Social Mobility in a Game

[AnonymousOne]

On the contrary our DM encourages both hack and slash as well as a serious dose of political intrigue that the PCs are supposed to interact with. Our party is made up of a bounty hunter, an honorable Warblade, a formerly wealthy smuggler, a rather whimsical technomancer, and a holy cleric from a small town. We have an appointment with a prime minister next session after making some inroads in an investigation that he has a personal interest in. This of course makes us persons of interest to the nobility.

This means that we are either gong to have to learn to move within those political circles, not a problem for the Warblade or my Rogue, but it should be interesting to see how the rest of the party handles it. The way I see it, there's little better than hiding all my weapons on my character in case we get ambushed at a ball or other high class event.

 

[ruleslawyer]

How much social mobility is allowed in your game?

A lot. My assumption is that in a garden-variety D&D campaign (that is, a "points-of-light" scenario which features small kingdoms or borderlands beset by evils that provide convenient villains for the PCs), successful PCs who build themselves a good reputation will eventually rise to the ranks of power, unless they consciously refuse such status. In my various games, I've had PCs (typically rangers, rogues, peasant warriors, or secretive wizards) who embraced anonymity and adventured under various aliases/disguises so as not to attract attention, and thus never rose up in the social order. I've also had PCs become barons, kings, and emperors. Becoming a ruler is an excellent exit strategy, something that was perhaps more encouraged by 1e/2e rules (where XP required to rise in level became prohibitive and resurrection was never really easy past a certain point, so the reward/risk ratio diminished with level) than B/E/C/M/I (where domain ruling was built right into the system and thus didn't need to be a basis for retirement, and level advancement and resurrection were easier than 1e/2e) or 3e (in which you can advance rapidly enough at high levels that there's no real incentive to retire).

To put it another way, if a character is a peasant, does the DM ensure they will always be a peasant, regardless of experience points/level? (i.e. the character dies or is otherwise made unplayable, or the DM forces a new character to be created rather than allowing social status to be increased.)

The short answer is: It depends. Heroes are never peasants in my millieu; the moment that humble farmboy slays the orcs raiding his village, rescues the mayor's daughter from their lair, and liberates a fair chunk of wealth, he's at least a local hero, and probably wealthy enough to be a secure landholder and thus well-off by village standards. Further adventures (assuming he survives) bring more wealth and greater renown, and thus higher status. The PC could become an outlaw, criminal, or enemy of the state, but that's status along a completely different track from peasant to emperor.

In short, the way my (Forgotten Realms) campaign has traditionally worked, a PC is either going to stay entirely outside the system or achieve high status within it as he rises in level. A 15th-level PC could be a secret Lord of Waterdeep, a baron building a new realm in the Border Kingdoms, the master of a thieves' guild, the head of a shadowy (or open) wizards' brotherhood, or a patriarch commanding thousands of the faithful. That's pretty vanilla, granted, but I take my D&D old school.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think I speak for most all when I say D&D is fun, for a large part, becuase we do things in game we can't in real life. If we start talking about social issues, then we've stopped doing what made it great in the first place.

Really? I would say that talking about social issues, and heroic escapism, are hardly required to be opposites. A virtuous paladin or silver-tongued rogue or bard can sway entire kingdoms to his side. As a power fantasy, that seems to put killing things and taking their stuff to shame. Then, of course, there's the option to do both.

[EDIT: Maybe I've had odd groups of players, but the dream of becoming a living (or eternal) legend, founding one's own empire, or even just getting rich beyond the dreams of avarice are pretty common among player goals for PCs. I've had far fewer players who just wanted to play chopping monsters to bits and enjoying vast piles of treasure and ale and whores than players who wanted their PCs to have a real legacy, in many cases a political/societal one.]

 

[palleomortis]

Makes sense. I guess it boils down to the players idea of a good time. I have a group who are EXACTLY the opposite. Eternal legend sounds good, but a good ale and a crud load of gold is just as good. At least, by their philosophy. I mis-judged the ideal, though, i think. While I would (as a pc) love the power, I would despise the though of taking up hours of gaming simply to keep an empire running. Not on the grounds of invading other countries, or things of the sort. Merely the thought of making sure we don't die from starvation seems oddly boring as a game. Now if a king told me I needed to go and DO somthing to keep it from happening, that's another thing entirely. That's a game plan. But to have the empire to run entirely on your own seems a little, overdone (Fun for parts, but a drag for others). Eternal glory or no.

 

[Lanefan]

While I don't actively encourage "social mobility", I don't discourage it either. If the PCs do something useful enough to catch the eye of the local ruler, they're going to get noticed and maybe invited to court or presented at a ball; what they do from there is up to them.

Never mind that social status just naturally increases with wealth, and adventurers tend to be rolling in wealth after the first few trips into the field. Thus, any PC who wants to get in with the jet-setters is usually more than able.

Also, I go by the 1e ideal of high-ish level characters being able to set up a stronghold or guild or whatever's appropriate; that right there will jump the social standing, if done even vaguely competently. What has happened in the past is that instead of individual characters setting up strongholds, the party as a whole does so, and uses it as a home base.

Lanefan

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

How much social mobility is allowed in your game?

As much as my players want.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The book Powers of Faerun actually deals with this stuff.

Yes, it's an FR book, but only in that all the examples used in it are FR-based. The book itself is a great tool.

It explains how to run King's court based, Military Based, Church-based, Frontier and Merchant based games. The information involved tells you how to have PCs move up the ranks within the organization.

For instance, if your character is a priest, and he wants to move up the church hierarchy, the book explains how to do that.

The king's court and merchant parts of the book might be what you want.

I'm really glad that you mentioned this, as I'd not heard of it (I don't pay attention to FR stuff as a matter of course). It sounds like it might be really helpful for my games.

 

[Plane Sailing]

How much social mobility is allowed in your game?

It may be because I started playing in OD&D and then 1e, where there was an assumption that by the teen levels PCs would be acquiring land and titles and moving up the social strata, that this has always been a part of my campaigns. (Empire of the Petal Throne was another early influence in the 1970's too).

In my current campaign the PCs took on one task to ingratiate themselves with the Breland nobility, ended up uncovering a plot against the sovereign, and are currently on a mission for the King of Breland, with the promise of noble titles for success.

The biggest problem is what do you do with party dynamics? One option is were a party become 'noble + retinue' or aspire to being 'king + dukes', but this won't apply to all players or all parties. Sorting out the way to handle that which is compelling to all the players can be a challenge.

Cheers

 

[Fenes]

There's a lot of social mobility in my campaigns. In the current campaign, one PC climbed up the social ladder by rising in rank within her temple, and expanding its influence. Diplomacy, politics, and their challenges (as well as assassination attempts and similar plots) are a big part of the campaign. In an earlier campaign, a number of PCs strove for fame, fortune, and/or nobility, reaching their goals in various ways.

 

[Clavis]

My campaign in set in the declining years of a continent-spanning human Empire. The Empire is composed of various different Realms, each of which has its own laws, language and customs. Two of the realms are republics. One, a realm known for producing philosophers and academics, is more or less a true democracy. The other, where the PCs are now, is a plutocratic republic where one attains titles and voting rights based on wealth and ownership of property.

Social issues are very important in my campaign. The poor are numerous and loom large as I describe streetscapes. The Empire allows the enslavement of humanoids (orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, etc.), and the party has debated the morality of it (even as one of them keeps a goblin slave). I don't make it easy, because while I present the humanoids as stupid and evil, the slavers are also brutal and amoral. The party's Philosopher (exactly like a cleric, but an atheist whose powers come from reason and an understanding of the "fundamental vibrations" of reality) is heavily conflicted about the amount of killing and stealing the party has already done. The PCs have already gotten involved in politics on a village level, assassinating one evil corrupt brother so the other evil corrupt brother could gain control of his family's wealth and assume the office of Alderman.