Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

I think you're missing a larger point.  Everyone's fun is different.  Your fun and his are obviously very different.  There's a continuum of approaches between power trip fantasy and realism.  He enjoys play more towards one end and your preference is the other.  Neither is objectively better, but you probably shouldn't game together.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 09, 2025, 01:16:15 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

I think you're missing a larger point.  Everyone's fun is different.  Your fun and his are obviously very different.  There's a continuum of approaches between power trip fantasy and realism.  He enjoys play more towards one end and your preference is the other.  Neither is objectively better, but you probably shouldn't game together.

Probably not.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 09, 2025, 10:47:39 AMIf you show up wearing full battle regalia to everyday in-city social settings, unless you're in some battle-hardened frontier town/fort/outpost - people will look at you like someone walking into a bar wearing full tactical gear with a kitted out M-4/M-16 ready to slam it on. I have NPC's treat "those PC's" accordingly until they learn. The city watch looks at them as potential troublemakers, people of import may not want to deal with you for safety concerns, or conversely - you attract the wrong kinds of patrons because to them you flaunt the social order.

Fuck the "people of import". Who cares what some mouthy NPCs think? The player characters are the "people of import".

NOT NPCS.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 09, 2025, 01:16:15 PMI think you're missing a larger point.  Everyone's fun is different.  Your fun and his are obviously very different.  There's a continuum of approaches between power trip fantasy and realism.  He enjoys play more towards one end and your preference is the other.  Neither is objectively better, but you probably shouldn't game together.

I don't agree with all of Sacrificial Lamb's comment - but I also don't think his point is inherently unrealistic for a D&D or D&D-like situation.

If the PCs are untrusted and unimportant nobodies who wander into town with full tactical gear and M-16s (as tenbones presumes), then they won't be tolerated regardless of whether they put their body armor and M-16s into duffel bags instead of wearing them openly.

I think it is more realistic for the PCs to be considered people of import. If a knight in shining armor rides into town after having slain a dragon, ready to spend the dragon's hoard, then the townsfolk will generally show deference and respect - asking for stories, maybe swooning some, etc. They don't try to slap him around and teach him a lesson for being uppity.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 09, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 05:56:25 AMDo many settings actually consider that kind of thing, or is it more in the realm of how a GM presents their game?

*I* definitely enforce it, regardless of the setting. By "it" I mean whatever is necessary to maintain the status-quo. Even in settings that don't specify it, I will do that.

Since I run a lot of old-school Forgotten Realms the rules for this can be different in different places. Cormyr for instance has laws about keeping weapons peaceknotted. I also enforce the economic reality of having weapons and armor. Someone doesn't just run around in suits of plate and mail, or hell, even having horse.

The modern fantasy ren-faire does a disservice to the idea of earning a lot of this swag. It's taken for granted that "Fighters all wear platemail" and live in it (because you never know when the GM is going to jack you in the middle of the night!"

The other side of that is I enforce social etiquette. If you show up wearing full battle regalia to everyday in-city social settings, unless you're in some battle-hardened frontier town/fort/outpost - people will look at you like someone walking into a bar wearing full tactical gear with a kitted out M-4/M-16 ready to slam it on. I have NPC's treat "those PC's" accordingly until they learn. The city watch looks at them as potential troublemakers, people of import may not want to deal with you for safety concerns, or conversely - you attract the wrong kinds of patrons because to them you flaunt the social order.

As you point out, living in ones armor is not comfortable. I give my players all the leeway required to establish their modus operandi when out in the field. I hit them with penalties if they keep it up. In Savage Worlds you get hit with Fatigue, which suuuucks. It's like walking around in d20 with a -4 to all your rolls.

Invariably when I get new players they trip through all the wires - wear armor all the time, draw weapons at the drop of a hat (Because don't all encounters require murdering all NPCs at all times?) they're *always* ready for combat - even at the local Magistrates soiree where they're trying to rise in social station and *might* have a delicate matter one of the PC's could help with - but they show up with the gang, and one or more PC's are "Ready to rock!!!!!" (and they get stopped at the entrance and left out of the scene).

So yeah, the onus is on you to establish what is or isn't appropriate. I don't expect players to understand the historical reality of these things. Just show, and don't tell (outside of session zero).

Fuck the "people of import". Who cares what some mouthy NPCs think? The player characters are the "people of import".

NOT NPCS.

And frankly, what you're saying here is:

"Don't play fighters. Play wizards or monks."

I understand.

And yes, I also understand that's not really your conscious intention, but....incentive promotes behavior.

For example, if you create a disincentive for players to become a fighter (by taking away their armor and weapons, every time they walk into town), then your players will not play fighters. I mean, why would they? Right?

Nobody fucks with the Wizard, Gandalf, and his "mere walking staff", or with the Druid and his "mere walking staff", or even with the Diet Coke version of Goku (the weaponless party monk), but the fighter with armor and weapons gets targeted? So why am I playing a fighter then?

I understand the desire for "verisimilitude", but you're playing a FANTASY GAME. Therefore, you're taking the verisimilitude wankery too far.

As a response to this, all the characters (if they're smart) would probably just wear "glamered" armor (armor disguised as clothes), and hide their weapons in portable holes (or whatever). Or perhaps they'll choose classes that do not need weapons and armor to be effective. Or maybe they'll just avoid the cities entirely, and deep-six the DM's railroad....in order to avoid dealing with unnecessary DM power-tripping and DM dickery from "the people of import".

Seriously though....why would I ever become a fighter in such a campaign, when fighters are already weaker than primary spellcasters anyway? And now you want to make fighters even weaker and less effective, by depriving them of the tools of their class? Oh, but you want to do it in the name of "verisimilitude", so that suddenly makes it acceptable.

Well, how about....no?

In that case, I'll stick with the frontier towns and the dungeons then. That way, there are far fewer "Karen busybodies" trying to dictate terms to me.....

.....in a fantasy game.

Quote from: Kiero on May 09, 2025, 10:09:57 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2025, 09:33:51 AMI also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

I have over 20 years of martial arts experience. Never touched a gun in my life, besides an air rifle a few times.

Kiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

Greetings!

Hmmm...yeah, Verisimilitude is to my mind, very important. I don't run a crazy Gonzo fantasy game where Players can just stroll in wherever they want, ignore laws, custom, and Respecting the Authority of higher Social Status NPC's and act like absolute barbarians without any consequences. The Players seeking to act this way will get stomped on hard, and imprisoned, tortured, and killed in a brutal manner. Player Characters are not "people of import" within the world necessarily at all. There are many individuals and groups that are far more important than some group of mercenary adventurers that have just arrived at the city courtyard. Law, Order, Social Custom, and Authority are all important concepts for Player Characters to understand.

Like an ancient Roman philosopher responded to questions, "What have the Romans done?" "Yes, the Greeks have provided philosophy. The Celts have provided fine craftsmanship. Others have contributed much more. But what of the Romans?

The Romans have taught the world to obey."

Player Characters need to learn to obey those in authority and power above them, or they will be stomped and killed like any other criminal or rebel.

As far as "Fighters" being "deprived"--well, different circumstances provide ups and downs likewise for whoever of whatever Character Class. That's the way the world works. If Players don't like it, they don't have to play Fighters. Beyond that, though, as I have described, in any ordered and lawful society, any kind of BS from the Player Characters are likely to get them promptly killed by the authorities, regardless of whatever Character Class they happen to be. Monks acting stupid? They can be subdued, and then lashed until broken, and then strung up just the same. Arrogant, dangerous Mages or Priests? They can be brutally tortured and burned at the stake for worshipping Dark Gods, or embracing Unlawful Wizardry. Spellcasters don't get a free pass to act with impunity either, and the wheels of justice shall make them pay as well, one way or the other.

Mad-Max, Gonzo environments are fairly limited to particular locations, typically. The larger society that Player Characters operate in must be a functional and secure society, for there to be anything worthwhile. To not have laws, social custom, authority, then what you have is absolute anarchy and CHAOS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There's a reason that my own system diverges from later D&D on some of these points. In it, warriors and their relatives are stone cold killers. Sometimes they slice and dice across the battlefield before a caster can even get a spell or two off. Furthermore, they aren't as dependent on weapons as their D&D peers--not even early D&D peers. Meanwhile, magic is relatively tame up into the middle levels--about the same time that a warrior getting his bare hands on you is a bad idea.

That reason is that I wanted to play a game somewhere between what Kiero's very grounded, historical thing and Sacrificial Lamb's power fantasy.  And I wanted the players to have fun and be naturally inclined within the system to want to go where I was trying to take them.

So yeah, in my recent games, I'm closer to Kiero on this.  I want some grounded, at least realistic seeming (if you don't inspect it too close), behavior.  With also options to go wacky with the fantasy at times.  Among other reasons, it makes the fantastical stand out more.  (A handful of talking animals is fantastic. Race after race of common talking animals is a circus.)

I also want variety on this within the world--with players free to pick where they go and what they try. So I'm setting the range of options, but the players are finding the sub range they are comfortable spending most of their time pursuing. This makes it a negotiation point within the party, with even options to move the window around a bit depending on who shows for a given game.  If that means that they avoid certain places with rather restrictive rules, then so be it.

Nor is this limited to straight power.  I just had a party break very hard with what had been their home base, because they discovered some rot that ran deep. It having been their home base for some time, they also suspect that the rot is not pervasive, and there may even be some innocents involved. This puts them in a lot bigger quandary than would happen with, say, assaulting an evil fortified village.  it wasn't even weapon restrictions that made them suspicious--but how mundane gear and food was made available or not. 

I want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

Come to think of it, if one wants both realistic social structure and power trip fantasy one can just have the PCs be authority figures with a high degree of autonomy, like Paranoia troubleshooters, a band of ronin hired by a daimyo,or a privateer crew.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 02:26:33 PMI want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

I could say the same about players. If you reflexively think of players flouting all social convention and being assholes who need to get taught a lesson to respect authority, then don't bother and just ditch them. It's a player problem, so just get better players.

The most common answer that I hear is "Well, but there's too many players like that" or "Players are just naturally that way" or similar.

I think these are two sides of the same coin. I don't think it's inherent extreme assholeness on either side, but just the tendency for both GMs and players, which in most cases can be moderated with a little effort.

Quote from: SHARK on May 09, 2025, 02:19:53 PMI don't run a crazy Gonzo fantasy game where Players can just stroll in wherever they want, ignore laws, custom, and Respecting the Authority of higher Social Status NPC's and act like absolute barbarians without any consequences. The Players seeking to act this way will get stomped on hard, and imprisoned, tortured, and killed in a brutal manner. Player Characters are not "people of import" within the world necessarily at all. There are many individuals and groups that are far more important than some group of mercenary adventurers that have just arrived at the city courtyard. Law, Order, Social Custom, and Authority are all important concepts for Player Characters to understand.

Generally speaking, I have that the PCs are "people of import" within the circles that the game is about. So, say, if I'm playing a low-power game, then the PCs are among other low-power NPCs - like Cuthren Village in Harn which was the setting for an older campaign I was in.

If lower-power PCs are surrounded by more significant and powerful "people of import", then logically, the PCs should be doing menial jobs rather than heroics. The "people of import" should be able to get real heroes for the important work, not be stuck with sending unimportant, untrusted nobodies.

If the PCs are low-importance nobodies, then if something exciting happens - then presumably the important people will be the ones to deal with it. So we should shift the game to circles where the PCs are of import, so they are the ones to deal with important problems. No one wants to play as flunkies or clean-up crew for the more important NPC heroes.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

Yes, my own government is pretty tyrannical, though their restriction on weapons is orthogonal to that. Learning martial arts wasn't a response to my government.

You seem to have completely missed my point about said control being applied equally to magic or other sources of power in the major centres. This isn't "punish the fighters and let everyone else do what they like".

I'm not talking about banning weapons and armour altogether (another point that seems to have sailed over your head), I'm talking about it being restricted in settlements. Where social mores insist everyone does so. Because PCs shouldn't be exempt from the same rules that are applied to anyone else. Especially if they're random strangers.

Sorry, juvenile wish-fulfilment where we go all "fuck all authority" isn't my idea of fun as player or GM. Stopped being appealing when I grew up. Playing a fantasy game doesn't have to mean we just cut loose and do stupid shit for giggles. Which often seems to be the main argument for "empowerment". As people have said, there's different kinds of fun.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 02:26:33 PMI want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

You know that saying about how 90% of art produced is complete shit? In my experience that ratio applies to GMs too.

Sometimes that was all you had in your small town in the pre-Internet days. I still encounter them enough to make sure to have a polite exit strategy if they give early tells.

The number of times I've seen a GM enforce weapon restrictions without intending to screw the players over in 35 years of gaming? Zero.

I know good GMs exist. A friend of mine in another city couldn't stop gushing about how amazing his is. I just haven't had the fortune to have more than 3-4 in my experience vs. 7-8 truly abysmal ones and umpteen absolutely mediocre ones.

So, yeah, I don't blame anyone for being wary of such things... especially when spellcasters, while they might be punished for breaking the law are basically on the honor system instead of having to go about bound and gagged in their underwear (setting aside still spell, silent spell, and eschew material components).

I'll be honest, based on my past experience with GMs, my tendency in such a world as is being suggested would be to stay away from civilization until I could get strong enough to go Conan on the precious "betters" and end the campaign sitting on their throne drinking wine from their skulls while listening to the lamentations of their women.

Because that is what is best in life.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 09, 2025, 05:06:11 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 02:26:33 PMI want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

You know that saying about how 90% of art produced is complete shit? In my experience that ratio applies to GMs too.

Sometimes that was all you had in your small town in the pre-Internet days. I still encounter them enough to make sure to have a polite exit strategy if they give early tells.

The number of times I've seen a GM enforce weapon restrictions without intending to screw the players over in 35 years of gaming? Zero.

I know good GMs exist. A friend of mine in another city couldn't stop gushing about how amazing his is. I just haven't had the fortune to have more than 3-4 in my experience vs. 7-8 truly abysmal ones and umpteen absolutely mediocre ones.

So, yeah, I don't blame anyone for being wary of such things... especially when spellcasters, while they might be punished for breaking the law are basically on the honor system instead of having to go about bound and gagged in their underwear (setting aside still spell, silent spell, and eschew material components).

I'll be honest, based on my past experience with GMs, my tendency in such a world as is being suggested would be to stay away from civilization until I could get strong enough to go Conan on the precious "betters" and end the campaign sitting on their throne drinking wine from their skulls while listening to the lamentations of their women.

Because that is what is best in life.

Exactly.

It is almost inevitable that any power tripping DM that is truly that anal retentive about weapon and armor restrictions in fantasy cities in a fantasy game will weaponize that shit against players in the most frustratingly obnoxious ways.

So I do not buy any of the bullshit in this thread about "verisimilitude" or "respecting the authority" of asshole NPCs. Whenever I read a Conan comic book, I see that he wasn't scraping and kneeling and bowing before kings, even when people demanded that he do it.

Just....no.

I'll just come back to the city when I'm 18th-level, and then the asshole NPCs of "import" will do what I tell them to do.

Quote from: Kiero on May 09, 2025, 04:04:00 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

Yes, my own government is pretty tyrannical, though their restriction on weapons is orthogonal to that. Learning martial arts wasn't a response to my government.

You seem to have completely missed my point about said control being applied equally to magic or other sources of power in the major centres. This isn't "punish the fighters and let everyone else do what they like".

I'm not talking about banning weapons and armour altogether (another point that seems to have sailed over your head), I'm talking about it being restricted in settlements. Where social mores insist everyone does so. Because PCs shouldn't be exempt from the same rules that are applied to anyone else. Especially if they're random strangers.

Sorry, juvenile wish-fulfilment where we go all "fuck all authority" isn't my idea of fun as player or GM. Stopped being appealing when I grew up. Playing a fantasy game doesn't have to mean we just cut loose and do stupid shit for giggles. Which often seems to be the main argument for "empowerment". As people have said, there's different kinds of fun.

Wish fulfillment! Imagine an asshole DM getting butthurt about the pursuit of wish fulfillment....in a fantasy game. So now you want me to submit to power tripping NPC Karens, even in a fantasy? It boggles the mind. And I didn't miss your point. I brought it up, remember?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 07, 2025, 06:37:28 PMAnd if you made things sufficiently punitive against spellcasters too, then it would just be an all-monk campaign....where every player character would be focusing on mastering martial arts and unarmed combat.

And what a coincidence. You became a monk yourself in real life, in response to British tyranny.....via practicing over 20 years of unarmed martial arts combat.

Oh, but wait. That's just a coincidence. Right?

Quote from: jhkim on May 09, 2025, 03:17:15 PMI could say the same about players. If you reflexively think of players flouting all social convention and being assholes who need to get taught a lesson to respect authority, then don't bother and just ditch them. It's a player problem, so just get better players.

The most common answer that I hear is "Well, but there's too many players like that" or "Players are just naturally that way" or similar.

I think these are two sides of the same coin. I don't think it's inherent extreme assholeness on either side, but just the tendency for both GMs and players, which in most cases can be moderated with a little effort.

Well, you could say that the two were parallel, but my experience is that they are seldom like that. Yes, there are players that are going to screw up the game no matter what, and yes you should dump them.

However, there's a lot more players that don't really know what they want until they see it. So if the GM does nothing but kick them around, they'll never get to experience it. Likewise, if the GM doesn't put in some restrictions for them to run up against, they'll never get to experience it, either.  Because most players wants a challenge/conflict/opportunity however you want to frame it, to do something meaningful in the game.

I've got a player right now (fairly new to me, not new to gaming) that is more or less doing exactly what Chris said he'd do in such a game--trying to get strong so that he has a lever to push back.  It's a little bit of an attitude, but it's all in good fun. Initially, he kept pushing to find the edges.  I kept telling him, "You can do anything you want. Just if you tick someone off, they'll probably be consequences." In his case, that includes the other players.  He told me recently that he is so enjoying the game because I let him try whatever he wants but the world doesn't always let him get away with it. He loves the chance to push back against a world that might try to slap him down. One of the other players is having such a blast watching the whole thing enfold, he jumped in with him. Some of the other players have conspired to keep him somewhat under control and/or channel his energies in ways that they find useful. He knows it, and plays up to that to the hilt.  All of that sparks an immense amount of intra-party conflict and role playing, and even I don't know how it will come out.  To put the magic cherry on top of the fantastical sundae, he met up with some nefarious people that tried to recruit him, having observed his behavior. He very carefully walked a tightrope of neither turning them down outright or joining, leaving that unresolved, with no one really sure whether it is a threat or an opportunity.

None of that would be possible if I didn't have the world push back.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 07:03:14 PMI've got a player right now (fairly new to me, not new to gaming) that is more or less doing exactly what Chris said he'd do in such a game--trying to get strong so that he has a lever to push back. It's a little bit of an attitude, but it's all in good fun. Initially, he kept pushing to find the edges.
...
None of that would be possible if I didn't have the world push back.

That sounds cool - but it sounds like you're interpreting that if the PCs are "persons of import" then that means that the world doesn't push back and the PCs just get everything they want.

I think when the PCs are "persons of import", that's when it's most interesting for the world to push back. When the PCs are unimportant nobodies, then the only lever is more powerful NPCs slapping the PCs down for misbehaving.

If the PCs are persons of import, then they have skin in the game. They can have rivals who try to look better than them, and they can have petitioners who try to curry favor with them. If a rival upstart tries to look better than the PCs, then they can see what they stand to lose - and can get interested in better social posturing so they can outdo their rivals.

In the current Norse-myth-cyberpunk campaign I'm playing in, we're only a small warband - but we're still persons of import within our little neighborhood of Lower Vargstad. We have a rival warband called the "Iron Tide". They slightly outnumber us, but we've managed to outdo them several times. That rivalry is something that really makes us consider our reputation for the things that we do.

I think playing zero to hero means that no one starts out as a person of import but anyone could turn into one.  Assuming they play their cards right and have a little luck.  You aren't handed being a person of import. You earn it. 

Granted, in a setting with stricter social classes, that doesn't really work. You can't leave your class, or at least not very far from it.  That's another reason why I prefer my fantasy games emulate earlier medieval instead of ancient world or later medieval.  In early medieval, most people can't claw their way into person of import, but any given person could.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 09:22:40 PMI think playing zero to hero means that no one starts out as a person of import but anyone could turn into one.  Assuming they play their cards right and have a little luck.  You aren't handed being a person of import. You earn it. 

Granted, in a setting with stricter social classes, that doesn't really work. You can't leave your class, or at least not very far from it.  That's another reason why I prefer my fantasy games emulate earlier medieval instead of ancient world or later medieval.  In early medieval, most people can't claw their way into person of import, but any given person could.

I think that might be backwards. My understanding is that there's actually more social mobility in the late middle ages and the renaissance. Due to a large number of factors --the Black Death, the increasing influence of cities,  centralization of monarchical power (with the attendant growth of an adminstrative class), rising literacy rates, increase in professional militaries and economic growth-- the old feudal order slowly dies of irrelevance. It still wouldn't have been easy for a commoner to become a noble, but there were more ways to get ahead in the world which didn't require you to be one.

For example, I was reading a short bio of Geoffrey Chaucer earlier today. He was the son of a wine merchant (his great-grandfather was a tavern keeper), but because his family was wealthy enough to get him educated, he was able to start off as a page in a countess' household, end up working as a royal messenger and later a diplomat and several other senior government positions, as well as serving in the Hundred Years War.