Social Mobility in a Game

[TerraDave]

Social mobility: alternate reward

The Kobold Quarterlies first couple of issues had some good articles on this. And this is basically how I have used it (and which nicely fits a quasi-feudal society)

Of course there is also:

Social Mobility: way of easing character retirement

 

[drothgery]

Hmm... in the Eberron game I play in, we're 18th level...

My warmage PC rose from the upper middle class (son of wizards in Arcanix) to become second only to the Prince in the Knights Arcane in Aundair. He's got immense personal power (as an 18th level warmage, who was 13th level when he was created, as a 'retired mage general' type), some minor official political power (he's been knighted), and a lot of unofficial power that he's not too interested in using (he prefers hunting down evil monsters with his fellow adventurers to playing politics, but during the last war was a successful and popular officer).

The cleric PC has taken a Vow of Poverty, so he doesn't have any wealth, land, or high titles in the Church of the Silver Flame. But he's something of a cult figure, and is the Keeper's older brother; he's very influential in Thrane when he wants to be (though like his fellow PCs, he prefers to spend his time hunting down evil things, taking their stuff -- and in his case selling it and giving the money to the poor).

The fighter/barbarian PC was from humble origins among the halfork tribes of Khorvaire, but her reputation as a warrior means she can speak to the high councils just by asking.

Only the Kalashtar soulknife PC has pretty much avoided trappings of position; he's kind of been on the run from the Inspired since before he hooked up with the party, and so tries to keep a low profile (which is hard, given the company he keeps).

 

[Corinth]

The amount of autonomy granted depends of what the DMs allows and what the players put up with but it comes back to being close to social mobility. Do you allow it or not?

No. Autonomy is entirely decided by personal power and might; the ability to do as one wishes, which includes defending against attempts by others to impose their will upon you, facilitates social mobility- it doesn't require it, and it doesn't make it inevitable, as autonomy merely has to be enough to keep you free and independent.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

No.

What are you disagreeing with? Allowing social mobility in your game? My assessment that social mobility and/or autonomy depends on the DM and Players? Or my equating, for the purposes of this discussion, of autonomy with social mobility/

 

[Mallus]

Autonomy is entirely decided by personal power and might

Tell that to the DM.

Wait, in my case I *am* the DM.

So tell it to me...

Character "autonomy" is just another product of the context established by the DM, under the standard "DM's got most of the narrative authority" model.

 

[howandwhy99]

As much as my players want.

QFT

It's there if they want to try their hands at it.

 

[Herobizkit]

In almost every case of my 20 years of playing, either my players or myself invariably plot on building a town/fortress and collecting a body of NPC followers/worshipers. In the rare cases that this does not happen, the players are certain to become the most well-known person in any society.

Many of my campaigns in the past have involved exactly such a story -- growing in social prowess from a dirt-farming peasant to a member of high society.

The fact that there are instances to suggest that most players are NOT interested in such things surprises me.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

How so?

A) I do find games that include social change to be interesting, even potentially more interesting than simply killing everything in sight and taking their stuff.

B) I think as a people and as a society we possess a fetish about killing, rapists, theft and destruction. We lionize the killers, rapists, thieves and destroyers. We pour contempt down (some times in subtly ways, some times not) on the healers, the helpers, the givers and the builders. We day dream about inflicting harm on any one or anything we can and call it good while deriding the hopeful as childish, or being boring which is now the ultimate and finally unforgivable sin.

My players "are allowed" to have whatever social mobility they're interested in...

Thank you for responding, Mr. Skemp. I have admired your work and the work of White Wolf for many years.

Also, your response seems to be the best thought out and most reasonable response. But I doubt it reflects most DMs SOP. In my experience, many DMs want the players to simply chase their own ails for ever and ever.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

In the campaign that I ran previous to the one that I'm running now, the PCs had no social mobility... They started out at the top of the social ladder as kings, emperors, heads-of-church, and so on... And they stayed there.

In the campaign that I am running right now, the players are currently strangers in a strange land... so they don't have much in the way of social leverage... But they are quickly on their way to becoming local celebrities, which they will have the option to (if they so desire) turn into social standing and/or political power. I suppose, of course, that they could also end up just pissing everyone off, too...

Later
silver

 

[Barastrondo]

Thank you for responding, Mr. Skemp. I have admired your work and the work of White Wolf for many years.

Thanks! It's appreciated.

Also, your response seems to be the best thought out and most reasonable response. But I doubt it reflects most DMs SOP. In my experience, many DMs want the players to simply chase their own ails for ever and ever.

Well, I wouldn't put it as negatively as that. Some DMs might want to "keep their players in line", absolutely. But there's also the question of whether or not a DM feels comfortable with that kind of implementing social change or not, and they might not feel entirely comfortable with that for some legitimate reasons (albeit ones that could be overcome).

For one, there's the trouble of source inspiration. While there are definitely a lot of interesting works dealing with high-end politics and social engineering, they're not really escapist in tone, and a lot of folks tend to draw more from escapist works when finding inspiration for RPGs. Sort of why you find more people talking about Battlestar Galactica than the Biography Channel on gaming (and other geek) messageboards. A lot of fantasy epics have characters ascend to the seat of power, but don't actually depict the effort of government in interesting and convincing ways. Since this sort of subject matter is usually a bit more demanding, it's harder to outright show the reader/viewer why this sort of thing is cool.

It's also a lot of work on the DM's part to adjust a world to take into account players changing it. This is kind of like the old superhero MO: it's easier to tell stories about defending the status quo than it is to show a world change and build and still keep it accessible. If the players manage to really clean up a country, that country becomes a little less exciting to adventure in for the next group of PCs, something that may affect the perspective of DMs who plan to use the same world for multiple campaigns. (I'm not taking sides, here, mind; just speculating. And admittedly the PCs who become vicious tyrants will pretty much provide a new campaign for the next group of PCs to overthrow them...)

And it's not something DMs are really trained for. To make a plausible campaign in which players spend active screen time mucking around with the building blocks of society knowledge of those building blocks, improvisational ability, and of course the usual sense of dramatic timing. Teaching DMs how to manage this has never been part of basic DM training, more sort of an advanced opt-in system. And to opt in, you have to be interested in it despite the previous potential roadblocks. So you'll often see DMs who allow their players to reach high station and influence, but do so as closure to their careers and then start up a new swords-and-peril campaign, with the former heroes now NPCs. (And hey, the source inspiration does this too...) This is one of those things that's gradually changing, though, what with Exalted and REIGN and the like gaining purchase.

It's a tricky business. I think the best possible evangelism for that kind of socially dynamic game is really just doing it, playing with a group who's willing to try it and finding out how good success is. I also think that it might be one of those play styles in which Rat Bastardy can be a bit more discouraging than encouraging, given the generally lower level of familiarity and comfort that players have with this kind of play. It really is a style of play which isn't for everyone.

I definitely agree with you that it can be inspirational to build entire cultures, prevent wars, rescue the local ecology and make things a better place instead of just putting regiments of bad guys to the sword. But sometimes people feel a little more comfortable digging a village well instead of working out a nation's aqueduct system, and it might not be just because the DM's a fascist.

(I mean, more so than is necessary. Sometimes you need that fascism.)