Originally Posted by
Thrudd
A ruler would have a LOT more money than a level 1 character. A level 1 character starts with just enough money to pay for some mediocre armor, a couple weapons, rations and equipment for an expedition. Probably no hirelings, horses, maybe a pony if they Presumably someone that is already a ruler has inheritance or at least some amassed wealth, resources to call their own, holdings, people that serve them, men-at-arms on the payroll. Yes, there are duties and obligations, but they
I dunno. It's Lways been my experience that a noble's money was wrapped up in land, political maneuvering, and the retainers to evict people who didn't hold their end of the land or political maneuvering.
Maybe it depends on time period?
That's actually a paraphrase of the advise of the 1e DMG. So unless we consider the DMG as house rules (which you might), it is pretty much the standard way the game was meant to be played at that time. You start out as a nobody in a generally unfamiliar land. The game is about exploring, managing your resources, and problem solving, at least at lower levels. This is standard.
Which DMG? Might be our disconnect.
The game is indeed about exploring, which is why I'm baffled. It makes perfect sense given the fiction I've read, the bits of history I've gleaned and how the written rules (of 1e and what I can make out of OD&D) that the difference between a king and a fighter is that when the adventure is over, one goes to a stable to saddle up and look for more adventurer and one goes to to he royal stables to await the next adventure.
That is, there is no operable difference. Only the fear that the player may try to wheedle and leverage one into existing. To paraphrase brotherhood of the wolf; all men smell the same in the dark.
In Keep on the Borderlands, the characters aren't meant to know anything about the lands. They learn where things are from the rumors at the keep and exploring. Using the Mystara setting, or any setting, doesn't imply that the characters know anything about the world besides the small region they came from, apart from rumors and maybe the names of some famous places they've never seen.
... They don't know about the world map that's clearly on the table? I don't know that I can buy that for Mystara. They may not have mapped, calculated distances, but they know names and interactions and sympathetic connection.
And so would a fighter, come to think. Aren't fighters explicitly ex-military? At least until the mermaid on kit in 2e when it's implied not having that kit means you're not? (Honest question).
A level one character starts with enough gold to buy very little, a bare minimum of necessary equipment and supplies. yes, far more than most common folk have, but never enough for everything they want.
Ah, no, this one I specifically went to the book for. I can legitimately start my career at first level with 180G, horse and boarding, shield, full plate, sword, dagger, mace and lance. And you can bet that 180G is going to a retinue, since even if they don't go dungeoneering with us, having well paid pikemen standing guard at the mouth of a dungeon and on escort to and from makes it a sight easier to survive.
Unearthed arcana 1e, page 25. :)
Really? A noble has no liquid assets? Well, even if not, they have lots of other assets. They have land, they control a castle and a village at least. Wouldn't they own the best weapons and armor available, probably have a personal smith making these things for them? Have a household full of servants and retainers, men-at-arms at their beck and call? Multiple horses, pack animals, vehicles and people to drive them among their holdings? None of these are things a level 1 character can afford.
Yes to 90% of this, no to "none of this a 1st level character can afford". That's the position I am arguing from, really. Not about the special snowflake backstory. But that if a character says "I want to be a king and have men at arms and a concubine and the best equipment!" I hear "I am buying all these things" and if it's possible – which memory of the book shows it is, even a single delve is enough to pay this all off for a year! – then it's no different from being not a royal and having all those thingss anyway. The king and the beggar are mechanically equal. It is literally a difference only of what the player wants to call it and what th DM will allow. And the reasons given for not allowing it seem to actively defy the rules, which made me assume they were kneejerk reactions.
It would not be fair to allow a player to have these resources at level 1, unless all the players had them.
Baloney, says the guy who gets one magic missile a day on the same party as the elf fighter magic user thief with a 19 dexterity. :P
And it would not be realistic for a character to claim to be nobility operating near their own lands and not have access to these sorts of resources.
Baloney says history with all it's bankrupt kingdoms and constant barterig and borrowing. :P
In other words, character background stories should have little to no bearing on what happens in the game. Player's actions during play is all that matters. This is also advise of the 1e DMG. The standard way the game was expected to be played.
Oh, yes. I'm not saying background should shape the game. I'm saying background is immaterial enough that you shouldn't need to veto anything, because you're just removing potential hooks. The player gains nothing by being a royal except maybe RP validation. You as DM get juicy hooks to use if you want to, but that can lie fallow if you don't. Whereas those nonexistent hooks can only lie fallow. You see?
Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)
Reply With Quote