Commoners as Adventurers: Possible?

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

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?

I don't remember ever asking or demanding that you or anyone else to do this, so I don't understand all the hostility...

I am just SUGGESTING that it might be an effective and fun tool for those interesting in delving into the reasons why their characters became adventurers. I'm not advocating making it mandatory. Sheesh!

 

[drothgery]

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

Bull.

Well, if I ever get around to writing up a 'things work my way' world, they probably can't. But that's because 99.995% of 1st-level-commoners would be children, and 99.995% of children would be statted as 1st-level commoners, with a rule that says 1st-level commoners can convert their level of commoner to a level in any other class if they do so before achieving 2nd level and are below the maximum possible randomly determined starting age of a character of their race and new class (so a human could trade her commoner level for wizard before 27, but would have to be under 19 to become a Sorcerer without keeping a level of commoner). Joe-average peasant is a 2nd or 3rd level commoner.

 

[Rhialto]

I don't remember ever asking or demanding that you or anyone else to do this, so I don't understand all the hostility...

I am just SUGGESTING that it might be an effective and fun tool for those interesting in delving into the reasons why their characters became adventurers. I'm not advocating making it mandatory. Sheesh!

Listen pal, you call yourself the role-playing "elite", and then act surprised when people like myself don't cotton to it, you deserve the occasional slam.

And I don't think it would be a worthwhile tool. I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a waste of time and a pretentious manner of boasting of role-playing skills. And this is from personal experience.

Thank you, and good night...

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Listen pal, you call yourself the role-playing "elite", and then act surprised when people like myself don't cotton to it, you deserve the occasional slam.

And I don't think it would be a worthwhile tool. I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a waste of time and a pretentious manner of boasting of role-playing skills. And this is from personal experience.

Thank you, and good night...

What you are referring to was in a different thread and I think your hostility towards me is thus taken out of context. You should have (if you did not) objected to my remarks in that previous thread, not here. This thread is about discussing ideas to implement NPC classes for low-level play or character background development, not bashing me for something I said in a different thread. I checked this thread thoroughly and nowhere in it do I mention anything about elitism or "this is the way it should be if you're a RPing stud like me."

I didn't even start this thread, for crying out loud, so by jumping in and attacking me, you are in effect attacking everybody else here who is interested in running this type of game, by belittling ALL their opinions. Your attack remarks don't even specify why you are so angry about this subject--initially it doesn't even look like an attack on me but rather just as an insult to everyone advocating this type of play. You would do well to specify why (and to whom) you object before leaping into the debate, guns blazing.

As to this type of game not being right for you, that's fine, but
carrying around such aggression can't be a healthy thing, LOL.

I'll phone my doctor and see if I can't get you a prescription for a "chill pill."

 

[Humanophile]

You know, call me a classicist, or a munchkin, or whatever, but there doesn't seem to be a real point to playing this game, except perhaps as some sort of masochistic exercise...

"I'm Percy the Peasant! Watch me flee the hordes of Brilbresh! Crap! They're faster than I am! ARGH!"

This sort of anti-munchkinism is essentially just the same sort of gaming in reverse...

"I'm a 100th lvl fighter-wizard-cleric-god..."

"Oh, yeah! Well I'm a 1st lvl commoner with crippled limbs and bad eyesight!"

Playing characters for their helplessness is essentially as immature as trying to build an invincible Hackmaster...

There are a few major advantages to playing a low-powered game. It's more intimate, and more on the level that your average player can understand. (Plus, it's easier for most DM's to write/design for.) And while one doesn't have to be an NPC class with low stats to pull it off, with D&D's steep power curve and speed of levelling, those help to put off power gain for at least a little while.

Some of the major advantages of NPC classes are entirely intangible. For instance, the player of William the Fighter probably visualizes him as a destined hero from the word go, and will probably play him as someone above the muckety-muck, someone who never gets dirty or has to go to the bathroom, someone less human than mythic. And while mythic has its advantages, I'd venture to say that human is better for "pure" roleplay; bigwigs and mythic types tend to associate more and identify more with others of their type, and farmer brown is less someone you gain personal satisfaction from helping and more someone to protect because you're a good guy. But give the same player Billy the Commoner, and his first thoughts are someone... well, common. Someone more human, even if the commoner has some perk or other to make them equal in power. (So long as that perk doesn't overpower the commoner either; a Drow commoner or a commoner with all 18's is more mythic, while one with 28 build points as opposed to the fighter's 22 will still have the psychological aura of "lower powered".) Tangentally, commoners are more likely to have class skills applicable to their day-to-day doings, but that's an easily changed system artifact, so it just bears mention that Billy is more likely to have a profession (farmer).

Second, power does insulate the powerful. They tend not to suffer for their mistakes, they can do things that "normal folks" can't do which makes them feel appropriately more powerful and removed, they have the option of brute forcing their way around things more often, and there's the everpresent chance of their taking things like this for granted. Plus the likelihood of someone deciding to abuse their power, and that's ignoring the large variety of realistically impossible (meaning impossible in the real world; your game naturally varies) powers the characters have at their disposal, which make it more tempting to look at a problem as "let's see what in my toolbox will work here" than to look at it as a human first. I'm not saying that high powered roleplaying is impossible, just that it's harder to plan/DM for, and that there's a natural player tendency to see more powers as just a collection of powers and cool tricks.

Meanwhile, at the lower end of the spectrum, while your chance of success in a given encounter is less than that of a more powerful character, your success feels more personal and more memorable (either through the brilliant planning needed or else the incredible luck). You tend to focus more on things that the average player can identify with (you're more likely to deal with convenience store clerks or waitstaff than presidents and captains of industry), and what the characters can do is better approximated by what a normal person can do, making things just a little more intuitive for the average player. (Plus, in a game with supernatural abilities [read: pretty much any game out there], low powered characters tend to have fewer supernatural abilities to bring to bear, tying into the last point. And while neither Papers&Paychecks nor Fealty&Farming would be hits, I doubt most of us would live that way if we knew we were expemt from pain, could start our lives over at any time we chose, and actually had empirical knowledge that "fate" [in the form of the DM] was on our side.) Plus, when your character is less able to buy out or demolish the inn singlehandedly, you have more reason to go out and do something for the money to cover the night's stay. Similarly, when anyone with a sword has a chance to cause major injury or death, you tend to be less foolhardy in your dealings.

And finally, there is the anti-powergaming backlash, but that seems to be more on the DM's side of the screen than the players (and as such, more likely to be "my third level characters are just earning basic equipment" than "I'm playing a third level fighter with just a club and padded armor").

 

[I'm A Banana]

Settle down everyone...

Look, things degenerated pretty quickly here....

Look at the books, and they give you the definitions you need to work with. 1st-level characters alredy have a bit of experience under their belt. Their training is completed. They are ready to be heroes.

Sure, they generally suck at it, but they're on their way. The PC classes are more powerful than the NPC classes because the PC's are special people. NPC's don't save the world, PC's do, and they need to be competent at it. PC classes know what they're doing, right from the start.

There's nothing wrong with PC classes being taken by "everybody," either, but it would be a weird world...generally, you see your heroic knight-fighter of minor-goblinoid-slaying-potential as more competent and genrally more skilled than Nameless Guard #4.

You could just make all NPC's take PC classes, but it does mean that even the more untrained phone psychic has a level of the Diviner class, and has a familiar and knows how to make scrolls. It means that even the street thug knows how to sneak attack. It means that even Billy, the Conscript from Podunk, can wield most of the weapons known to his society.

There's nothing wrong with that, but because D&D makes your characters heroic (even at 1st level), they have weaker classes for the teeming masses that *aren't* heroes. In this way, the phone psychic can be an Adept and the local barkeep can be a Commonner instead of a Fighter. The baseline is that not everybody has all the class features of a PC class...because they're NPC's.

The NPC classes are weaker, but people may play them because they don't want to be heroes. Without giving everyone PC classes (and going away from the norm), the best way to emulate some average joes just caught up in events is by an NPC class.

Sure, you could play an isolated farmbody destined to save the world as a 1st-level paladin...but the paladin class comes with some baggage. After all, why would farmboy know how to wield a composite longbow, should it happen to fall into his lap? Paladins can. Also, because his destiny may not have unfolded yet, you may not want him to be able to detect evil naturally...he'll have to learn how to do that later. By making this farmboy a 1st level paladin, he's already head-and-shoulders above every other farmboy.

That's where NPC classes come in handy. Not because you want to artificially weaken the character, but because you want to play someone who would fit in with the average goon at the bar. Because you'd like to be a farmboy before you realize your destiny. Because Red Shirt Guard can get easily whooped where a regular PC could stand alright, and sometimes you want to play an untrained hack, because not everyone knows how to use a lot of weapons or cleave many foes. If you want to play a farmboy, an NPC class is the best way to go about that. If you want to play a soldier just off the front lines, a Fighter is a good way to do that.

NPC classes just let you realize that you are one of the teeming masses, you are not one of the chose ones (as of yet). It's possible to get this feeling when every joe blow has a level of fighter, but it seems a bit more reasonable to allow weaker classes.

NPC's = Average People. If you want to play an average person, use an NPC class. PC's=Heroes. Most people want to play heroes, most players are PC classes.

It doesn't give you any special revelation, but it's a nice touch on a character that isn't a hero yet. Not essential, but, if you want that kind of idea, pretty helpful.

 

[Rhialto]

What you are referring to was in a different thread and I think your hostility towards me is thus taken out of context. You should have (if you did not) objected to my remarks in that previous thread, not here. This thread is about discussing ideas to implement NPC classes for low-level play or character background development, not bashing me for something I said in a different thread. I checked this one and nowhere do I mention anything about elitism or "this is the way it should be if you're a RPing stud like me."

As to this type of game not being right for you, that's fine, but
carrying around such aggression can't be a healthy thing, LOL.

I'll phone my doctor and see if I can't get you a prescription for a "chill pill."

Sorry if I'm of the opinion that comments carry over into other topics, instead of dying a quick death. That's just the kind of guy I am. Opinionated.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Excellent points, Humanophile. I agree wholeheartedly!

Unfortunately, I think trying to reason with Rhialto may be a lost cause as his objection seems to be more with me (and a remark I made in a different thread) than any real objection to this type of game... He objects to this type of game, but then never explains why his "prior experience" was so unsatisfying. It could be bad DMing, bad RPing, different DM/player expectations, anything... I would actually like to hear exactly what his prior experience was.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Actually, now that I think about it (I had already forgotten making the remark and therefore wasn't sure where Rhialto was coming from until he finally brought it up specifically), I will gladly proffer an apology to Rhialto for offending him and anyone else who objected to my categorization of low-fantasy/low power/low magic gamers as "the RPing elite."

I hope this helps prevent this thread from degenerating into a flame-fest.

*big hugs and happy thoughts all around*

 

[Rhialto]

Actually I do have real objections to this type of game.

Aside from the objections I raised earlier, which you all have tendency to talk around without actually dealing with, I strongly doubt that limiting the PCs to the NPC classes for a level or two will accomplish what you say it will. You see, you're forgetting one thing--the PCs are already special. They're PCs. No one else in the Game World has that going for them. (Generally speaking, mind you. If you're having multiple campaigns--well, it can be interesting...) Player Characters have a tendency to act as if they have a special destiny because--let's face it--they have. They're being played. They're going to go on loads of adventures, or die horrible deaths, or occasionally both. The players know that. They're going to charge that ogre whether they're fighters or farmers, because they're adventurers. You can make them all commoners with average stats, proficient only in the dagger, and most of them will still charge.

It's the set-up of the game--the nature of the beast. And it's not just D&D--CoC is pretty much the same way, except that your PCs are a smidgeon weaker, and likely to be scared out of their skulls. But scared or not, when they reach the large stone door with the markings on it, they're going to open it... 'cause that's what they do. Thing is, your CoC characters tend to die a lot faster, which has the results that you roleplay them less, not more...

About my experience--I've both played in and GMed Storyteller games, where the prologue is more or less a part of the rules. And allow me to say that NOT ONCE did I ever see it actually give a person a better grasp of their characters. All it caused was a lot of preening, and grandstanding, as people bend over backwards to be the "best roleplayer".

I know of course, you will disagree with me. That is your right. But if you honestly think there isn't a form of elitism inherhant in your arguments, then I'm afraid you're deluding yourselves.