I ran my original Dark Albion with a number of women players. If I'd run it utterly straight to the Medieval gender norms, it could have been difficult for them to enjoy play. On the other hand, if I'd run it as though the medieval society had gender-equality in the 21st century North American sense, the whole thing would have been somewhat pointless.
So I went with the same guidelines I point out in Lion & Dragon in the section on gender. The same ones I outlined in yesterday's blog (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2018/02/anti-lion-dragon-false-accusations-on.html). There's no class restrictions for women characters, but some classes provide a more egalitarian opportunity than others.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MoEbiMknB6I/WlQT77XgT4I/AAAAAAAACA8/xA94g6lQInU24kpoQjNyjYsY2Ff8-DoEQCPcBGAYYCw/s320/fb_img_15150817663031396650181%2B%25281%2529.jpg)
Now, the rebuttal to this has been voiced, and not only by vicious ill-motivated swine on rpgnet. That is, "you can have a setting with magic that really works and with monsters, but somehow having gender equality would be a bridge too far"!
That sounds like a credible argument at first glance, but it totally falls apart upon consideration. The reason for magic to really work, and for there to be monsters that are real, in the Lion & Dragon setting is that it fits the medieval paradigm. I didn't use the vancian magic system, the monsters aren't inventions drawn out of the Monster Manual circa 1978. It's magic the way that people in the middle ages actually believed magic to work; it's monsters built on medieval folklore about how people really thought monsters were like.
Is it 'unfair' that women have some challenges in a medieval setting that might sometimes come up in play (modified to the extent that the GM would want them to)? Why should it be? Why shouldn't it be a part of the emulation, an experience that produces immersion in the character? Why would you remove something like this, which is full of potential for character development?
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y2DRxbYtb4Q/WisEOxhGdwI/AAAAAAAAB5U/pQl3cCE_FisZGZo3NK3Hr5OjhJZO81nywCPcBGAYYCw/s320/Cover-L%2526D-hires.jpg)
Let's look at another aspect of Lion & Dragon, one that is quite a bit more relevant to the situation than monsters: Social Class.
In mainstream D&D, contrary to the shrieking of certain Left-wing nonsense-peddlers, there has never really been an issue with female characters. Sure, individual gaming groups might have problems with it, but the game itself? There was no world in the history of D&D where women characters experienced challenges based on prejudice: not in Greyhawk, not in Forgotten Realms, not even in Dark Sun (to say nothing of a setting like Eberron)! They've all had female adventurers, female NPCs of great power, and societies that were utterly egalitarian. And there's nothing wrong with that, because that's just how those settings are.
Likewise, there was never, in any of those settings, any real concept of Social Class distinctions. Sure, Greyhawk or the FR might have peasants, and lords, but it doesn't really mean anything. NPCs who were peasant-born become great and mighty heroes or lords or run cities or whatever. All that "peasant" means in those settings (in what is no doubt a tribute to the American paradigm of thinking) is people who are poor and work on farms; and Lords are just dudes with money or "sir" or "lady" before their names or fancier clothes. But there's no special challenge to being a peasant on Faerun or Krynn, your peasant PC can get to hobnob with the King and tell him off just the same as if your character was an Earl.
In Lion & Dragon, it doesn't work that way. There are very strongly-defined social class distinctions. There's weapons and armor you don't get to go around in if you're not a Knight. Peasants can be literally imprisoned and sentenced to lashings for telling off a Lord. Social Class distinction should, if you're playing the game straight, be something that very strongly defines every Player Character in a Lion & Dragon campaign (or in any campaign set in Dark Albion).
You could make the same complaints, though I guess from a Marxist rather than Feminist angle, about this as you could about gender. Why should peasants not get to feel equal to the sons of Earls in the setting?!
The answer is the same: why the fuck wouldn't you want that? It's a huge feature of the world. It's therefore a huge opportunity for you, as the player, to work with that in developing your character. It provides specific elements of your character's background, and of how they have to navigate through the world in play, that makes the game more immersive and interesting for you. It's a feature, not a bug.
Because of course, you could just have a game where peasants were treated just the same as and could just pal around with (or lecture) the high-born as if they were the same. Ignore for a second that in that case, you might as well just be playing in the Forgotten Realms, and that strips away a great deal of what makes this game unique. Besides that, it makes things a lot more BORING. You've probably done that already in your fantasy RPG experiences, many, many times.
But having a party where some PCs have to be deferential to others, where some characters can talk in court and others can't, while some can get honest answers out of peasants or the local poor in a town that their supposed 'betters' never could, where player characters will walk in different worlds, and sometimes have to overcome some of the social norms of the greater reality of the setting, makes for some kick-ass roleplaying.
Yes, it would suck if someone who was a BAD GM just let people have characters that they would then put into impossibly limiting situations that just ruined all their fun. But that's a BAD GMing problem, and not a problem of the concept itself. And to me, it would be equally bad if you were sold on the idea of playing a "Medieval-Authentic" game that sells itself with the motto "you only THOUGHT you'd played Medieval Fantasy... until now", only to find that their social class OR gender have no significant effect on the game because everyone in the world is running around all hip like it was 2017 Seattle and not 15th century England.
If you're playing a female character, and her story is "I had no challenges at all by being a woman, no one had any issue with it, and now I'm x", that seems a lot less interesting than creating a character in this world where you (with some help from the GM) have to craft a tale of how a peasant-background girl grew up to become a skilled warrior, or sorceress, or what it means for her to be a gypsy Cymri both within her own people as well as among the normies who lack the same respect her people have for women with The Gift. To explain what that background meant in terms of family, in terms of class, in terms of society, and in terms of their own personal motivations.
This is in no way different than how any male character has to explain themselves, in the context of being an adventurer in a Medieval-Authentic world. How a thief from the snickleway-slums of York would have to explain how they ended up working for the Clerical Order as an inquistor, or how a son of a knightly family would have to explain what it meant that he didn't follow in the footsteps of his family as a soldier and instead studied the occult arts in a Collegium, or how a Scotsman would have to tell the story of what he's doing away from his clan and people living in Albion.
The reason why you want to have Medieval-Authentic social roles (including gender roles) when playing in Lion & Dragon is precisely because these things matter in play. And if approached the right way they make your character and your campaign much MORE interesting for everyone, rather than less.
Now, you'll have to excuse me, in a little bit I'm about to start my new Lion & Dragon campaign.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Castello Fiamma + Image Virginia
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023380In Lion & Dragon, it doesn't work that way. There are very strongly-defined social class distinctions. There's weapons and armor you don't get to go around in if you're not a Knight. Peasants can be literally imprisoned and sentenced to lashings for telling off a Lord. Social Class distinction should, if you're playing the game straight, be something that very strongly defines every Player Character in a Lion & Dragon campaign (or in any campaign set in Dark Albion).
You could make the same complaints, though I guess from a Marxist rather than Feminist angle, about this as you could about gender. Why should peasants not get to feel equal to the sons of Earls in the setting?!
The answer is the same: why the fuck wouldn't you want that? It's a huge feature of the world. It's therefore a huge opportunity for you, as the player, to work with that in developing your character. It provides specific elements of your character's background, and of how they have to navigate through the world in play, that makes the game more immersive and interesting for you. It's a feature, not a bug.
I'm curious, Pundit. How is social class determined, and how is gender, in Lion & Dragon? Can a player just choose to be the son of an earl rather than a peasant? Can they choose to be male rather than female?
Having the social barriers to struggle against is interesting, but there is an issue of balance as well.
In my historical games, I've usually had formal or informal factors to balance out social class and/or gender. Sometimes this is within some sort of point system, but often it is just informal rulings, where I give perks to those who take lower social class, and restrictions on those who take high social class.
Apologizing for your setting decisions won't appease the SJWs.
That doesn't look anything like apologizing to me and I don't think that it should.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1023447Apologizing for your setting decisions won't appease the SJWs.
That's what you got from the OP?
You know, Greg Stafford's PENDRAGON has had restrictions on women since Day 1.
Stafford has reported that the overwhelming response of women to this has been "Well, yeah, that's what the source material was like, so I'm playing a male character." This also matches my experience and that of a lot of other people, with both flavors of fun bits.
I agree with the overall tone of the OP; challenges are fun and interesting to overcome.
Exactly. and some women actually enjoy the added challenge some settings or locales impose. Just as some players like how some settings or locales impose restrictions on non-human races.
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023468That's what you got from the OP?
Do you think there's anyone here who didn't think of what Pundit posted already?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1023515Do you think there's anyone here who didn't think of what Pundit posted already?
Only his disciples
Which is a weirdly critical response considering I do feel he gets an unfair beating in the TBP thread that started all this.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1023515Do you think there's anyone here who didn't think of what Pundit posted already?
Yeah, because, strange as it may seem, there are real life human beings who do not see the world through the lenses of politics and True Champions of Anti-SJW's most especially when it comes to playing friggin elf games.
Anything can be fun, RPG wise, if all the players are OK with it. Don't see why this is a big thing...
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023534Anything can be fun, RPG wise, if all the players are OK with it. Don't see why this is a big thing...
See, that's what I'm confused about.
And, yeah, I read that thread on rpg.net and I saw a bunch of positive comments too. Overall, it was positive from my perspective at least.
I don't care much for the ruleset that Pundit made, but the fluff itself sounds good to me and if I wanted to adapt it to one of my current fave rulesets, I'd include the gender stuff too along with the rest as best as my rules can reflect that.
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023535See, that's what I'm confused about.
And, yeah, I read that thread on rpg.net and I saw a bunch of positive comments too. Overall, it was positive from my perspective at least.
I don't care much for the ruleset that Pundit made, but the fluff itself sounds good to me and if I wanted to adapt it to one of my current fave rulesets, I'd include the gender stuff too along with the rest as best as my rules can reflect that.
I just
suggested using "Dark Albion" as a setting to a GM I know who is starting a new campaign using my Glory Road rules. His old setting was an adaptation of one of the D&D settings from the Nineties that he modified and he is tired of it.
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023535See, that's what I'm confused about.
And, yeah, I read that thread on rpg.net and I saw a bunch of positive comments too. Overall, it was positive from my perspective at least.
Your perspective may be a bit skewed then.
I ground through that thread and and Id say it leans heavily to bashing the game for its "misogyny". But as others have allready pointed out a few times. There are people defending it over there. some are getting in trouble for it. But thats par for the course over at RPGnet. Some of the detractors are the usual suspects over there. Some are just parroting the party line. And a few have actually read the book and just dont like the gender inequality for one reason or another. Some have valid reasonings. Others are just kooks. Also par for the course there.
People who like historical realism in their RPGs should play RPGs with historical realism.
Others should play different games.
I've taken Jump drives out of Traveller. It makes Traveller more scientific and less fantasy. That excited some players and not others. I played that campaign with the players who enjoyed the "more science" aspect.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1023555I've taken Jump drives out of Traveller. It makes Traveller more scientific and less fantasy. That excited some players and not others. I played that campaign with the players who enjoyed the "more science" aspect.
...so space travel times were in the hundreds or thousands of years?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1023562...so space travel times were in the hundreds or thousands of years?
Or just within a solar system. Space Is Fucking HUGE. You can get all the Space Opera action you want in just one solar system. Hell, you can do it in just the Lunar Sphere of Earth. There's an entire franchise built on that fact.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;1023563Or just within a solar system. Space Is Fucking HUGE. You can get all the Space Opera action you want in just one solar system. Hell, you can do it in just the Lunar Sphere of Earth. There's an entire franchise built on that fact.
Ah yeah. I'm used to thinking of Traveller in terms of the interstellar Space Hexcrawl. :D
Yes, I turned the interstellar hex crawl into a one-system hex crawl. But more than that, I pulled back on various "fantasy" aspects in Traveller than I love (psionics, cryogenics, etc). It did not make the game "better", but it made it a different experience which was very cool for my crew.
I've played "authentic medieval' Runequest and AD&D back in the day because Fantasy Wargaming was a surprisingly popular supplement in my neck of the woods and we had a couple DMs who wanted more historical aspects into their RPGs. I guess they would be called "simulationists". I remember their games were fun, and we would meet various historical figures (and kill them sometimes) and get caught up in historical events. None of this made RQ or AD&D "better", but the setting assumptions in a historical game made roleplay and game choices quite different than our other RPG sessions and I am sure influenced my love for Warhammer Fantasy and how I run WFRP.
Based on RPGPundit's other work, I expect Lion & Dragon is well done and focused on playability.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023380In mainstream D&D, contrary to the shrieking of certain Left-wing nonsense-peddlers, there has never really been an issue with female characters.
Identity politics is not "Left-wing" as I grew up understanding it. It may be that today SJW claim to represent "progressive" politics but amongst the most vocal of them, I have noticed a distinct lack of support for anything other than the issues that concern them directly and nothing of the broader issues of inequity, egalitarianism, social mobiilty, and opposition to war for profit.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023380You could make the same complaints, though I guess from a Marxist rather than Feminist angle, about this as you could about gender.
Indeed that is my point: much of the criticism aimed at L&D focused on women in the setting (not system) being denied roles within the nobility, leadership or the Magister Collegiums. No discussion about the disparity within other sections of society nor across sections of society. This mirrors the recent outrage when a woman of privilege and power who also happens to be a hawk, is somehow of the "left" while is clearly a spokesperson for the 1% and the neocon imperialism but I will refrain from getting straying too far from politics as it regards your game.
I have little doubt that had you written a game that avoided the topic altogether you would have been accused of "failing to address the issue". "ignoring the issue" or "lacking the historical nous" with all the patronising that a politics, sociology or history undergrad could muster.
Moreover, I suspect that had you written a game that asserted complete gender equality within a setting described as authentically medieval, you would have been accused of "white-washing" history and denying the suffering of generations of womenfolk. The word "denier" would have been combined with "gendercide"in some sort of portmanteau designed to cause the most damage.
Quote from: jhkim;1023395I'm curious, Pundit. How is social class determined, and how is gender, in Lion & Dragon? Can a player just choose to be the son of an earl rather than a peasant? Can they choose to be male rather than female?
Having the social barriers to struggle against is interesting, but there is an issue of balance as well.
In my historical games, I've usually had formal or informal factors to balance out social class and/or gender. Sometimes this is within some sort of point system, but often it is just informal rulings, where I give perks to those who take lower social class, and restrictions on those who take high social class.
This would be one way to do it, and the table could be modified to fit the setting.
Birth: Roll Percentage Dice, look on the table below. Go to the Page Indicated
01-35: The type of farmers normal in your GM's setting.
If they are serfs bound to the land or actual slaves. Page 4.
If they are free farmers Page 8
If there are some of each, divide 01-35 appropriately. For instance, if it is mostly serfs with a few free farmers, let 01-30 be the serfs.
36-40: City Rabble Page 12
41-45: House Servants Page 16
46-60: Artisans or Minor Merchants. Page 21
61-63: Poachers Page 24
64-65: Outlaws Page 28
66-67: Major Merchants Page 32
68-70: Parent(s) is Clergy Page 36
71: Parent(s) is Mage. Page 40.
72-88: Servants at Arms Page 44
89-95: Landless Knights Page 49
96-99: Landed Knights Page 52
100: Nobility Page 56
I have used this to start several campaigns in a setting where social standing meant quite a bit. The lower classes are underrepresented if this is supposed to be the population but perhaps not, because peasants wouldn't often get to go on adventures. The composition of the group would guide me in setting up their initial adventure. A player can choose a gender or roll odd or even. There are lifepaths for non-humans as well on
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/07-lifepath
Several RPGs have some form of social standing/class element built into chargen. That is nothing new really. Universe and Oriental adventures come to mind right off. Others had it as part of the background setting like Tekumel and even D&D where the player could claim whatever. But had to live with attendant restrictions and obligations.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023380Is it 'unfair' that women have some challenges in a medieval setting that might sometimes come up in play (modified to the extent that the GM would want them to)? Why should it be? Why shouldn't it be a part of the emulation, an experience that produces immersion in the character? Why would you remove something like this, which is full of potential for character development?
Yes but talking about how gender roles can make things more interesting, at least in a game of "let's pretend" is out of fashion in today's culture where we like to pretend there are no differences, and never have been, because Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Once we did it, but not now. You may as well be serving dripping sandwiches to your guests for afternoon tea.
Much the same goes for racial or ethnic roles, and the less said about socioeconomic classes the better, even going there will cause bewilderment to the typical middle class gamer or tumblr authour.
Sexism and dripping sandwiches.
Quote from: Omega;1023546Your perspective may be a bit skewed then.
I ground through that thread and and Id say it leans heavily to bashing the game for its "misogyny". But as others have allready pointed out a few times. There are people defending it over there. some are getting in trouble for it. But thats par for the course over at RPGnet. Some of the detractors are the usual suspects over there. Some are just parroting the party line. And a few have actually read the book and just dont like the gender inequality for one reason or another. Some have valid reasonings. Others are just kooks. Also par for the course there.
No, one person got suspended for "getting too close to the line" about personal and group attacks from earlier posts having nothing to do with that thread, but also including that thread. Did I report his posts? No. Do I agree with that ruling? Not even. It's a shame that he got a week off and no real way to complain about it. Another who was bashing the game got red texted.
How's your perspective, BTW? I take it that you believe you're the balanced one in all this?
@CausticJedi
I was going to say "you're a passive aggressive 2@" but then I chose to rise above it.;)
What is a 2@?
And "rise above it" doesn't produce the holy LoLz, the vital essence of all forums.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1023655What is a 2@?
two-at
Quote from: Spinachcat;1023655And "rise above it" doesn't produce the holy LoLz, the vital essence of all forums.
I was being facetious.
You called Caustic Jedi a twat on THIS forum? How dare you sir!
You'll both do fine here.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1023658You'll both do fine here.
Cheers Spina. :)I like it here.:cool:
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023648No, one person got suspended for "getting too close to the line" about personal and group attacks from earlier posts having nothing to do with that thread, but also including that thread. Did I report his posts? No. Do I agree with that ruling? Not even. It's a shame that he got a week off and no real way to complain about it. Another who was bashing the game got red texted.
How's your perspective, BTW? I take it that you believe you're the balanced one in all this?
My perspective is unchanged and still not as skewed as yours or some here on the opposite side of the fence. RPGnet is a mess. It was a mess. Will be a mess. Its been that way for years. That does not mean that people over there are all kooks and scum. But there is an appalling percentage over there now. The rest of us just putter along as normal.
But at the end of the day RPGnet didnt get its horrible rep for no reason.
So try again please.
Quote from: Mike the Mage;1023651@CausticJedi
I was going to say "you're a passive aggressive 2@" but then I chose to rise above it.;)
Well, that's fine. I guess I had to lurk moar to figure out what really goes around here. I seem to be learning pretty quickly and have no doubt, I do have the ability to live up to my user name. I just try for the peaceful "can't we all get along" first. Basically.
Quote from: Omega;1023670My perspective is unchanged and still not as skewed as yours or some here on the opposite side of the fence. RPGnet is a mess. It was a mess. Will be a mess. Its been that way for years. That does not mean that people over there are all kooks and scum. But there is an appalling percentage over there now. The rest of us just putter along as normal.
But at the end of the day RPGnet didnt get its horrible rep for no reason.
So try again please.
Nah, not going to bother. Just don't tell me I'm wrong or a liar based on my opinion of make pretend games or people who enjoy them. And I think I'll take my skewed perception as a compliment, as I'd much rather see the good rather than wallow in the bad.
But that's just me.
My objection to calling somebody a twat is that it implies twats are a bad thing. I think they're wonderful, myself.
Tasty, and so good for you.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023895My objection to calling somebody a twat is that it implies twats are a bad thing. I think they're wonderful, myself.
Tasty, and so good for you.
LOL
Okay, no matter what you say from now on, I still like you.
I have to wonder what these identarian hang-wringers think of all the female historians and novelists who have spent their lives writing about historical social environments. The Mary Beards, Barbara Tuchmans, Mary Renaults, Sharon Kay Penmans, Pauline Gedges, Colleen McCulloughs, and Rosemary Sutcliffs. Were these women traumatized by spending so much of their lives immersed in the gendered social structures of the ancient world and medieval Europe? Are they perpetrating the patriarchy by writing books set in such unjust societies?
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023985LOL
Okay, no matter what you say from now on, I still like you.
Good deal.
Me, I've always looked at this place as "the usual gang of clowns hanging around at the pub," and sometimes the situation just calls for a muff-diving joke.
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023863I just try for the peaceful "can't we all get along" first.
Really? I thought you were starting off with a heavy dose of patronising, denying and disingenuous victim-hood.
I can go for "get along", as long as it is not the sort of getting along lock-step, if you know what I mean.
Sounds good. Just be aware that in this pub "getting along" may mean half a dozen people yelling "You're pissed, you old fart, and you're talking bullshit, sit down and shut up."
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023865Nah, not going to bother. Just don't tell me I'm wrong or a liar based on my opinion of make pretend games or people who enjoy them. And I think I'll take my skewed perception as a compliment, as I'd much rather see the good rather than wallow in the bad.
But that's just me.
I didnt call you a liar. Though as your posts accumulate you trow yourself into increasing suspicion.
And you can go "la-la-la its not there!" all you want. That wont change the very blatant facts that RPGnet is an absolute mess.
Quote from: jhkim;1023395I'm curious, Pundit. How is social class determined, and how is gender, in Lion & Dragon? Can a player just choose to be the son of an earl rather than a peasant? Can they choose to be male rather than female?
Having the social barriers to struggle against is interesting, but there is an issue of balance as well.
In my historical games, I've usually had formal or informal factors to balance out social class and/or gender. Sometimes this is within some sort of point system, but often it is just informal rulings, where I give perks to those who take lower social class, and restrictions on those who take high social class.
Gender is by player choice.
Social Class, if you go with RAW, is by random roll. The probabilities are not actually representative of the real class-structure demographics of medieval society, because presumably there will be less peasant-heroes and more heroes of higher classes. The most likely social class is "villain" (which is to say burgher, someone who was born in a city), but the odds of being from the Knightly or Noble class is obviously higher than a pure population breakdown would suggest.
Also, it's made clear that a GM could choose to go another way, for example, wanting all the characters to be of the same social class or what have you.
In my new L&D campaign (started last week), I repeated my previous policy of having everyone roll two characters (they pick which character they want to play at the start of each session). In this case, however, I wanted (because of the campaign I had in mind) to have one of their characters to be of the Knightly class. So one character was from that social class, the other was rolled randomly.
In old-school gaming, 'balance' is not as important a consideration. And I don't think it makes sense to try to give extra perks to peasants. Or female characters. I mean after all, you don't give make-up perks to people who didn't roll high stats either, right?
Well, maybe YOU do. But old-school gamers wouldn't.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023478You know, Greg Stafford's PENDRAGON has had restrictions on women since Day 1.
Stafford has reported that the overwhelming response of women to this has been "Well, yeah, that's what the source material was like, so I'm playing a male character." This also matches my experience and that of a lot of other people, with both flavors of fun bits.
I agree with the overall tone of the OP; challenges are fun and interesting to overcome.
Yes, quite familiar with that about Pendragon. I could certainly understand a woman player never wanting to play a female character in Pendragon.
That's part of the reasoning for why I wanted there to be opportunities for women players to actually be able to run female characters, and within that presenting a variety of options to how challenging that could be (everything from female clerics, who are basically treated exactly the same as men, to female magic-users who certainly face some serious social challenges).
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1023541I just suggested using "Dark Albion" as a setting to a GM I know who is starting a new campaign using my Glory Road rules. His old setting was an adaptation of one of the D&D settings from the Nineties that he modified and he is tired of it.
Hope he takes your advice!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1024330Hope he takes your advice!
He has. He takes forever and a half to set up a campaign but he has started. I estimate session 0 will be in April, but I'm an optimist.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1024328Gender is by player choice.
Social Class, if you go with RAW, is by random roll. The probabilities are not actually representative of the real class-structure demographics of medieval society, because presumably there will be less peasant-heroes and more heroes of higher classes. The most likely social class is "villain" (which is to say burgher, someone who was born in a city), but the odds of being from the Knightly or Noble class is obviously higher than a pure population breakdown would suggest.
Also, it's made clear that a GM could choose to go another way, for example, wanting all the characters to be of the same social class or what have you.
In my new L&D campaign (started last week), I repeated my previous policy of having everyone roll two characters (they pick which character they want to play at the start of each session). In this case, however, I wanted (because of the campaign I had in mind) to have one of their characters to be of the Knightly class. So one character was from that social class, the other was rolled randomly.
In old-school gaming, 'balance' is not as important a consideration. And I don't think it makes sense to try to give extra perks to peasants. Or female characters. I mean after all, you don't give make-up perks to people who didn't roll high stats either, right? Well, maybe YOU do. But old-school gamers wouldn't.
As you note, gender is by player choice, though. Every player has the same chance to get a noble, so they've all got the same shot. To my mind, options which are player choice are different. Even in old school, it seems to me that there is some effort to make the different options relatively balanced. For example, most games wouldn't have a standard class that is in every way weaker than another class, like hedge witch compared to a wizard, or a man-at-arms compared to a cavalier.
As you note, the probabilities can reflect that there are less peasant-heroes and more heroes of higher classes. Based on this logic, there is some justification that the rare woman who becomes a hero is extra qualified.
Also, one could just have gender be random-roll. I'm tempted to try that in one of my upcoming games.
Quote from: jhkim;1024748As you note, gender is by player choice, though. Every player has the same chance to get a noble, so they've all got the same shot. To my mind, options which are player choice are different. Even in old school, it seems to me that there is some effort to make the different options relatively balanced. For example, most games wouldn't have a standard class that is in every way weaker than another class, like hedge witch compared to a wizard, or a man-at-arms compared to a cavalier.
Clearly, you've never enjoyed the awesomeness of playing a Rogue Scholar or a Vagabond in RIFTS.
QuoteAs you note, the probabilities can reflect that there are less peasant-heroes and more heroes of higher classes. Based on this logic, there is some justification that the rare woman who becomes a hero is extra qualified.
Well yes, she is, compared to other women in the setting. As I explain in the book, depending on her class, she's either been chosen by god, trained to be a warrior, dared to be a thief, or made the choice to study magic independently. I would expect women characters would all stand out as exceptional representatives of their gender. In ways not unlike how players of peasant PCs also have to explain what vagaries of chance led to their character becoming an adventurer, rather than a farmer.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1024736He has. He takes forever and a half to set up a campaign but he has started. I estimate session 0 will be in April, but I'm an optimist.
That seems like a long wait!
Quote from: jhkim;1024748Also, one could just have gender be random-roll. I'm tempted to try that in one of my upcoming games.
Great idea!
This would be particularly fitting in Sagas of the Icelanders, as gender roles and social expectations are part of that game central themes, and having a varied group gender-wise just enriches the experience.
I'd be a bit concerned that some players would be a lot better at playing contrary to their gender than others. I never object if a player chooses to, but I don't know if I'd expect that of them not by choice.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1025029That seems like a long wait!
He's running his old campaign in the interim. Meanwhile, he's asking me questions about the DA setting and I'm going to ask you some of them if I get stumped.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1025393He's running his old campaign in the interim. Meanwhile, he's asking me questions about the DA setting and I'm going to ask you some of them if I get stumped.
Sure. Glad to answer them if I can.
Quote from: CausticJedi;1023648How's your perspective, BTW? I take it that you believe you're the balanced one in all this?
For anyone to think that the thread on RPG.net was in anyway balanced, they would have to be unbalanced.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1025551But there's no special challenge to being a peasant on Faerun or Krynn, your peasant PC can get to hobnob with the King and tell him off just the same as if your character was an Earl.
In Lion & Dragon, it doesn't work that way. There are very strongly-defined social class distinctions. There's weapons and armor you don't get to go around in if you're not a Knight. Peasants can be literally imprisoned and sentenced to lashings for telling off a Lord. Social Class distinction should, if you're playing the game straight, be something that very strongly defines every Player Character in a Lion & Dragon campaign (or in any campaign set in Dark Albion).
*stolen*
Actually I think class and society structures can work well in places that have nobility, especially in Cormyr of the Forgotten Realms, Furyondy of Greyhawk, or even the Houses of Eberron. In fact I really like this idea a lot that I'm going to incorporate it into my 3.5 Cormyr game, so thanks for that! It's already difficult for adventurers to do any work in Cormyr without an Adventurer's Charter and must peace-bond any weapons when entering any boro, hamlet, town, etc. unless they show evidence of a Charter. Adding in class distinctions, with nobility and soldiers of the crown not taking particularly well to Adventurers and especially non-Cormyreans. Here's the laws of the land thus far:
- All persons entering Cormyr must register with the officials of a border garrison.
- Foreign currency can only be used in certain locations. Please exchange your coins for Cormyrean golden lions at your first opportunity.
- Adventurers must acquire a charter before undertaking any operation as a group.
- All weapons must be peace-bonded. The only persons exempt from this law are members of chartered adventuring groups and members of mercenary groups that can offer proof of employment.
- Harming cats is forbidden.
- Bow your head to royalty and the local nobility.
- Purple Dragons have the right to search you upon request.
- Hunting on private land is forbidden.
And I think adding certain restrictions on things like what you can buy: weapons and armor wise, is really awesome. A good way of keeping the citizenry humble is limiting the type of weapons you can buy and walk around with, let along armor (as if the prices weren't enough).
As Kyle always points out, it's the people not the system. People who don't like the idea of somebody being a higher social class then them will avoid games where that happens. And there are such people.
Quote from: Batman;1026228*stolen*
Actually I think class and society structures can work well in places that have nobility, especially in Cormyr of the Forgotten Realms, Furyondy of Greyhawk, or even the Houses of Eberron. In fact I really like this idea a lot that I'm going to incorporate it into my 3.5 Cormyr game, so thanks for that! It's already difficult for adventurers to do any work in Cormyr without an Adventurer's Charter and must peace-bond any weapons when entering any boro, hamlet, town, etc. unless they show evidence of a Charter. Adding in class distinctions, with nobility and soldiers of the crown not taking particularly well to Adventurers and especially non-Cormyreans. Here's the laws of the land thus far:
- All persons entering Cormyr must register with the officials of a border garrison.
- Foreign currency can only be used in certain locations. Please exchange your coins for Cormyrean golden lions at your first opportunity.
- Adventurers must acquire a charter before undertaking any operation as a group.
- All weapons must be peace-bonded. The only persons exempt from this law are members of chartered adventuring groups and members of mercenary groups that can offer proof of employment.
- Harming cats is forbidden.
- Bow your head to royalty and the local nobility.
- Purple Dragons have the right to search you upon request.
- Hunting on private land is forbidden.
And I think adding certain restrictions on things like what you can buy: weapons and armor wise, is really awesome. A good way of keeping the citizenry humble is limiting the type of weapons you can buy and walk around with, let along armor (as if the prices weren't enough).
Well, those are good steps. If you want to get even more into it, set up Sumptuary laws. Only people of certain social class are allowed to wear certain types of cloth (ie. silk), and only people of certain noble rank are allowed to use certain colors of clothing (gold or silver trim, red, or of course the royal purple).
Quote from: RPGPundit;1026509Well, those are good steps. If you want to get even more into it, set up Sumptuary laws. Only people of certain social class are allowed to wear certain types of cloth (ie. silk), and only people of certain noble rank are allowed to use certain colors of clothing (gold or silver trim, red, or of course the royal purple).
Some excellent points! Considering that the nobility and royalty of Cormyr often wear Purple (ie. Purple Dragon Knights) that color would definitely be something that's prohibited to the plebeians and only affordable and usable by the gentry. I'll look more into the more exotic and rare cloths of the land, but since it's such a crazy detailed world, that shouldn't be hard. Thanks for the suggestions!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1026509Well, those are good steps. If you want to get even more into it, set up Sumptuary laws. Only people of certain social class are allowed to wear certain types of cloth (ie. silk), and only people of certain noble rank are allowed to use certain colors of clothing (gold or silver trim, red, or of course the royal purple).
In 46 years of gaming I have had one person ask one question about clothing. I want your players.
I could post all the sumptuary laws I wanted; the players wouldn't care.
GAAH! I leave for GaryCon in less than a week, I can't get into a long discussion now!!!
My players do that ALL THE TIME! I had a guy play a Bard and he wanted an entire run down of instruments that the character would use. I often end up running around after the game doing research.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1026509Well, those are good steps. If you want to get even more into it, set up Sumptuary laws. Only people of certain social class are allowed to wear certain types of cloth (ie. silk), and only people of certain noble rank are allowed to use certain colors of clothing (gold or silver trim, red, or of course the royal purple).
Purple has been a color of upper classes since antiquity. The Greek elite used purple dye and of course it was popular in Phoenicia, whose name is derived from the Greek word phoínios meaning purple.
It's funny the L&D gets heat for gender roles, when something like Reign gets celebrated. I really wonder if the issue is the book or the author.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027231In 46 years of gaming I have had one person ask one question about clothing. I want your players.
I could post all the sumptuary laws I wanted; the players wouldn't care.
GAAH! I leave for GaryCon in less than a week, I can't get into a long discussion now!!!
I've met a suripising number of textile nerds over the years.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1027341I've met a suripising number of textile nerds over the years.
Ren Fair, SCA and cosplayers. :)
Some of us just want our characters to be fashionable.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027231In 46 years of gaming I have had one person ask one question about clothing. I want your players.
I could post all the sumptuary laws I wanted; the players wouldn't care.
!!
They'd care if their PCs got arrested for impersonating a noble...
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1027300It's funny the L&D gets heat for gender roles, when something like Reign gets celebrated. I really wonder if the issue is the book or the author.
Almost certainly.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1027765They'd care if their PCs got arrested for impersonating a noble...
First they'd have to ask about clothing. I suppose I could have them treated like vagabonds for dressing like vagabonds.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027792First they'd have to ask about clothing. I suppose I could have them treated like vagabonds for dressing like vagabonds.
I really find it odd that this isn't the norm. In all the groups I've been a part of since the 80s, dressing the part and fitting in to the parts of society the characters were interacting with was part and parcel of the game.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027792First they'd have to ask about clothing. I suppose I could have them treated like vagabonds for dressing like vagabonds.
When we enter a new region one of the first things we scope out is the style of clothes in case we need to disguise, any notable customs at a glance, and the cuisine.
Then we look for signs of obvious trouble. Armed guards on the streets in odd numbers. People looking fearful of said guards rather than happy. Anything creepy that cant be pinned down to just weird customs. And so on. But clothing styles and customs were high on the list. Or an actual priority if we were going in under cover.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027792First they'd have to ask about clothing. I suppose I could have them treated like vagabonds for dressing like vagabonds.
Is that all that your players ever have their characters dress as?
Yeah, that would not go well in a medieval-authentic setting. People might mistake them for Cymri gypsies.
Clothing, bathing, jewelry, - all result in social modifiers in my games. Smelling of blood and sweat in grimy armor can be a positive or negative modifier, depending on who you are dealing with and what is your approach. AKA, that's a +2 modifier when intimidating a fop and a -2 mod when trying to impress a fop.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1027944Is that all that your players ever have their characters dress as?
Yeah, that would not go well in a medieval-authentic setting. People might mistake them for Cymri gypsies.
They mostly don't care. If I asked them "what are you wearing," they'd say "clothes." If I pressed it, they'd probably say "whatever is appropriate."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027231I leave for GaryCon in less than a week, I can't get into a long discussion now!!!
Just post on the can, that should give you several hours a day for posting. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;1028031Just post on the can, that should give you several hours a day for posting. :D
Since I've added a fiber supplement to my diet on a daily basis I spend a lot less time in there, thanks for asking.
As they say in the taconite trade, "production and pelletization have both greatly improved."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1028035Since I've added a fiber supplement to my diet on a daily basis I spend a lot less time in there, thanks for asking.
As they say in the taconite trade, "production and pelletization have both greatly improved."
I had to look up taconite, I thought you were just punning on "Taco night." Which, now I think about it, isn't likely to have improved matters.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1028022They mostly don't care. If I asked them "what are you wearing," they'd say "clothes." If I pressed it, they'd probably say "whatever is appropriate."
That's usually OK, sometimes even in Medieval-Authentic campaign. Of course, if you're playing in a game where being present at a Lord/Monarch's court is a common occurrence, it wouldn't be.