Quote from: Bren;844724I think sometimes that even this is too roundabout and it may be better to ask an even more direct question like, "Spitting on the floor of the Queen's throne hall is an extremely rude and insulting gesture. Is rude and insulting what you are trying to do here?"

Yeah. Roundabout warnings usually feel condescending to me.

Among other things, royalty can vary hugely in how they expect to be treated. A Norse king might be mightily impressed by a stranger who grabs his head and holds him underwater when swimming, while a Chinese emperor might be hideously offended by improper stance when bowing.

For me, this brings to mind a different issue, though.

In my experience, there is a common phenomenon where the GM keeps having scenes where the PCs are expected to show deference to NPCs, and the NPCs almost never show deference to them. After a while, the players get tired of this, and their PCs stop showing deference - and then the GM starts escalating warnings and threats to keep them down, eventually coming to a confrontation. The players would genuinely prefer to have a fight rather than keep showing deference.

Quote from: jhkim;844765In my experience, there is a common phenomenon where the GM keeps having scenes where the PCs are expected to show deference to NPCs, and the NPCs almost never show deference to them. After a while, the players get tired of this, and their PCs stop showing deference - and then the GM starts escalating warnings and threats to keep them down, eventually coming to a confrontation. The players would genuinely prefer to have a fight rather than keep showing deference.

I think (in my opinion) that the way to prevent that is to have NPCs of status both higher and lower than the PCs, so the players realize it's a ladder with people both above and below them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844813I think (in my opinion) that the way to prevent that is to have NPCs of status both higher and lower than the PCs, so the players realize it's a ladder with people both above and below them.

I think a big problem here is that a lot of GMs have random townsfolk treat even mid-level PCs the way scruffy rootless drifters got treated in the real world instead of how people would realistically treat scruffy rootless drifters (even if the PCs are such) who have the power to level the town with a flick of the wrist or buy every building in it three times over out of petty cash.

Quote from: Daztur;844828I think a big problem here is that a lot of GMs have random townsfolk treat even mid-level PCs the way scruffy rootless drifters got treated in the real world instead of how people would realistically treat scruffy rootless drifters (even if the PCs are such) who have the power to level the town with a flick of the wrist or buy every building in it three times over out of petty cash.

I wonder if it's related to the problem that most people don't realize police as we know them didn't exist in the middle ages.  If this group of six heavily armed goons starts a fight, you and your neighbors are the ones who will have to deal with it.

Quote from: jhkim;844765Yeah. Roundabout warnings usually feel condescending to me.

Roundabout warnings can sound condescending, but that's a separate issue. I want to know does the player want the character to act rude and insulting or is the player confused about the situation. A direct question is more likely to get me a clear answer to that question.

QuoteIn my experience, there is a common phenomenon where the GM keeps having scenes where the PCs are expected to show deference to NPCs, and the NPCs almost never show deference to them.

Perhaps I'm fortunate, but I can't say I've experienced that since high school and even then not from most GMs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844813I think (in my opinion) that the way to prevent that is to have NPCs of status both higher and lower than the PCs, so the players realize it's a ladder with people both above and below them.

Agreed. Also this is easier to do in a setting where the PCs have a place and a role in society rather than being a bunch of Clint Eastwood High Plain's Drifter characters transposed to a D&D setting.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844830I wonder if it's related to the problem that most people don't realize police as we know them didn't exist in the middle ages.  If this group of six heavily armed goons starts a fight, you and your neighbors are the ones who will have to deal with it.

I think it is more an issue of not really thinking about what a level based system would do to society and how it is organized while also ignoring the potential inconsistencies inherent in having a gang of rootless tomb raiders who can level towns with a flick of their wrist or buy entire villages outright from the pocket change they keep in their bags of holding.

Quote from: Skarg;844704I've long had a section of my house rules which explains that the modern player is guiding the character, but isn't in full possession. If the player says their PC in the fantasy world says "yo nigga", they're trying to project 21st century gangsta slang, which doesn't translate. At most they can give the PC the impulse to be offensive or over-familiar in a cheesy way.

Or be dismissed with "Sorry, I don't speak Celtic" as in Doctor Who, The Fires of Pompeii.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844813I think (in my opinion) that the way to prevent that is to have NPCs of status both higher and lower than the PCs, so the players realize it's a ladder with people both above and below them.

Well, as always, that depends. For a start, we often play in societies where your position on the social ladder is determined by the status of your lord:).
The problem comes when this mixes with the PCs as masterless warriors. If the Referee then plays the NPCs as conscious of their actual social differences, but without accounting for the threat of violence from the PC party, we end up with the characters being at the bottom of the social ladder.
To me, that's only an issue if your PC party can't find a master, or worse, is expected to stay as free mercenaries. Otherwise, it's just a matter of picking a master, impressing him enough and enlisting as a special forces team;).

Quote from: Bren;844913I think it is more an issue of not really thinking about what a level based system would do to society and how it is organized while also ignoring the potential inconsistencies inherent in having a gang of rootless tomb raiders who can level towns with a flick of their wrist or buy entire villages outright from the pocket change they keep in their bags of holding.

Exactly, and this is a huge disconnect.

Can we stipulate, for instance, that you get to keep the throne of a kingdom only for so long as you either have more power than anyone else around, or else have the backing of the ones who do?

Can we likewise stipulate that one element of medieval history we very faithfully reproduce in most fantasy campaigns is that it's a dog-eat-dog world over the next border, and that most monarchs are preoccupied with winning territory (or defending their own territory) from their neighbors?

Great.  Then I stipulate that any fantasy ruler has a vested interest in keeping a tight rein on those madcap adventurers.  They're all loose cannons, they awaken unstoppable demonic nasties as often as they defeat them, they're generally disrespectful and insolent, and for every bunch that you can hire to screw over those Badtopians across the border, there's a band convinced that you need to be taken out.  It's a security headache no monarch needs.

But (you might say), hold on: remember those adventurers?  The ones who can level towns with a flick of their fingers?

Well, okay ... perhaps you have one of those campaigns where the PCs are the Lords of Creation, no mundane force can oppose them, and no ruler dares try.  (I sure as hell don't.)

My answer there is simple: is every ruler in the world stupid?  What is their percentage in ever letting adventurers get that powerful?  Every monarch worth his or her salt would be doing everything either to coopt them or just plain chopping them down while it's still possible to do.

Level based games are some of the hardest to reconcile with internal logic.

Before you even start, you have to figure out your frequency distributions on level capable people versus not on your X, then run it on each level on the Y, break it down by casters and healers..

Then you can start to construct what sort of society could come out of it.

Quote from: LordVreeg;845178Before you even start, you have to figure out your frequency distributions on level capable people versus not on your X, then run it on each level on the Y, break it down by casters and healers.

Alternatively, you can just make up some shit you thought would be fun.

For instance, Dave Arneson's BLACKMOOR had NO Raise Dead spells.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.

So a LOT of players had characters that they'd get to third or fourth or fifth level, and then retire.

Remember the old Judges' Guild stuff with things like the innkeeper was a 3rd level fighter with a +1 axe?  And everybody screamed at how "unrealistic" that was and "adventurers would never do that?"

Happened all the time in Blackmoor.

I've been running in the same world since 1972 and I've never run a frequency distribution on a damn thing.  Because, as Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson both said so many times, "It's just a dumb game."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845182Alternatively, you can just make up some shit you thought would be fun.

For instance, Dave Arneson's BLACKMOOR had NO Raise Dead spells.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.

So a LOT of players had characters that they'd get to third or fourth or fifth level, and then retire.

Remember the old Judges' Guild stuff with things like the innkeeper was a 3rd level fighter with a +1 axe?  And everybody screamed at how "unrealistic" that was and "adventurers would never do that?"

Happened all the time in Blackmoor.

I've been running in the same world since 1972 and I've never run a frequency distribution on a damn thing.  Because, as Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson both said so many times, "It's just a dumb game."

Right, early on people had one set of expectations.  I remember playing in the mid 70's.  It was all good then.

But as you can tell by the amount of replies, some GMs and players are looking for more.  Not all.  But some.  So the expectations have totally changed.

I never played with Dave, etc. I've been playing, though since 76.  And some times, things hold together better when you build it right from ground zero.

I will not concede that people want "more" because any sort of qualitative label about gaming preferences gives me explosive flatulence, but I will happily grant that people want "different."

For that matter, more people want different.  Sometime around 1979 or 1980 all the people who really wanted OD&D had it, so the next version was different.  Et al.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845191I will not concede that people want "more" because any sort of qualitative label about gaming preferences gives me explosive flatulence, but I will happily grant that people want "different."

For that matter, more people want different.  Sometime around 1979 or 1980 all the people who really wanted OD&D had it, so the next version was different.  Et al.

I should have said "More congruence".
Other than that, totally agree.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845182Alternatively, you can just make up some shit you thought would be fun.

The difficulty arises when you or those you play with consider consistency and coherence part of the fun.

QuoteI've been running in the same world since 1972 and I've never run a frequency distribution on a damn thing.

I've never run a frequency distribution either, but by 1975 or 76 I'd come up with a general idea of what the overall frequency distribution was for my D&D world. The vast majority of the people in the world were first level. Most important NPCs e.g. barons, counts, the local mage or head of a temple (if any) were around 3rd - 7th level. The higher level PCs were one or two levels lower than that.

Quote from: Bren;845295The difficulty arises when you or those you play with consider consistency and coherence part of the fun.

I've never run a frequency distribution either, but by 1975 or 76 I'd come up with a general idea of what the overall frequency distribution was for my D&D world. The vast majority of the people in the world were first level. Most important NPCs e.g. barons, counts, the local mage or head of a temple (if any) were around 3rd - 7th level. The higher level PCs were one or two levels lower than that.

And that counts.

I'm not REALLY thinking most people do a spreadsheet, it's just an exercise in really figuring what the frequency distribution is/would be.
Sounds like you eschewed the zero levels.

What affect did this have on things like healing and disease?  Of these level capable folk, how common was magic?