an 18th century concept. but there are concepts from all sorts of other time periods in D&D that are so interwoven as to be unextractable. And simply put, Oathbound, Forgotten Realms, and the Scarred Lands are not Earth, so if the writers of these worlds feel that adventurers of that sort fit, then they fit.

Granted I was sending the drift that because adventurers are mentioned in the english language that it makes the use of adventuring guilds, companies and contracts viable in a game. This is not really waht I meant to convey. I think I was trying to point out that there is a difference (no matter how slight) between adventurers, and the others (mercenaries, explorers et. al.)

Josh-

"Journey to the Center of the Earth" follows that concept. Granted it is not swords and sorcery fantasy, but it could easily be converted to it. "Treasure Island" might be another one. Some of the scenes from "The Three Musketeers" come off in that light, "Jason and the Argonauts" has it, "Beowulf" has several dungeon crawls, but thats pretty much a one man operation.

Personally I like to have as many options as possible, and so, I use members of orgs, true adventurers looking for challenge and profit, character backgrounds, and thewhole gambit of stuff. But it is nice to know that someone hireing adventurers is a viable option in most D&D games.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

One thing that bothered me about the realms (and this is pre-3E) was that there was a base assumption that adventurer wasn't just a descriptor but that it was considered a normal, full-time occupation that normal folks could aspire to. And that, to me, cheapened the whole endeavour.

I do not see why it would have to. As long as it was in character it should not pose a problem. I think adventurer is what people would call you if you were hard to classify. Are you simply an "archeologist?" Or are you simply a mercenary? Are you just a scout? Do you simply explore and record what you find? What would you call someone that has experience in all of the above?

It's not that I have a problem with people being adventurers...but it wasn't, to me, a professional vocation, like a farrier, cooper, farmer or blacksmith. It was my perception (which may have nothing to do with reality) that it was fairly commonplace to find adventuring companies and guilds throughout most urban centers in Faerun...which didn't sit well with me.

I think most people would have a profession, and would be adventurers on the side. Some one could have a regular profession but it is known that he can be hired for exceptional tasks. But considering the nature of the forgotten realms, it seems to me that there would be a number of people that hire out thier services to people that need certain exceptional jobs done. While most do this on the side, again it stands to reason that some would do it as professionals. However I would draw the line at companies under charter and leave out the guild as adventurers are too much a random lot to put under a guild. Are true mercenaries adventurers? Are soldiers? I think these companies would more often then not be fairly mobile and would be more like clubs than true organisations. But then again they could come in all shapes and sizes.

I mean, let's be honest, here. Most of the examples given of real-world adventurers were people with adventurous souls, but really fell into the category of 'rich thrill-seeker' or 'adventurous professional'. Marco Polo travelled with several family members to the East to find a way to open trading, remember...it was an adventure, and he was a merchant who was an adventurer. But he didn't just set out for no particular reason at all. And this was during a period of unprecedented mobility, comparativley speaking.

I would argue tha the reason was wealth, which is most often anyone classified as an adventurer does anything.

D&D owes as much to legendary characters as it does to fantasy fiction, and prior to the realms, I didn't get that same somewhat-incestious implication of D&D worlds being made to explain D&D characters, instead of D&D characters explaining how they fit in the world. It strikes me as lazy shorthand, truthfully.

I like to look at it more as options and not restrictions. You just have to be carful that you do not overuse one option, as is Celebrim's experience with pro adventurers in a camapign.

To be clear, I prefer story drivenreasons for stuff happening too. But also it is often fun to have a band that is sort of an A-Team/Seven Samurai/Usual Suspects of the Forgotten Realms. I like to grow groups from one concept to another. If their being adventurers happens to come along, then great, but then it might become somthing else down the road after the group has broken up.

Aaron.

 

[Desdichado]

Aaron, I don't have a problem with the concept per se, I'm just on the look-out for something different. As I've said many times in the past, and I'm sure I'll say many times in the future, D&D is almost a genre unto itself with the many conventions that have sprung up over the years and are generally taken for granted. For many folks, that's part of the charm of playing D&D, and I completely understand that. However, even back when I was in junior high, some 15-20 odd years or so ago, I was disappointed that the way the game played out in actuality didn't immediately remind me of stuff like Tolkien, Leiber, etc. that I was reading at the time.

So, to me, that's always been something I'm looking to minimize in my games.

As to your other point, D&D settings are remarkably anachronistic. Rather than actually put realistic "medieval" characters into a "medieval" world, what they tend to do is put characters with modern morality/values and put them in a world that is similarly modern but with a superficial "medievel" technology level slapped on top of it, and some superficial "medieval" social structure thrown together. I actually don't have a problem with this -- I think it's easier on both players and GMs to have a relatively modern viewpoint instead of having to really get your head around alien ways of thought. In fact, I typically like to take this one step further and create even more overtly modern societal constructs and attitudes, especially for themes and issues that I'd like to gloss over in the game. There's two reasons to do this, 1) it's a short cut for things you don't want to spend a lot of time explaining and developing and 2) it can be used as a reflection of realworld issues and values if you like to explore that kind of thing vicariously through your game (which some folks absolutely don't want to do.)

 

[jester47]

I'm just on the look-out for something different. As I've said many times in the past, and I'm sure I'll say many times in the future, D&D is almost a genre unto itself with the many conventions that have sprung up over the years and are generally taken for granted.

...snip snip...

I was disappointed that the way the game played out in actuality didn't immediately remind me of stuff like Tolkien, Leiber, etc. that I was reading at the time. So, to me, that's always been something I'm looking to minimize in my games.

I agree with this. I think I am trying to say that it is an acceptable possibility, which, I have been dismissing for quite some time. Then I figured (after reading the defs and FRCS) why not, it makes sense. So I have sort of let it creep back into my games at a level where it still maintains versimilitude.

As to your other point, D&D settings are remarkably anachronistic. Rather than actually put realistic "medieval" characters into a "medieval" world, what they tend to do is put characters with modern morality/values and put them in a world that is similarly modern but with a superficial "medievel" technology level slapped on top of it, and some superficial "medieval" social structure thrown together. I actually don't have a problem with this -- I think it's easier on both players and GMs to have a relatively modern viewpoint instead of having to really get your head around alien ways of thought. In fact, I typically like to take this one step further and create even more overtly modern societal constructs and attitudes, especially for themes and issues that I'd like to gloss over in the game. There's two reasons to do this, 1) it's a short cut for things you don't want to spend a lot of time explaining and developing and 2) it can be used as a reflection of realworld issues and values if you like to explore that kind of thing vicariously through your game (which some folks absolutely don't want to do.)

My take on this is almost "anything goes." Its only medieval in appearance and with some titles (mainly king), and magic puts a wrench in whats left. So as monte cook pointed out, any thing is possible even the impossible. I just let my imagination go crazy within the bounds of versimilitude WRT magic and the general backgrounds and place holders.

Aaron.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I was disappointed that the way the game played out in actuality didn't immediately remind me of stuff like Tolkien, Leiber, etc. that I was reading at the time.

This is the part I don't quite understand. The adventure plots I have read remind me of what the characters in D&D go through.

The only problem I see is some people don't want to put the work in to develop the story. I guess I kind of feel the people who complain about this are basically complaining that the game is not perfectly tailored to meet their needs. As in, it doesn't spell out for me perfectly the kind of adventure I want to go through.

D&D, and any roleplaying game for that matter, is there to give you tools and ideas to work with, not to spell out how you should play the game. Yes, I can agree that most modules are designed in a linear fashion, but they are also designed with fantasy fiction in mind with plots that would fit perfectly into fantasy fiction.

Tolkien's story was actually very simple for a D&D plot. That being: Take an evil ring of power from one side of the world to the other and cast it into the Mountain of Fire.

That is no different than the plots I mentioned in the previous modules. Its all how you get there that is important. That part is left up to the DM.

There is no game and never will be any game perfectly designed for each person. The tools (aka Game rules) and plots (aka modules) are there for you to work with, not to tell you exactly how you should play the game.

If you can't play a viable fantasy fiction plot with these elements, you just aren't working at it very hard. For instance, in my current campaign I have been slowly introducing the characters according to circumstance rather than having them start off together. Why? Because that fits fantasy fiction better, where the main characters rarely meet up all at once.

Try taking the time to create a fun fantasy ficiton type adventure. It isn't so hard when you actually put forth the effort to do it, rather than complain that it isn't done for you.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't think Joshua's complaining that he has to do it, per se. I think it's more an issue that D&D, as a game, conjures up images of 'living through' a story like 'Fellowship of the Ring', but in practice, without some work on your part, doesn't really play out that way. Frodo didn't ask at the Prancing Pony if there was a shop in town where he could get a Ring of Protection, for example. After the battle of the Pelinor Fields, Aragorn didn't announce that he'd leveled up, and was glad Eowyn made her Will save against the Witch King of Angmar.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think I get what he's saying.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re

The only problem I see is some people don't want to put the work in to develop the story. I guess I kind of feel the people who complain about this are basically complaining that the game is not perfectly tailored to meet their needs. As in, it doesn't spell out for me perfectly the kind of adventure I want to go through.

I've never used published adventures, so I always have made the kinds of adventures I want. I don't know why you need to assume that I'm simply too lazy to make the game work for me. The mechanics, quite simply, and the very core assumptions of the game, are contrary to what I want. The tools are inappropriate for the job at hand, to use your own analogy. Why you would want to oversimply, say, Tolkien's plot and say that at that basic level you can replicate that in D&D is unclear to me, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm complaining about.

It's the details in how you get there that you can't replicate with the system; the classes don't feel right, the races are balanced and tailored to crawl dungeons, the magic system doesn't resemble anything out of literature, the proliferation of magic items, way experience works and what it encourages -- all of that are things I don't like.

I realize that D&D is a toolkit, and what the games are like is dependent on the DM and the players. But when the tools themselves are basically designed to do something other than what you want them to do, then your rather condescending and dismissive post is not only unhelpful, but it completely ignores the gist of my point.

All of these can be done within the confines of d20 itself -- alternate classes, alternate magic, alternate ways of tracking levelling/XP, etc., but once to change all those, it's not really D&D anymore, is it?

 

[Celebrim]

JD: I basically agree.

I think alot of things contribute to that, most of them having to do with the fact that as the very first attempt at a RPG rule system - D&D was a very messy, inelegant, and haphazard romp. Alot of things were done on the fly, and then considered in more depth latter. Unexpected things happened. Simple goals were set, met with simple rules, and then the goals themselves were discarded in favor of some newly glimpsed vista that the former goals had opened up. I don't think anyone realized how remarkable the idea that they had come up with really was. RPG's are one of the most influential ideas of the 20th century.

The resulting rules set (it was hardly a system) had trappings stolen from fantasy authors (halflings, Vancian magic) but wasn't really built to support any existing game world. It was the product of gaming expediance, and created a rules set which above all other things supports the game. Early games didn't seem all that concerned with 'story', and indeed EGG doesn't appear to be all that concerned about that even today. Instead they were heavily focused on what we would consider today primitive CRPG concerns like inventory management and ability advancement. They were very much Orc & Pie modules, and classic examples of that style though they may be, there isn't alot more to say about them.

RPG's are supposed to boil down to "Kill the monsters and take thier stuff." But that's not really the point, or the defining attribute. RPG's like that (say early Traveller) never really took off. The RPG paradymn is really "Kill the monsters and take thier stuff. Become more powerful. Kill bigger monsters and take thier better stuff."

This is at best a low fantasy agenda, and the vast majority of today's fantasy literature is Tolkien inspired romantic epic high fantasy.

More to the point though, it doesn't really reflect even the style of most low fantasy. By comparison to RPG characters, fantasy characters are usually pretty static. At a basic level, as RPG we see in stories characters following the paradym. But that is not really what is happening in literature for the most part. Characters don't level up in stories because protagonists are generally (outside of coming of age stories) fully fledged heroes right from the get go with no need to acquire skills. Heroes don't acquire new magic items (generally) because fantasy heroes generally acquire magic items as part of thier origin stories in the way that Superheroes acquire thier super human powers. The fantasy heroes weapon is very much a defining attribute of thier character. But in RPG stories, we don't give artifacts to 1st level halflings (leaving aside questions of Bilbo's level), or +5 vorpal holy avengers to 1st level paladins (noting of course that the Sword in the Stone wasn't in most versions Excaliber).

I think that to a certain extent it is a bad idea to think that the goal of an RPG is to emulate literature. RPG's have thier own different constraints. That isn't to say that I don't think RPG's can't be as high of art as literature (because I do), or that RPG's can't themselves inspire literature (because they have). But that the best RPG might not have the same feel as the best literature.

Which is not to say that there isn't serious room for improvement in the way that RPG's are played if we expect to reach the point were we are actually producing art of the quality of a Tolkien or a Rembrant.

Maybe you are right and we still have to evolve the rules set before we are actually encouraging the right things. I'd love to see the rules set you come up with because I like the way you are thinking.

 

[Desdichado]

Great post, Celebrim, and one that verbalizes a lot of stuff I'd like to have said!

As you say, to some extent, at least, RPGs and literature will never completely come together. The story-telling conventions are different, for one thing. The media is too different. What makes a great story for a novel might make a lousy plot for an RPG campaign and vice versa.

However, the whole entire reason for my interest in RPGs way back in the early 80s, or whenever it was that I really "got it" finally, was that I could create collaboratively the same kind of thing that I loved reading about in fantasy literature. So toolkits that help me towards that goal, instead of having patently different goals, are more useful to me.

D&D itself is not truly generic, although the d20 system can be. It really only takes some rather smallish and simple modifications from D&D to get a d20 game that does more of what I want it to. Keeping in mind the medium of RPG-type storytelling, I can do better with d20 Modern-ish classes, for example, and a different magic systems (depending on how I want to position magic in a given campaign setting).

Oddly enough, in many other games, I find that players (and GMs) don't have the same preconcieved notions as they do in D&D, even if the mechanics aren't a really substantial leap differently. One of these, is the concept of PCs as "wandering adventurers" out for hire to any county mayor or moderately successful merchant. I don't think characters in the Wheel of Time game, for instance, or the Star Wars RPG really play like that very often, even though the mechanics (and in the case of the WoT game, even the setting itself) isn't really that drastically different.