Social Mobility in a Game

[Arkhandus]

Based on previous threads posted here, it appears that not only is there little to no support for games where the PCs can try to become rulers (and make social changes for the better) or settings with democracies, but most players and DMs are against such things. They actively do not want games where players take on social issues. They actively do not want games that include democracy.

Add to this the TLC the RBDMs get.

Now, those elements taken together begs a related question.

How much social mobility is allowed in your game?

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.)

This is not a matter of “There is always a bigger fish.” There is a scale of ranks, not just Peasant and God. Moving up in social status is not automatically the same thing as becoming Emperor of the Mountain.

How much social mobility is allowed in your game?

People really need to be consistent.

Odd, my games tend to have a lot more democracy, republics, and social mobility in general. Not in all places, but still. Heck, my first campaign as a DM was set in a homebrew, Azeria, in the Kingdom of Dargoth. Which was really just a loose republic under the control of a king, whose ancestor was elected leader of the original settlers by democratic process.

Eventually his position as leader was just cemented well enough, through his effectiveness and commanding presence (it didn't hurt that he was a Paladin, yet humbler than most), that the settlers crowned him King of the new land they had settled (he did a lot for them by that point, in settling disputes, keeping the other community leaders in-line, and warding off monsters). The sorta-democratic, sorta-republican government the first King of Dargoth put in place ensured that folks would have fair say in their own communities and could, if they ever felt it necessary, demand that the King step down (if enough of them sought to do so). Didn't hurt that the first King, in his wisdom, set forth laws that would limit some of the power the Kings would have in Dargoth.

I don't restrict PC social status much in my games.... If folks wanted to start off playing kings or something, I'd have to tailor the game to fit that, but I don't generally object to PCs being knights, samurai, or other sorts of noble. And I don't really get in the way if they try to reach higher status, though it hasn't come up yet in my games. The PCs might have to move to a particular region or something if they want such status, since some nations might not allow the kind of advancement they seek, but that's only the case with a few nations.


In my Rhunaria campaign, out of the 8-11 actual governments across the land (in addition to the numerous tribal societies around them), 2 are democracies, 4 are republics, and 3 or so are monarchies or empires of some sort.

The dwarves have a Romanesque republic, the gnomes and halflings each have democracies, the elves are split between tribes and two republics, orcs and goblinoids and others are generally tribal, kobolds have a sort of loose republic, hobgoblins have a sort of empire, and humans are divided amongst tribes, one theocratic monarchy, one empire, and one loose kingdom.

There are tons of independant towns and such, and the PCs have been through several of those independant places. One such area is ruled by a Duke who's just a retired adventurer, popular in the region and successful enough previously to gather the support of the locals into forming a small Duchy, giving himself the title of Duke even though he wasn't a noble (just a peasant, who went off adventuring and forged his own little territory with the plunder and his own social talents).

The PCs are fully aware that they can gather people into a new kingdom or whatnot if they really want to, once they're successful enough to get the kind of recognition and wealth to build their own keep or castle, like Duke Baram did a few decades earlier (as an NPC, but an example of what adventurers can do if they put their minds to it). The party's even involved in an adventure now that may open up an area and its locals to their influence, to where they could lay claim to the place and build their own little kingdom right there if they felt like it.

The PCs could even just become local heroes, maybe receive their own keep from a local lord as a gesture of gratitude (and a bribe for their continued efforts in protecting the region). If the PCs stayed in the Majestic Kingdom, they could rise in status there to being merchant lords (though still not quite nobles, but close enough for most intents and purposes). Under the right circumstances they could even be knighted, joining the landed nobles. However, if the party tried to get similar rewards in the other human nations, they'd get nowhere; the Hirotashi Empire and Theocracy of Riza are both strict caste societies, with only minimal capacity for advancement between castes (and no such chance for foreigners).

One of the PCs in my Rhunaria campaign was a deposed noble from the Majestic Kingdom, trying to acquire enough wealth and power to move against the treacherous fellow that had taken over his family's land. That player had to quit though, for some unexplained real-life reason (I never really found out why).

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Interesting that you chose to mention BSG. Assuming we're talking about the current version, BSG's plot has vastly more to do with politics, societal intrigue, and ethical/social discussion than with blasting Cylons. It's an excellent example of how the best fantasy draws a great deal from less escapist content and achieves some measure of significance by placing the heavier stuff in a "fantasy" context. That is something I've also found effective in D&D campaigns.

 

[Barastrondo]

Interesting that you chose to mention BSG. Assuming we're talking about the current version, BSG's plot has vastly more to do with politics, societal intrigue, and ethical/social discussion than with blasting Cylons. It's an excellent example of how the best fantasy draws a great deal from less escapist content and achieves some measure of significance by placing the heavier stuff in a "fantasy" context. That is something I've also found effective in D&D campaigns.

I haven't had regular access to television for almost seven years now. It is entirely possible that this wasn't the best comparison to draw.

Trust a rules lawyer to call me on it!

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

As I'm the guy who started the first thread, my stance should be obvious.

In my current Exalted campaign, the assumtion is that the PCs are going to take charge of nations and help shape the destiny of the world. Not because they necessarily want to (the PCs, that is - not the players), but because they recognize that few are as qualified for this task.

If I'm going to run a D&D campaign again, I won't make social climbing quite as easy - but the opportunity nonetheless is there if the PCs pursue it.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Some social mobility.
The one game I ran all the way to 20th one player started his own barony and sucessful merchant company. Two players basically failied social advancement, one being banished from his homeland for his part in a coup and the other was defeated by the "Family" and so started his own international spy organization as a fall back plan. The Druidess succeed become the contients archdruid, but did not take advantage of her power or influence, she mostly claimed the title to stop her superior from interferring with her.

This group was too caught up in demon wars to be that politcally active. Planehopping made regular rulership difficult.
One character retired to seek the dwarven throne, and was successful, but off stage.

The most structured social mobility came from a military campaign where the party went from vetran, swordbrother then to knight of the wall. One was named the halfling messiah, but there was a rival to the title, and the PC was slain by an assasin. One was named to the chief magical postion of the army, all by about 10th level.

hmm a social mobility game perhaps ill sketch one up.

Edit- as for gov types I had a corrupt republic, running the largest City-state. One player tried to start a democracy, but was squashed by his party members. Most other governments were heritary monarchies, or had a immortal ruler of some sort.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

For my campaigns social mobility is largely determined by in-game events. What the PC's do, who they meet, and how they react is what determines THEIR social mobility, but everyone else in the game world generally stays where they are on the social ladder. This is not to say that NPC's can't or won't be socially mobile, but the game is not ABOUT them. The game is about the PC's and what THEY do and what happens to THEM. It might be ludicrous for an NPC peasant farmer to even dream of becoming a powerful, noteworthy person leaving his born social station far behind, but for a PC all he has to do is save the princess, protect the merchants caravan, kill the dragon, do a favor for the Duke, etc. PC's determine their own fates - as DM I DICTATE the fate of everyone else. Also, particularly in 3E, characters increase in levels astonishingly faster than they have in previous editions (largely because of house rules we always used to use). Levels do not dictate, but certainly have a massive influence on the social status of any character.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

It happens in my games some times.

I think social mobility comes as part and parcel of the greater power and fame that PCs acquire: as long as that power was used in a manner that society approved off and its use is known about in the right circles. So the heroes who have spent a great deal of time and effort risking their lives for the King can expect to get noble titles. Those who just work hard for the little folk out on the frontiers can probably expect to get overlooked when the next New Years Honours list is published but they may get elected Mayor.

Those who have been spending their time trying to overthrow the kingdom are obviously not going to get en-nobled. Unless they succeed. Yay the iron fisted tyrant.

I think social mobility is a great reward for players. One that has the benefit of creating new adventures for the GM. Different styles of adventure become possible (as said above by several others). And even good old monster hunts can take on more dramatic tension when it's the heroes' people that are under threat. "Oh my god, little Timmy has wandered out onto the moors under a full moon!"

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

It is encouraging to hear so many allow it, but it does seem inconsistent and TPK and RBDM philosophy.