Commoners as Adventurers: Possible?

[Rhialto]

I really wasn't aiming that comment at you so much as the folk who seemed to be going off on a low-power binge...

After all you just want to use it as a starting point. They view it as a sort of endpoint...

 

[Shard O'Glase]

The thing is most of what you asked for is more a matter of attitude than abilities. I'd just run a normal game, but get it into peoples thick skulls that they are 1st level, and a sneezing to hard could kill them. I'd be a bit more diplomatic, and say I don't want to fast forward the early levels, I want to spend some time here so we can beter show how you were basically an oridnary guy who became a hero. So in your background pleeeeeese avoid, professional adventurer from birth, you guys are just ordinary people with no tragic life events yet, who just happen to be slightly more competent than the average joe. I'll be running the adventure that motivates you guys to become adventureres in other words, so write your background up until that point, just try to avoid fearless stomper of evil cliches, because danger and adventure isn't your ordinary day yet.

 

[Rhialto]

I agree with Shard on this point--why can't the fletcher be a 1st lvl fighter, the young mystic a 1st lvl wizard, and the noble a 1st lvl rogue? This is largely a matter of how the characters play the characters, not the character's class...

But again, this is all your call...

 

[mmadsen]

I agree with Shard on this point--why can't the fletcher be a 1st lvl fighter, the young mystic a 1st lvl wizard, and the noble a 1st lvl rogue?

Because even a 1st-level Wizard knows dozens of spells, even a 1st-level Fighter is proficient with dozens of weapons, etc. Aside from their low Hit Points, 1st-level characters can be quite competent.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Because even a 1st-level Wizard knows dozens of spells, even a 1st-level Fighter is proficient with dozens of weapons, etc. Aside from their low Hit Points, 1st-level characters can be quite competent.

So then we are back to not playing a certain style of campaign, but to playing incompetents just to prove your studley enough to play incompetents. Whether they may know dozens of spells, or wield a variety of weapons doesn't mean they are competent. They'd still get stomped by a orc war party of more than 5. They can still be niave rookies who are just ordinary guys with a couple skills. How a character is played is a matter of the players skill and the characters background. It's not that tough to play farmer john as a ranger 1, yeah sure playing level 10 fighter as a unsure hayseed rookie is a stretch, but at level one I think I can manage it. I think rhialto had it right forcing you to be a commoner is some kind of anti-munchkinism, and is basically the same thing as Mr. Invincible Hackmaster but in reverse.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Why the resistance to anti-munckinism, LOL? It's not about trying to be "studley" but about playing "ordinary people in extraordinary situations." They are generally ill-equipped to deal with such events, wherein lies the challenge!

When you are forced to rely on quick-thinking than "quick draw" (meaning using creative thinking rather than violence to solve most problems), you really feel an even greater sense of accomplishment when you manage to overcome your challenges, IMO. Additionally, you will most likely have close ties to friends, family and your community, and can enjoy and learn (about yourself and them) from such mundane "pre-professional adventurer" interactions. Knowing where your character comes from, and having the chance to experience those times, can be an invaluable RPing aid, as well as the cement that binds players and DMs together in a long-lived and truly fulfilling campaign. For example, the campaigns where I played a 1st level Commoner were some of the best I ever played in. The key? Backstory. You can do this without RPing it by writing it up (I recommend this too) but it's not the same as actually LIVING a portion of that time in the character's life. It's an extremely rewarding process. I'm not saying the characters should stay Commoners throughout their lives, but playing early levels of NPC classes can be a great boon, whether or not they get converted to "real" class levels.

Anyway, more food for thought.

 

[Rhialto]

Also, you are asking the players to sacrifice the advantage of 1st lvl hit points, and skill points for something which, as I stated, can easily conveyed by campaign atmosphere.

This is A BIG DEAL. You are asking the players to take on a PERMANENT disadvantage, in order to give your campaign flavor. TALK ABOUT IT with them. If they REALLY want to do this, then go ahead. Just realize what you're talking about here. A magic-user who has sacrificed a level of spell-casting. A fighter who may have lost fighting power in return for--well, nothing. A rogue who has lost his class's largest draw--variety in skills. Think about what this means...

 

[Rhialto]

Why the resistance to anti-munckinism, LOL? It's not about trying to be "studley" but about playing "ordinary people in extraordinary situations." They are generally ill-equipped to deal with such events, wherein lies the challenge!

When you are forced to rely on quick-thinking than "quick draw" (meaning using creative thinking rather than violence to solve most problems), you really feel an even greater sense of accomplishment when you manage to overcome your challenges, IMO. Additionally, you will most likely have close ties to friends, family and your community, and can enjoy and learn (about yourself and them) from such mundane "pre-professional adventurer" interactions. Knowing where your character comes from, and having the chance to experience those times, can be an invaluable RPing aid, as well as the cement that binds players and DMs together in a long-lived and truly fulfilling campaign. For example, the campaigns where I played a 1st level Commoner were some of the best I ever played in. The key? Backstory. You can do this without RPing it by writing it up (I recommend this too) but it's not the same as actually LIVING a portion of that time in the character's life. It's an extremely rewarding process. I'm not saying the characters should stay Commoners throughout their lives, but playing early levels of NPC classes can be a great boon, whether or not they get converted to "real" class levels.

Anyway, more food for thought.

And you had to be a commoner to enjoy that--why?

You think lvl 1 adventurers don't face great challenges?

I had an entire party slaughtered by goblins, who had the great luck to roll extremely well, and be wielding javelins.

Goblins, people. Not ogres--not demons--not dragons. Goblins.

You're saying a 1st lvl fighter can't have the same relations with the villagers that a 1st lvl commoner can?

Bull.

If you're such a poor role-player that you need a class to define your personality--well, then you have my sympathy...

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

If you're such a poor role-player that you need a class to define your personality--well, then you have my sympathy...

The childlike ferocity of your petty insults astounds me, sir!

Using NPC classes is not meant as a strait-jacket but as a TOOL to help reinforce the plight of the character's "desperate" situation. No character was ALWAYS a 1st level fighter or wizard (or whatever). Before they took up the adventuring life they were ordinary people, and ordinary people use NPC classes...

Why do you so strenuously object to the idea of delving into a character's early background through one or more (mostly) RPing sessions? Why turn your back on an opportunity to get to really know your character and his origins? I'm not advocating going as far as back George Lucas did with Anakin Skywalker in Phantom Menace, LOL, but rather playing through the immediate events that led up to the character becoming an adventurer. This can span several days, weeks, months (or even years) of game-time, however long as it remains fun for everyone or it takes the events to play out to a satisfying conclusion.

Frex, the HarnMaster RPG uses a system called the "pregame" which sets aside a 90 minute session to detail out the character's early life and what brought them to become an adventurer. It's an excellent idea and compromise to actually RPing the background. In the pregame, the GM asks the player several key questions about making decisions in the character's pre-game start life, and these decisions affect the character's final backstory, giving the player some customization and control over building their past while still benefiting from GM guidance (to ensure the character fits into the GM's campaign).

I'll post some links to discussions of the HarnMaster pre-game...

http://www.snellings.org/perils/Characters/Elycia_Pregame.htm

http://www.geocities.com/rtepaiho/harn/we_who_dare/background.html

I couldn't find the one I was originally thinking of, but here are two.

 

[Rhialto]

I "strenuously object" because I see it as more of a crutch and a boast of role-playing ability than something of any actual use in the game.

However, if you choose to do this fine. It's your game. Just don't expect me to immediately bow at your feet, in awe of your "superior role-playing ability". Kapish?