D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

[Ovinomancer]

I was thinking that one key factor in helping to answer this question is the number of classed characters in the world, or at least the "known world", for reasons I'll explain below.

There was another thread devoted to this topic about a month ago, How Many Adventurers are in Your World? The answers varied from "no more than a dozen people in each class in the world" to something along the lines of 2/3 of the population having more than one HD (or level).

A proportion along the lines of 1 out of every 100 seems like a reasonable suggestion toward the middle of the curve, and it roughly corresponds to the size of non-productive population in pre-industrial society (on the conservative side). DM's answers to this question will obviously vary, but for two key reasons, I don't think this number will be significantly lower than this. One, even if the PCs are close to unique, the number of monsters they encounter and are aware of in the course of their career will likely have the strength to overwhelm a civilized society that has significantly fewer classed characters. And two, even if they don't, even fairly low level PCs will (even if Providence has now established Bounded Accuracy). So the critical mass is probably somewhere in the ballpark of 1%.

How many classed people would that mean in absolute terms? There is a long-established precedent for viewing the standard fantasy society (like Faerun) as a representation of 14th century Europe. The European population in the 14th century was roughly 75 million. It was slightly bigger in China, so 80 million seems like a good ballpark estimate for a fantasy realm that metonymically equates itself with the whole world. This would mean that in a Faerun, or a Kara-Tur, there would be roughly 800,000 classed NPCs. If we go with another conservative estimate, and assume that 90% of these would be fighters and rogues (and maybe barbarians, depending on where you are), that leaves 80,000 characters of other types, predominately spellcasters.

Now, let's say you are church administrator or a shih - a Confucian-type scholar-official. You belong to a body that possesses a virtual monopoly on literacy, education, and the diffusion of information. You are at least vaguely informed about the key things going on in your realm. One of the main things you are going to worry about is how to manage that 80,000 (assuming the fighters are somehow being managed by various military establishments, and the rogues can be kept on the margins, possibly to police themselves). The idea that 80,000 people, with significantly greater powers than the average person, and with the potential to become truly superhuman, are just being born randomly, and continue randomly running around, murder-hoboing their way through dungeons, the wilds, and ultimately, cities strains credulity. That 80,000 is going to be one of your overriding concerns. Because any society with a pyramidal structure, where the vast majority are primary producers, is going to have to regulate those with unusual powers to ensure that the hierarchy is perpetuated, that they remain onside with those who govern (or become those who govern). And to ensure that factional strife between some of these people (who likely have pretty pathological levels of self-esteem if not tightly regulated) doesn't lead to social breakdown in a civilization which is usually just a few failed harvests away from collapse. And to ensure that the majority of the population sees the supernatural abilities of this 80,000 (or at least a majority of this 80,000) as legitimate and engaged in upholding the social order.

So to this end, you will focus a lot of effort on tracking where and when such people are born, on making sure they get proper training, on ordering them institutionally, and on establishing a system of sanctions in case any one of them is using their powers in the "wrong" way, or simply derives their powers from a source that's impossible to control or define. Obviously, clerics ordered by temple and domain, and wizards ordered by schools (which administer access to spellbooks, among other things) are probably going to be the more regulated classes (and, for all of the above reasons, they will be managed as classes of people). Sorcerers, warlocks, and druids will be on the other end of the spectrum, and less class-like - maybe. Because if they are controlled against their will (or even exterminated), they will likely develop some sort of organization to recognize their own members, and to offer some sort of resistance, to avoid being picked off individually. And if they don't do this, there is every reason to expect that institutions that claim a monopoly on knowledge, spirituality, and legitimation will crush them completely in the medium-to-long run.

Now, the number of such gifted people might be lower. The political and religious powers that be might be weaker than in the hypothetical worlds described (given the prevalence of polytheism in the typical D&D fantasy environment, and the absence of a Chinese-type centralized empire, may make political control less effective. But whatever the type of political organization, control over supernatural powers and people will be an overriding concern, societies will invest significant resources in regulating such people, and therefore, some sort of class-type organization, with distinct and non-transferable powers, rituals, ethos, and a particular place in the social hierarchy will probably form over a period of time.

That's not RAW, but it would make a fine setting.

In my campaign, I have no idea how many classed people there are. Doesn't matter. Most people have more than one HD as NPCs, and a number are quite powerful without being classed at all. So any classed abilities will disappear into the general morass of similar unclassed NPC abilties.

Again, this is an issue that's highly setting dependent, and is not an inescapable conclusion of the rulesets. Your example above is just you coming up with a setting and, in no way, is an example of how all settings would or could work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was thinking that one key factor in helping to answer this question is the number of classed characters in the world, or at least the "known world", for reasons I'll explain below.

There was another thread devoted to this topic about a month ago, How Many Adventurers are in Your World? The answers varied from "no more than a dozen people in each class in the world" to something along the lines of 2/3 of the population having more than one HD (or level).

A proportion along the lines of 1 out of every 100 seems like a reasonable suggestion toward the middle of the curve, and it roughly corresponds to the size of non-productive population in pre-industrial society (on the conservative side). DM's answers to this question will obviously vary, but for two key reasons, I don't think this number will be significantly lower than this. One, even if the PCs are close to unique, the number of monsters they encounter and are aware of in the course of their career will likely have the strength to overwhelm a civilized society that has significantly fewer classed characters. And two, even if they don't, even fairly low level PCs will (even if Providence has now established Bounded Accuracy). So the critical mass is probably somewhere in the ballpark of 1%.

How many classed people would that mean in absolute terms? There is a long-established precedent for viewing the standard fantasy society (like Faerun) as a representation of 14th century Europe. The European population in the 14th century was roughly 75 million. It was slightly bigger in China, so 80 million seems like a good ballpark estimate for a fantasy realm that metonymically equates itself with the whole world. This would mean that in a Faerun, or a Kara-Tur, there would be roughly 800,000 classed NPCs. If we go with another conservative estimate, and assume that 90% of these would be fighters and rogues (and maybe barbarians, depending on where you are), that leaves 80,000 characters of other types, predominately spellcasters.

Now, let's say you are church administrator or a shih - a Confucian-type scholar-official. You belong to a body that possesses a virtual monopoly on literacy, education, and the diffusion of information. You are at least vaguely informed about the key things going on in your realm. One of the main things you are going to worry about is how to manage that 80,000 (assuming the fighters are somehow being managed by various military establishments, and the rogues can be kept on the margins, possibly to police themselves). The idea that 80,000 people, with significantly greater powers than the average person, and with the potential to become truly superhuman, are just being born randomly, and continue randomly running around, murder-hoboing their way through dungeons, the wilds, and ultimately, cities strains credulity. That 80,000 is going to be one of your overriding concerns. Because any society with a pyramidal structure, where the vast majority are primary producers, is going to have to regulate those with unusual powers to ensure that the hierarchy is perpetuated, that they remain onside with those who govern (or become those who govern). And to ensure that factional strife between some of these people (who likely have pretty pathological levels of self-esteem if not tightly regulated) doesn't lead to social breakdown in a civilization which is usually just a few failed harvests away from collapse. And to ensure that the majority of the population sees the supernatural abilities of this 80,000 (or at least a majority of this 80,000) as legitimate and engaged in upholding the social order.

So to this end, you will focus a lot of effort on tracking where and when such people are born, on making sure they get proper training, on ordering them institutionally, and on establishing a system of sanctions in case any one of them is using their powers in the "wrong" way, or simply derives their powers from a source that's impossible to control or define. Obviously, clerics ordered by temple and domain, and wizards ordered by schools (which administer access to spellbooks, among other things) are probably going to be the more regulated classes (and, for all of the above reasons, they will be managed as classes of people). Sorcerers, warlocks, and druids will be on the other end of the spectrum, and less class-like - maybe. Because if they are controlled against their will (or even exterminated), they will likely develop some sort of organization to recognize their own members, and to offer some sort of resistance, to avoid being picked off individually. And if they don't do this, there is every reason to expect that institutions that claim a monopoly on knowledge, spirituality, and legitimation will crush them completely in the medium-to-long run.

Now, the number of such gifted people might be lower. The political and religious powers that be might be weaker than in the hypothetical worlds described (given the prevalence of polytheism in the typical D&D fantasy environment, and the absence of a Chinese-type centralized empire, may make political control less effective. But whatever the type of political organization, control over supernatural powers and people will be an overriding concern, societies will invest significant resources in regulating such people, and therefore, some sort of class-type organization, with distinct and non-transferable powers, rituals, ethos, and a particular place in the social hierarchy will probably form over a period of time.

And, you see, this is at least some of the logic which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that class is NOT a part of the setting, but just a tool for describing how PCs advance and creating distinctive archetypes for them to follow in their advancement.

There's no '1%' or any other '%'. The logic of 'monsters might overwhelm society' is a fair question, but then the question is more like what quantity of monsters and other attributes of monsters do we need to posit in order that this doesn't happen. Or maybe it DOES happen. There are various possibilities here. Monsters largely don't care much about humans, some of them fight each other, others may pick off a human or other, but largely just go about their business. Dragons and other powerful creatures aren't THAT interested in humanity, and to the extent that they want to eat maidens and raid farms they get paid off. Really powerful creatures just aren't that common. Maybe the world is ACTUALLY ruled by powerful monsters! Perhaps they're just so rare that the 1 in a billion heroes that come along are enough, the gods send them down now and then to put paid to the nasty Dragon, etc.

If there aren't really 'classed' NPCs, then there can certainly be a limited number of 'leveled' NPCs, that is characters that are normally represented by higher level stat blocks. They may be NPC heroes, villains, possibly highly accomplished figures of a non-adventuring sort that are combat-capable, etc. Otherwise there's just a lot of very low-level stat blocks around. The High Priest of Atur can access a few powerful magics, at the option of his god, but in combat he's nothing special, he's never learned to fight, or only received the most basic training. In 4e he could be represented as simply an NPC without a stat block, he never fights, or he could be a 'minion' in some scenario that requires him to appear on a battlemat, or as set-dressing with attributes simply invented for the purpose, but not corresponding to any specific rule, or as a standard monster in lower level play. He doesn't need to be regulated or to regulate anyone.

Now, its true that heroes may sometimes choose to become leaders, or villains, and normal society simply can't handle them. That's just how it is. If they're really rare, then they're the 'King Arthur' of their time or whatever, and they only come about at rare intervals. Those rare intervals are times of adventure, ages of heroism, the days when legends aren't just told, but they actually walk the Earth, larger than life.

Its really up to the DM, if that game is an AD&D game, maybe he gives certain NPCs some class levels and uses those rules, because its convenient (an AD&D fighter for instance is really just the same as a monster, give or take a bit of extra detail). In 4e they might all just be stat blocks. In 5e, I dunno, but it could go either way probably. In any case they're mostly quite low level, with only a very few super villains to challenge the PCs. Why aren't these super villains running things? Maybe they don't want to, or maybe they are! In DS for instance they are, and the implication is they kill off any rivals.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And just to carry the "authorities know and regulate class" idea further. IMHO it doesn't solve anything. There are plenty of cases where there simply aren't such authorities. Empires don't exist throughout time and space, so clearly there had to be a time and a place where if 1% of the population was classed individuals then they did whatever they pleased, and there wasn't a census or any other thing like that.

Beyond that I note that [MENTION=6800918]empireofchaos[/MENTION] already has to admit that "some individuals don't fit into this scheme" and that it is ambiguous and even these authorities are sometimes calling a barbarian a monk or etc. They're going to invent whatever social organizations and structures they need and classify people based on THOSE. MAYBE, assuming class is a 'law of nature' those sometimes follow 'real' classes, but there's never going to be any requirement that they do. There's going to be the ranger that acts as the king's bodyguard and is called 'Sir Jones' and people say "He's might good with a bow and a great tracker!" etc. The whole class thing is just forced really. The world wouldn't shake out that way IMHO.

 

[empireofchaos]

That's not RAW, but it would make a fine setting.

In my campaign, I have no idea how many classed people there are. Doesn't matter. Most people have more than one HD as NPCs, and a number are quite powerful without being classed at all. So any classed abilities will disappear into the general morass of similar unclassed NPC abilties.

Again, this is an issue that's highly setting dependent, and is not an inescapable conclusion of the rulesets. Your example above is just you coming up with a setting and, in no way, is an example of how all settings would or could work.

It wasn't supposed to be RAW (or any kind of "R", really), or a stipulation of an inescapable conclusion. It was just an attempt to think through ways in which class could function as a fairly realistic, in-game structure, and to put forward a few arguments why I think some of the assumptions I'm going by might be more realistic than their contraries given the models some (many? most?) people have in the back of their minds when designing their own settings. But all such assumptions are absolutely setting-dependent, yes.

I haven't (until now) thought about how many classed NPCs there are in my campaign, either. Doing so has generated some interesting ideas about how the world is organized, and how PCs fit into the setting. I note that some of these ideas weren't mine - I hadn't, e.g., thought of a census until cbwjm mentioned it, but it's an interesting notion to play around with. And as a player, I'd be happier if GMs thought through the ways in which "superpower" was interrelated with social power, regardless of whether "superpower" is classed or not. Not because my way is the only way to do it, but simply because it would make for a richer playing experience.

 

[empireofchaos]

And, you see, this is at least some of the logic which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that class is NOT a part of the setting, but just a tool for describing how PCs advance and creating distinctive archetypes for them to follow in their advancement.

There's no '1%' or any other '%'. The logic of 'monsters might overwhelm society' is a fair question, but then the question is more like what quantity of monsters and other attributes of monsters do we need to posit in order that this doesn't happen. Or maybe it DOES happen. There are various possibilities here. Monsters largely don't care much about humans, some of them fight each other, others may pick off a human or other, but largely just go about their business. Dragons and other powerful creatures aren't THAT interested in humanity, and to the extent that they want to eat maidens and raid farms they get paid off. Really powerful creatures just aren't that common. Maybe the world is ACTUALLY ruled by powerful monsters! Perhaps they're just so rare that the 1 in a billion heroes that come along are enough, the gods send them down now and then to put paid to the nasty Dragon, etc.

If there aren't really 'classed' NPCs, then there can certainly be a limited number of 'leveled' NPCs, that is characters that are normally represented by higher level stat blocks. They may be NPC heroes, villains, possibly highly accomplished figures of a non-adventuring sort that are combat-capable, etc. Otherwise there's just a lot of very low-level stat blocks around. The High Priest of Atur can access a few powerful magics, at the option of his god, but in combat he's nothing special, he's never learned to fight, or only received the most basic training. In 4e he could be represented as simply an NPC without a stat block, he never fights, or he could be a 'minion' in some scenario that requires him to appear on a battlemat, or as set-dressing with attributes simply invented for the purpose, but not corresponding to any specific rule, or as a standard monster in lower level play. He doesn't need to be regulated or to regulate anyone.

Now, its true that heroes may sometimes choose to become leaders, or villains, and normal society simply can't handle them. That's just how it is. If they're really rare, then they're the 'King Arthur' of their time or whatever, and they only come about at rare intervals. Those rare intervals are times of adventure, ages of heroism, the days when legends aren't just told, but they actually walk the Earth, larger than life.

Its really up to the DM, if that game is an AD&D game, maybe he gives certain NPCs some class levels and uses those rules, because its convenient (an AD&D fighter for instance is really just the same as a monster, give or take a bit of extra detail). In 4e they might all just be stat blocks. In 5e, I dunno, but it could go either way probably. In any case they're mostly quite low level, with only a very few super villains to challenge the PCs. Why aren't these super villains running things? Maybe they don't want to, or maybe they are! In DS for instance they are, and the implication is they kill off any rivals.

I don't know what you think is inevitable about your conclusion (and if I were so inclined, I would snip at you for telling me how I have to play the game). I was quite clear that the 1% (or .1%, really) was an assumption, but one based on several factors, which I outlined (knowledge about how agricultural societies work, and a sort of middle-of-the-road view of gamers on this list thinking about the issue; I could throw in the fact that several designers I respect think along these lines also). The examples you throw out (e.g. monsters ruling the world, PC-type heroes being 1-in-a-billion) are possible settings, but, a question for you: are those your settings? And also, how many such settings are you aware of? How common are they? My point is, in a common, FR-type setting, the assumptions I'm making are hardly implausible, meaning that there is a clear logic about why organized classes would fit into the setting.

I am a little surprised by several people's contentions that many powerful NPCs are unclassed. If that's the way you want it, fine. I would just say that I personally would prefer to spend time designing classes or archetypes for "non-standard" PCs rather than spending time throwing together monster-like stat blocks for NPCs - assuming they have a class seems much easier for me (from the point of view of gearing their challenge to the PCs, among other reasons). From what I see in current generation published adventures (e.g. LMoP), the commonality of classed NPCs doesn't seem like an unwarranted assumption in the eyes of most players.

And just to carry the "authorities know and regulate class" idea further. IMHO it doesn't solve anything. There are plenty of cases where there simply aren't such authorities. Empires don't exist throughout time and space, so clearly there had to be a time and a place where if 1% of the population was classed individuals then they did whatever they pleased, and there wasn't a census or any other thing like that.

Beyond that I note that @empireofchaos already has to admit that "some individuals don't fit into this scheme" and that it is ambiguous and even these authorities are sometimes calling a barbarian a monk or etc. They're going to invent whatever social organizations and structures they need and classify people based on THOSE. MAYBE, assuming class is a 'law of nature' those sometimes follow 'real' classes, but there's never going to be any requirement that they do. There's going to be the ranger that acts as the king's bodyguard and is called 'Sir Jones' and people say "He's might good with a bow and a great tracker!" etc. The whole class thing is just forced really. The world wouldn't shake out that way IMHO.

OK - on empires - they don't exist throughout time and space, but the empire form is the most widespread and durable form of agricultural social organization from c.4000 BCE to to 1800 CE. That's why it's modeled in so many frpg settings. But there can be others, yes, though even in more decentralized frameworks, there would still likely be some efforts to control individuals with special powers (e.g. Ged the Sparrohawk, who became Archmage in LeGuin's Wizard of Earthsea).

And yes, that is one of the reasons why I stipulated from the get-go that some individuals do not fit into the scheme, and for a variety of reasons, may escape social control. But that hardly means that everyone is able to do so, and that class structures do not therefore exist. If someone wants to play a character who does not fit, I would sit down with the player, and try to figure out a way to either fit the character with some sort of non-standard in-game narrative, or to design a new class or archetype for the character, with the possible allowance that the class is much more amorphous and unregulated than existing classes. That's been my position all along.

 

[Shasarak]

I never really understood why you would want to have an Unclassed or (even worse) under leveled NPC that was supposed to be "powerful" in the game.

I mean having a 1st level "King" is kinda asking for a whole heap of trouble from basically anything in the game including (but not limited to) the PCs and Viziers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It wasn't supposed to be RAW (or any kind of "R", really), or a stipulation of an inescapable conclusion. It was just an attempt to think through ways in which class could function as a fairly realistic, in-game structure, and to put forward a few arguments why I think some of the assumptions I'm going by might be more realistic than their contraries given the models some (many? most?) people have in the back of their minds when designing their own settings. But all such assumptions are absolutely setting-dependent, yes.

I haven't (until now) thought about how many classed NPCs there are in my campaign, either. Doing so has generated some interesting ideas about how the world is organized, and how PCs fit into the setting. I note that some of these ideas weren't mine - I hadn't, e.g., thought of a census until cbwjm mentioned it, but it's an interesting notion to play around with. And as a player, I'd be happier if GMs thought through the ways in which "superpower" was interrelated with social power, regardless of whether "superpower" is classed or not. Not because my way is the only way to do it, but simply because it would make for a richer playing experience.

Sure, its certainly interesting to think about. I always tend to think of the real world in terms of how we handle different things. Now, super powers would be a little outside of what we experience, but we certainly have people with certain types of skills, etc. I'd think of say NPCs that study magic. They'd be perhaps learning by various means, pacts, research, training in some sort of school, innate talent, etc. They might use a combination of those methods to achieve some effects. They probably wouldn't have much in the way of hit points, they don't know how to fight and they're not bound up in the fate of the world, so they lack 'plot armor' etc. Like a modern expert in some field they would be very knowledgeable, and perhaps QUITE capable in their narrow areas of study. So a guy like that might know how to cast a number of 'utility' spells in AD&D or 5e terms, maybe a cantrip, and perhaps have a very few specific 'specialty' spells, perhaps even of reasonably high level. Such a character wouldn't be an adventurer, they'd be a scholar or advisor, faculty member, crazy guy that lives up on the hill, whatever. In fact AD&D KINDA had that, it was the 'Sage', an NPC that could give advice and perhaps at DM discretion cast certain spells. There were NEVER any rules for this guy in terms of what they could do AFAIK (maybe in a Dragon article WAY back, I'm not sure).

Anyway, I'd think that the world would be mostly made up of that sort of people. Warriors would simply be modeled as something like a lower level fighter, trained, but not with the huge hit points of PCs that are fated to do great deeds. Maybe some would have some special attributes along the lines of what some 2e kits grant. Most of these people would have other major focuses, running estates, police functions, social obligations, etc. They might well have certain types of adventures, now and then. There would be political struggles, disasters, wars, crimes, etc where they would ply their various mixes of abilities. Some might have certain thief skills, wilderness survival, tracking, etc stuff that can mostly be modeled by NWP/skill/whatever but some of which might mirror certain class abilities too.

I would think these people would be labelled 'warrior', 'thief', 'cleric', 'monk', and a 100 other names, but classed PCs are just examples of extraordinary individuals that arise out of those general types of people, not laws of physics that govern how everyone has to be. Its just WEIRD to think that the world would be made up of people who can only acquire certain specific combinations of abilities in certain patterns, and that entire organizations and social structures would be made up of people with such a narrow templatized skill set and behavior. It wouldn't IMHO be even vaguely similar to the real world, it would be WEIRD AS HELL.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I never really understood why you would want to have an Unclassed or (even worse) under leveled NPC that was supposed to be "powerful" in the game.

I mean having a 1st level "King" is kinda asking for a whole heap of trouble from basically anything in the game including (but not limited to) the PCs and Viziers.

Yet the number of kings who ever lifted a sword in anger or were reputed to be personally capable warriors is pretty limited. 99% of leaders throughout all of history would appear to attain their positions through their political skill, or perhaps simply by being in the right place at the right time (IE born there mainly). To me the whole notion of a hierarchy of level in these kingdoms where the more powerful people are invariably great warriors of basically superhuman ability was stultifying to say the least. It certainly disallowed anything even remotely similar to reality to be generated, unless you assume that fantasy worlds are universally the equivalent of complete lawless anarchy where the only rule is brute power and society is virtually non-existent.

Just because it might be 'convenient' for a DM, well, thats argument enough of course if you wish, but its thin to me. It says to me that the depth of the campaign setting is so thin that it yields no social or other reasons for the PCs not to just go wandering around offing kings and such to suit their whims. In any sort of world with a real civilization that wouldn't get you far, and you just wouldn't do it. I'd note that this goes hand in hand with the psychopathic murder-hobo PC model that exists in this sort of game too. Not to be critical, maybe making all the NPCs high level to enforce order WORKS in that game, sort of, but so would just declaring PCs that get out of line 'dead'. In that sort of setting, my response would be "great, the PCs want to rule the place, lets see if we can create an actual social order here that makes sense"

 

[empireofchaos]

Yet the number of kings who ever lifted a sword in anger or were reputed to be personally capable warriors is pretty limited. 99% of leaders throughout all of history would appear to attain their positions through their political skill, or perhaps simply by being in the right place at the right time (IE born there mainly). To me the whole notion of a hierarchy of level in these kingdoms where the more powerful people are invariably great warriors of basically superhuman ability was stultifying to say the least. It certainly disallowed anything even remotely similar to reality to be generated, unless you assume that fantasy worlds are universally the equivalent of complete lawless anarchy where the only rule is brute power and society is virtually non-existent.

Just because it might be 'convenient' for a DM, well, thats argument enough of course if you wish, but its thin to me. It says to me that the depth of the campaign setting is so thin that it yields no social or other reasons for the PCs not to just go wandering around offing kings and such to suit their whims. In any sort of world with a real civilization that wouldn't get you far, and you just wouldn't do it. I'd note that this goes hand in hand with the psychopathic murder-hobo PC model that exists in this sort of game too. Not to be critical, maybe making all the NPCs high level to enforce order WORKS in that game, sort of, but so would just declaring PCs that get out of line 'dead'. In that sort of setting, my response would be "great, the PCs want to rule the place, lets see if we can create an actual social order here that makes sense"

And I, on the other hand, think that the murder hobo play style is more inspired by dungeon-oriented play in which the PC's standing in the social order is not particularly relevant, so there is no reason to think through how a class might be organized precisely because all you are really doing as a member of a class is murdering monsters. So the idea that a class is nothing but bags of assorted crunch does fit really well - into that type of setting. Following the above argumentation style, of course.

Oh, and incidentally: those monsters that are supposedly uninterested in human society? How is it that they come to have all that treasure that the murder hobos desire? What makes them interested in it? And all those coins - who's making them? If you sift through the historical record, you'll find that in the vast majority of instances, its only those empires that you think are so uncommon that have the wherewithal to mint coins and circulate them over vast areas.

 

[Shasarak]

Yet the number of kings who ever lifted a sword in anger or were reputed to be personally capable warriors is pretty limited. 99% of leaders throughout all of history would appear to attain their positions through their political skill, or perhaps simply by being in the right place at the right time (IE born there mainly). To me the whole notion of a hierarchy of level in these kingdoms where the more powerful people are invariably great warriors of basically superhuman ability was stultifying to say the least. It certainly disallowed anything even remotely similar to reality to be generated, unless you assume that fantasy worlds are universally the equivalent of complete lawless anarchy where the only rule is brute power and society is virtually non-existent.

I am glad that you mention real life as an example of "non leveled" Kings because history is littered with dead Kings who tried to use their political skill against another Kings Guns and Cannons.

Besides with XP being tied directly to Gold Pieces there is no reason why you would have a low level King unless they lived in the Wop Wops being paid with Pigs and Wheat.

Just because it might be 'convenient' for a DM, well, thats argument enough of course if you wish, but its thin to me. It says to me that the depth of the campaign setting is so thin that it yields no social or other reasons for the PCs not to just go wandering around offing kings and such to suit their whims. In any sort of world with a real civilization that wouldn't get you far, and you just wouldn't do it. I'd note that this goes hand in hand with the psychopathic murder-hobo PC model that exists in this sort of game too. Not to be critical, maybe making all the NPCs high level to enforce order WORKS in that game, sort of, but so would just declaring PCs that get out of line 'dead'. In that sort of setting, my response would be "great, the PCs want to rule the place, lets see if we can create an actual social order here that makes sense"

That is of course the real weakness of using non-leveled NPCs - how are you going to stop PCs from doing what ever they want? Which leads pretty directly to having non-leveled NPCs with the same stats as leveled NPCs or using the "modern" system of just stating them out as monsters.