How do you make a point of roleplaying the members of the nobility in your games? What tips would you have to other GMs about how to effectively portray them, their attitudes, the way they'd talk, things they'd say, or other details of their difference from the common mass of humanity?
RPGPundit
Oftentimes, I find that players have difficulty understanding the tenuous yet tangible differences between social classes. Patterns of speech, standards in dress and mannerisms largely differ between the gently-bred and the lowborn, accentuated primarily in social situations.
One thing I've wrapped into the ZWEIHÄNDER character creation process is the selection of a social class. The differences in social class mechanically grant a boon, but penalize social skill interactions with their betters. Naturally, there are traits and special abilities that allow some characters to avoid these penalties. Otherwise, players have to get creative with the disguise skill to avoid the penalties.
One thing right off the bat is that nobility is a social network as much as formal legal rights and responsibilities. In some ways in a medieval society it operates no different than inner city gang warfare.
If you are playing a campaign where one or more PCs are nobles you need to establish who they know. Who should be consider their patron and who should be consider their clients.
The social differences from the commoners are largely just superficial, similar to a secret handshake a fraternal society would use.
The true power of the nobility is in the social network they are part of and the scope of the issues they are concerned about. The bickerings of tradesmen is limited to their neighborhood while the bickering of nobles can impact an entire country. I found focusing on the social network rather than social details makes the whole thing more understandable from a players point of view.
My players sometimes select nobility as a background, and most carry themselves with higher amounts of grace and etiquette than the other characters. Often they become the de facto spokesperson, even if their Charisma is Low to Average.
I don't like to put a lot of perks in there unless it's part of the kit or package. One background doesn't innately give you an advantage over another, but they will dictate how you roleplay, think and feel during play.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;625573One thing I've wrapped into the ZWEIHÄNDER character creation process is the selection of a social class. The differences in social class mechanically grant a boon, but penalize social skill interactions with their betters. Naturally, there are traits and special abilities that allow some characters to avoid these penalties. Otherwise, players have to get creative with the disguise skill to avoid the penalties.
This makes me interested in your game. I'll have to to take a closer look at it.
With nobles being a career path in Traveller, it has been pretty common for a character to be of certain high social standing initially, rather than developed in game. I usually find it easier to assist players with this type of character's advantages and disadvantages as what celebrities live, rather than nobility of the past. It seems to help role-play of the characters.
In the past I've usually made note of how they're seldom to be found alone, except in their own, well-protected, sanctums... they will commonly travel with a retinue of servants and other nobles. Their dealings with lower classes will often be through intermediaries... so even getting to the point of meeting one might involve traversing a few layers of friends and hirelings. Almost as if they're part of a hive-mind or something.
They're the guys not covered in shit.
In my Warhammer games, nobles certainly behave differently and expect deference from others. It's part of the setting for me.
In my Mazes & Minotaurs games, there is a Noble class to differentiate them from the masses.
Palladium Fantasy has a Noble OCC, but its optional because its low powered compared to the rest of the Adventurer OCCs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Class_Twit_of_the_Year
As for roleplaying advice, I suggest approaching nobles individually as any other NPC taking into account their background, but all nobles share one thing in common - they aren't commoners.
Even a poor noble is treated differently because they exist on a higher social strata and thus never have the experience of being a non-noble. They are used to a world where they are on top and others do what they say upon command.
In my OD&D world, a Lawful Noble will believe in noblesse oblige and his role as guardian, protector and shining example to his lesser men. But no matter what, they are still his lessers and must show their respect and know their place.
A Neutral Noble may care about his own vassals and maybe his own serfs, but only in relation to how they can best serve his noble house. Their health and well being matters because that benefits him. Or this is Noble who really doesn't care about nobility and accepts the world is divided into haves and have nots and its good to be rich.
A Chaotic Noble is the Rich Asshole who uses his station as a weapon of fear, intimidation and pleasure at the loss of others too powerless to disobey him. He's the Prima Nocta guy.
Chinless wonders, servants, very hung up on social rank and position, not afraid to pull rank when required.
I think the temptation is to play snooty, unlikeable people who pull rank. Actual aristocrats (or other powerful real world people) can have an easy charm that wins people over.
The proper way to play a Noble is not to change a thing from how you'd normally play the character if he wasn't a Noble. If he's rude, he's rude, if he is caring, he's caring. You might have a touch of entitlement, or even naivety though.
In most fantasy games, the time period we're talking about (middle ages) would mean that the non-Noble characters would act differently towards the Noble character. Its ingrained and the way the world works.
I've spent a fair bit of time with real life nobles, both rusticated throwbacks and the urbanised ascendancy, and usually I found them mostly unashamed hedonists, still with a sprinkling of arrogance and some sort of belief that they were above the law, largely out of touch with reality. Breeding and ancestry was a big thing. Still that may have just been the crowd I was with.
Nobles back then were often literally superior to the commoners in many regards. Away from their power and social contacts, they had the benefits of an education, good food and a dry place to sleep for their entire lives, and military training. In most given contests the smart money would be on the noble to win.
That would translate into arrogance usually I would imagine. Definetely hedonism and being out of touch with the common folk.
I think a lot of buy-in from the players of commoner characters is required. "Quality" is a mystique that depends on the underclasses being well trained to bow and scrape almost instinctively, and perhaps most importantly, those players need to take it seriously enough to give place. Blow that mystique through impertinence, and you puzzle your fellow peasants as well as the noble before society enforces its norms on your uppity backside.
Whether the noble character is played arrogantly or benevolently,what s/he says goes. The occasional Knuckles-bows-to-no-man player needs to be kept in line with in-game consequences from NPCs and from the other players, who will shoot him "what are you--stupid?" looks.
This is a significant challenge, particularly in America where we pretend to be so egalitarian. We players aren't automatically familiar with appropriate forms of address and etiquette when dealing with our "betters." Some balance needs to be struck that preserves both the agency of the lower-ranking PCs and the velvet rope around the nobility.
Quote from: RPGPundit;625570How do you make a point of roleplaying the members of the nobility in your games? What tips would you have to other GMs about how to effectively portray them, their attitudes, the way they'd talk, things they'd say, or other details of their difference from the common mass of humanity?
RPGPundit
Wow. This is so dependant on setting it isn't even funny.
A
Classic Traveller Third Imperium noble may range from a starship captain who has been honorably knighted due to distinguished service to a marquis of a world who was granted the title because his great-grandfather was the one who first agreed to bring that world into the Third Imperium.
A
Dark Sun noble would most likely be a city-state Templar and not only have all sorts of ties to their Dragon King as well as the pseudo-religious outlook of that individual city-state.
Could you whittle down the possibilities here for me?
Quote from: estar;625575One thing right off the bat is that nobility is a social network as much as formal legal rights and responsibilities. In some ways in a medieval society it operates no different than inner city gang warfare.
If you are playing a campaign where one or more PCs are nobles you need to establish who they know. Who should be consider their patron and who should be consider their clients.
The social differences from the commoners are largely just superficial, similar to a secret handshake a fraternal society would use.
That's not just superficial. And its not the secret handshake, its everything else. The "secret handshake" is a trick; because it in fact is the part you could look up or learn or be taught illegally (like say, how to dress like a noble, style your hair like a noble, and forms of address); but there's a whole set of OTHER social rules, much more subtle ones of language and common experience which means that a faker will inevitably get found out.
Unless of course he gets so absolutely great at faking it that he basically ends up being part of the secret society anyways.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Spinachcat;625755As for roleplaying advice, I suggest approaching nobles individually as any other NPC taking into account their background, but all nobles share one thing in common - they aren't commoners.
Even a poor noble is treated differently because they exist on a higher social strata and thus never have the experience of being a non-noble. They are used to a world where they are on top and others do what they say upon command.
Exactly! But its more than just a world where others do as they command; its a world where they have a certain sense of significance.
In renaissance Poland there was a term for what was called a "boot noble", that is to say a hrabia (Count) who owned nothing but the boots on his feet. And while in a certain sense this term was derogatory, its still meant he was part of this noble tradition, he still had a shield and a clan and a motto, and most importantly he had duties and expectations, of how he had to act and how he could or could not allow others to act toward him. He couldn't just wallow in vulgarity or impropriety the way his equally poor neighbour could.
These days the vast majority of Poland's nobility are "boot nobles" and they still feel this way.
This is a big part of things that a lot people, especially in north america I think but even in countries that should know better (like those in commonwealth countries that talk about how awful the Queen is or how the royals get "an easy life off the public teat") utterly fail to get about Aristocracy: for the people who actually live in it, its mostly not about what you get, or what you have, or what you're entitled to, but about what you must do.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;626343but about what you must do.
Hahaha! One Baron I know divorced his wife and knocked the walls between the spare bedrooms making them into a disco to attract the local girls, and him well past sixty. Seriously, you must know some different aristocrats.
Shower of wasters (almost) to a man.
Quote from: Blackhand;625582My players sometimes select nobility as a background, and most carry themselves with higher amounts of grace and etiquette than the other characters. Often they become the de facto spokesperson, even if their Charisma is Low to Average.
I don't like to put a lot of perks in there unless it's part of the kit or package. One background doesn't innately give you an advantage over another, but they will dictate how you roleplay, think and feel during play.
Yes, this is a sticky wicket, since in our world being a noble had objective advantages over everyone else. Some players take umbrage at having to treat a fellow PC as a superior - these are crappy roleplayers.
Elsewise you're spot on Blackhand.
I listened to the mercury theatre production of Around the world in 80 days, whilst drawing, a couple of days ago; anyway, the main character Phinous Fogg is a gentlemen, which I took to be some kind of minor nobility or other.
Whatever, when at the end of the story it appears that he has been financially ruined, he is pretty much obliged to commit suicide. Things work out for him, but still, I think that is an interesting take on things.
Further, I imagine the fabulously wealthy and idle aristocracy would look down a bit on the impoverished adventuring nobles. Unless they are some kind of crazy manic visionary dude, anyway.
Quote from: jeff37923;626158Wow. This is so dependant on setting it isn't even funny.
A Classic Traveller Third Imperium noble may range from a starship captain who has been honorably knighted due to distinguished service to a marquis of a world who was granted the title because his great-grandfather was the one who first agreed to bring that world into the Third Imperium.
A Dark Sun noble would most likely be a city-state Templar and not only have all sorts of ties to their Dragon King as well as the pseudo-religious outlook of that individual city-state.
Could you whittle down the possibilities here for me?
As usual around these parts, when no other specification has been made, assume we're talking Western European Fantasy.
Quote from: The Traveller;626356Hahaha! One Baron I know divorced his wife and knocked the walls between the spare bedrooms making them into a disco to attract the local girls, and him well past sixty. Seriously, you must know some different aristocrats.
Shower of wasters (almost) to a man.
Just how old a baron is he? And I don't mean his age, I mean the "barony"?
I presume you're talking about England here?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;626409Just how old a baron is he? And I don't mean his age, I mean the "barony"?
I presume you're talking about England here?
RPGPundit
No, Ireland. There are still a few of them creaking around in places like Cork. I've no idea how far back the title went, I'd guess probably to the time of the Plantations, since that's when a lot of these lads appeared - 17th century? A dissolute bunch, cravats, veiny noses, harrumphing and pooh-poohing past their impressive moustaches, the works. Really, they said pooh-pooh. In a conversation.
Quote from: RPGPundit;625570How do you make a point of roleplaying the members of the nobility in your games? What tips would you have to other GMs about how to effectively portray them, their attitudes, the way they'd talk, things they'd say, or other details of their difference from the common mass of humanity?
They tend to be better educated and are more likely to be well-travelled.
They exhibit an air of superiority; they know exactly who their peers are, and are not.
They are generally more competitive, particularly with respect to social station. Commoners spend their lives being told to keep their place; they internalise it, and it manifests as both deference and constrained ambition. Aristocrats, on the other hand, are forever jockeying for position, through offices, titles, succession planning, and clientage/patronage; they
dream bigger.
Beyond that, they can be kind or cruel, venal or generous, devout or impious, witty or dull - basically anything any other person can be.
Quote from: The Traveller;626412No, Ireland. There are still a few of them creaking around in places like Cork. I've no idea how far back the title went, I'd guess probably to the time of the Plantations, since that's when a lot of these lads appeared - 17th century? A dissolute bunch, cravats, veiny noses, harrumphing and pooh-poohing past their impressive moustaches, the works. Really, they said pooh-pooh. In a conversation.
Well, geez, what do you want? Its Ireland, we're talking about a very different historical dynamic with the aristocracy there than in almost any other european country.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;626989Well, geez, what do you want? Its Ireland, we're talking about a very different historical dynamic with the aristocracy there than in almost any other european country.
Maybe so, but then again the nobility in most countries weren't exactly good citizens, ever. The whole "ransom the nobles and hang the commoners" deal was single handedly responsible for centuries of war throughout Europe. There's a very good reason for the mass beheadings in France.
Quote from: The Traveller;626992The whole "ransom the nobles and hang the commoners" deal was single handedly responsible for centuries of war throughout Europe.
I was just reading something about that the other day: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130124091540.htm
Quote from: RPGPundit;626406As usual around these parts, when no other specification has been made, assume we're talking Western European Fantasy.
But that still leaves everything wide open. For example, you might have a nobility made up of newcomers who had only recently taken over by force or were only recently deeded the land, like when Rolf Ganger and other vikings took over what became Normandy. Manners, customs and etiquette for these nobles could simply boil down to "Give them what they want and don't piss them off".
For later in the Middle Ages, just look at the Plantagenets. Henry II dressed plainly, spoke plainly, and didn't care if peasants mocked him -in fact he often joined in the fun. It's hard to imagine his sons tolerating that sort of thing -and his sons were as different from one another as they were from him.
Quote from: One Horse Town;625776The proper way to play a Noble is not to change a thing from how you'd normally play the character if he wasn't a Noble. If he's rude, he's rude, if he is caring, he's caring. You might have a touch of entitlement, or even naivety though.
In most fantasy games, the time period we're talking about (middle ages) would mean that the non-Noble characters would act differently towards the Noble character. Its ingrained and the way the world works.
Exactly.
A DM could use alignment as a guide: Lawful characters will stick to custom, rules and etiquette as much as possible while Chaotic ones will only care that they get the respect they think
they deserve, and will only stick to custom as much as they think they have to. Good and evil can show how they go about applying their rights and duties.
However, the personality traits on page 101 of the 1E DMG (if all else fails, roll) are much more informative. It's not wise to insult an NPC who is proud and unforgiving, whether they're Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or anywhere inbetween. Even more so if they are a noble or in some other position of power and influence. Like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch.
Nobles as characters? Sure. They're the ones without any shit all over them.
Quote from: Spinachcat;625733They're the guys not covered in shit.
:)
From our last game: GAZ1 has background tables, "titled nobility" is one of the possibilities. One player got this on his roll - and it's definitely the newest player with the most propensity for silly/socially unacceptable characters.
So now we have young Master Steakfist, son of Lord Steakfist, flouncing about the campaign. He's used it to good effect at least once (in gaining admittance to a snooty inn to meet a contact), but he'll also have to deal with his actions having a reflection on the family (and possible rebukes from home should they relect poorly). So far it's just been a source of fun, though. I'll clamp down on it if it becomes problematic.
Quote from: RPGPundit;626406As usual around these parts, when no other specification has been made, assume we're talking Western European Fantasy.
That still leaves a lot of room to maneuver. The only common thing is that they are people who have been shackled with being aristocrats. This can range from being inundated from birth with the knowledge that the person will be a leader who has definite responsibilities and duties to being told from birth that because they are special that they can engage in any kind of amoral or unethical behavior they like.
As far as role-playing, it depends on what kind of personality I need to be present in the NPC for the adventure being played. Even Shakespeare showed a wide range in his noble characters from
MacBeth to
Henry V.
Of course there are just as many ranges of personality in the aristocracy as in any other group; so this isn't about personalities, but about "programming".
And when I was talking before about "what you're expected to do", I wasn't suggesting that the aristocracy will always behave in that way; obviously that's not true.
What I'm suggesting is that this is a central theme for them as a social class, and the issue of living up to those duties or not is something of monumental importance for them (whether they're the ones living up to things, or failing to, or refusing to).
RPGPundit
It's funny how American anti-elitism colours the perception of aristocrats.
If we're talking about feudal lords of the middle ages, they were not by and large effete, simpering dandies. Rather, they were super-jocks dedicated body and soul to warfare, hunting, and competition. They were not only richer than the peasants, but their diet and lifestyle left them taller, healthier, stronger, and smarter. Physically and in battle they were as dominant as NFL linebackers would be against recreational flag-football players.
So I play them like Khan and his followers from the original Star Trek episode; mentally and physically superior, and well aware of their superiority.
Quote from: Haffrung;627443It's funny how American anti-elitism colours the perception of aristocrats.
If we're talking about feudal lords of the middle ages, they were not by and large effete, simpering dandies. Rather, they were super-jocks dedicated body and soul to warfare, hunting, and competition. They were not only richer than the peasants, but their diet and lifestyle left them taller, healthier, stronger, and smarter. Physically and in battle they were as dominant as NFL linebackers would be against recreational flag-football players.
So I play them like Khan and his followers from the original Star Trek episode; mentally and physically superior, and well aware of their superiority.
Though you should note that they were far far less likely to actually be educated than the medieval "middle" class. Merchants and artisans needed to work with numbers. Clerics and doctors learned how to read and write. Nobles in the middle ages usually had little reason to do either. This didn't really change until the renaissance, though of course throughout the middle ages there were important exceptions, but that's what they were, exceptions: nobles who just happened to be educated by some kind of quirk or through whatever reason (most often chance: sons initially intended for the priesthood that instead ended up inheriting the title due to the untimely death of older siblings).
You're right about the rest, though. They were bred and trained to kick ass.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Haffrung;627443It's funny how American anti-elitism colours the perception of aristocrats.
If we're talking about feudal lords of the middle ages, they were not by and large effete, simpering dandies. Rather, they were super-jocks dedicated body and soul to warfare, hunting, and competition. They were not only richer than the peasants, but their diet and lifestyle left them taller, healthier, stronger, and smarter. Physically and in battle they were as dominant as NFL linebackers would be against recreational flag-football players.
So I play them like Khan and his followers from the original Star Trek episode; mentally and physically superior, and well aware of their superiority.
Huh. In my experience, most Americans (or at least the ones I know) don't HAVE a preconception of an aristocrat (we just don't have aristocrats*,
period), so most of my (and my players') ideas of an aristocrat is formed by... the BBC.
Python, Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, etc. Which universally paint a pretty... garish picture of the Upper Class Twit.
* The closest we have to an aristocracy is the TMZ set - your Hiltons, your Kardashians, etc. Which would not lead one to a favorable impression, either. Not to mention the political dynasties, Kennedies, Bushes, and such - which are, if anything, worse.
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;627677Huh. In my experience, most Americans (or at least the ones I know) don't HAVE a preconception of an aristocrat (we just don't have aristocrats*, period), so most of my (and my players') ideas of an aristocrat is formed by... the BBC.
Python, Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, etc. Which universally paint a pretty... garish picture of the Upper Class Twit.
* The closest we have to an aristocracy is the TMZ set - your Hiltons, your Kardashians, etc. Which would not lead one to a favorable impression, either. Not to mention the political dynasties, Kennedies, Bushes, and such - which are, if anything, worse.
I'm thinking of the pop culture portrayals of aristocrats in everything from The Princess Bride to Braveheart.
Starting in the 60s, British pop culture poked fun at aristocrats, as part of the revolt against traditional social heirarchies. But before that, aristocrats were typically the protagonists of British movies and books - the capable and honourable heroes taking the well-meaning but bumbling peasants in hand.
Quote from: Haffrung;627688Starting in the 60s, British pop culture poked fun at aristocrats, as part of the revolt against traditional social heirarchies. But before that, aristocrats were typically the protagonists of British movies and books - the capable and honourable heroes taking the well-meaning but bumbling peasants in hand.
I agree that there has been the shift you describe, but it seems to me that it was a long and continuous shift rather than something starting in the 1960s. In particular, I think of Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster stories as the classic poking fun at the aristocracy - written starting in the 1920s.
For me, the big hurdle of playing pseudo-historical aristocracy is that it is difficult to play the outright class-consciousness in a way that modern-day players accept (similar to issues with racism and sexism). Other players just have a hard time accepting casual discrimination like "Well, he'll never amount to anything because he is a peasant."
Quote from: jhkim;627712I agree that there has been the shift you describe, but it seems to me that it was a long and continuous shift rather than something starting in the 1960s. In particular, I think of Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster stories as the classic poking fun at the aristocracy - written starting in the 1920s.
For me, the big hurdle of playing pseudo-historical aristocracy is that it is difficult to play the outright class-consciousness in a way that modern-day players accept (similar to issues with racism and sexism). Other players just have a hard time accepting casual discrimination like "Well, he'll never amount to anything because he is a peasant."
I definitely notice a tendency in WFRP material for nobles always to have large and visible bodyguards when they're twitting it up. Sounds like their players had a hard time with it, too. ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit;627415Of course there are just as many ranges of personality in the aristocracy as in any other group; so this isn't about personalities, but about "programming".
And when I was talking before about "what you're expected to do", I wasn't suggesting that the aristocracy will always behave in that way; obviously that's not true.
What I'm suggesting is that this is a central theme for them as a social class, and the issue of living up to those duties or not is something of monumental importance for them (whether they're the ones living up to things, or failing to, or refusing to).
RPGPundit
If your campaign features a mindset among NPCs that really is deep-rooted (like
Noblesse oblige in this case), then there's no real need to dwell on it -it's just...
...there.
The only part of it that I would bother with as a DM is what exactly is expected of nobles to remain in good standing? Is it merely coughing up money or men for their superiors when called upon? Does it include chivalry, generosity (not just help for the downtrodden but generous hospitality for visiting nobles, clergy etc) as well as heroism in the face of danger?
If you're looking for a game mechanic, I'd suggest something simple like a Nobility Score* that can go up or down based on how the noble meets, exceeds, fails to live up to or even outright betrays his or her duties.
* level + rank + charisma bonus/penalty
I wasn't really thinking of a mechanic.. its something closer to alignment than anything else, really.
RPGPundit