Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Max_Killjoy]

That even happens in systems that aren't level-based. It happens in nearly all systems were you can advance your character.

Which part? The rapid inexplicable advance for the first few sessions, or the supposed disconnect between activity and particular abilities advance?

The rapid advance of new characters does not seem to take place in HERO or oWoD.

[Milo v3]

Which part? The rapid inexplicable advance for the first few sessions, or the supposed disconnect between activity and particular abilities advance?

The rapid advance of new characters does not seem to take place in HERO or oWoD.

That you can do one activity and gain skills and proficiency in unrelated things (some games that have this do suggest retconing), and that you do generally advance much faster than you would in real life (not overnight, but still ridiculously faster than real life so that the game runs smoothly rather than requiring year long timeskips between adventures).

There are exceptions of course, Call of Cthulhu is the first to come to my mind, where you can only improve skills you've used. And I think Pendragon had pretty long periods of play.

[Max_Killjoy]

That you can do one activity and gain skills and proficiency in unrelated things (some games that have this do suggest retconing), and that you do generally advance much faster than you would in real life (not overnight, but still ridiculously faster than real life so that the game runs smoothly rather than requiring year long timeskips between adventures).

There are exceptions of course, Call of Cthulhu is the first to come to my mind, where you can only improve skills you've used. And I think Pendragon had pretty long periods of play.

Unmentioned mundane activities aren't "retconning"... unless it's one of those GMs who says that player equipment starts to fall apart if they don't specifically mention maintaining it every single night.

[Jormengand]

That even happens in systems that aren't level-based. It happens in nearly all systems were you can advance your character.

I will admit to wanting to find a way to implement the system used in Skyrim and Runescape (among probably many others; those are just the two I know of) where you have levels in each thing you might want to do, and actually get better by doing it, into a TTRPG. Sure, it leads to some odd conclusions like how in Runescape, you can chop down trees and get better at making canoes or how the home teleport spell doesn't advance you towards casting any other teleporation spells (or doing anything else) but spells which enchant jewellery, destroy monsters, or turn items into gold do. But then, that's because if you're cutting down a tree, you're learning to cut up things made of wood into something you can use, and if you're casting spells you're learning how to do magic (with the exception that home teleport is such a trivial spell to cast that it gives no experience) and it gives you experience in all magic in general.

But of course, the main problem is going to be grinding - if you get better at something by doing it, players are going to take days off adventuring to practice that thing. Is it realistic that someone who wants to build something should take time off adventuring to practice? Yes. Is it going to be really bloody annoying? Hells to the yes. Grinding is already actually a problem in Skyrim, where it's possible to stand your character in front of a trap that automatically resets, doesn't push your character back, and doesn't deal enough damage to kill them, before going off and making a cup of tea and waiting for your defence to level, or in Runescape where because quests have arbitrary requirements (Why do I need ninety freaking firemaking to do this quest?) you sit around chucking maple logs into a portable brazier, which - as Jagex themselves openly admit - is just a way to trade time and GP for XP. Of course, the obvious way to discourage that is to keep up the threat (no, you don't have time to punch random walls to level up your unarmed strike, now hurry on and unarmed strike the villain in the face) but this only really works in a certain type of game.

But this is why the level-up system is almost always a little bit dissociated. A little bit. But you could easily make it so you got XP for every challenge you faced, and on level-up, you have to have used a skill to put ranks in it, can't have used a sorcerer spell to swap it out, must have used a feat to take the feat it's a prerequisite for, and so on. This can easily also get annoying fast, for many of the same reasons ("Damn, I'm about to level up and I haven't lied to anyone yet!") and I have never had an actual player complain about how their skill point acquisition didn't make sense, so YMMV.

[Hytheter]

So, there was a bit of a thing about dissociated mechanics on the last page and it kind of had me at a loss because it seemed like nobody was quite using dissociated mechanics to mean what I thought it meant.

As far as I understand, dissociated mechanics are ones that don't have a meaningful connection to the game world. If you can't describe in the world's terms what is actually happening or the characters couldn't possibly have any explanation for the mechanic then its probably dissociated.

NoldorForce seems to be operating under the assumption that a dissociated mechanic is just a word for abstractions we don't like, but if anything I'd say that dissociated mechanics and abstractions are practically antonyms. Abstractions are rules that represent things happening in the game world. HP is an abstraction of how much of a beating you can take, AC is an abstraction of how armour protects you from injury, rolling a dice to determine results is an abstraction for the inherent uncertainty in a given situation, etc. But the daily limit on a Barbarians rage isn't really an abstraction of anything in the game world, it's an arbitrary limitation in the rules for the sake of game balance. And that's why the Alexandrian states that dissociated mechanics aren't roleplaying - when the player decides to cast fireball, that is also the character deciding to cast fireball. But when the player agonises over whether or not he should use Rage now or save it for later that has no relevance to the character, because the barbarian doesn't understand his Rage to be something he can only do once per day.

But then other people are putting out examples like making an ooze prone or delivering an inspiring speech to empower someone who can't possibly hear it. I don't think mechanics like that are dissociated so much as they are incomplete. In most situations there's nothing dissociated about the mechanics - making enemies prone or inspiring your allies are things that can be explained in the game's terms - its just that there's few corner cases that the rules don't account for that make things get a little silly. So the problem isn't with dissociated mechanics but with insufficient rules. Maybe the ooze should have a trait that makes it immune to being prone. Maybe the ability itself should specify that it only works on enemies that can logically be knocked over, subject to the DM's discretion. Or maybe the rulebook just needs to stress that the DM has the authority to make judgement calls on whether an ability should work in a particular situation.

[Friv]

As far as I understand, dissociated mechanics are ones that don't have a meaningful connection to the game world. If you can't describe in the world's terms what is actually happening or the characters couldn't possibly have any explanation for the mechanic then its probably dissociated.

This is pretty much accurate, yeah. The problem is that people draw the line in all sorts of different places.

If you have 100 HP, and someone swings a sword at you for 1d8+4 damage, you aren't getting hurt. Someone people consider that to be a disassociated mechanic, because in the world fiction if you take a sword to the teeth that should maim or kill you. Your characters should feel that a sword to the teeth is dangerous. But a sword to the teeth is clearly not actually dangerous.

Other people consider that to be an HP abstraction; a sword to the face isn't dangerous until it is. They have a different image of the game.

A lot of people consider the 1/encounter or 1/day limits on non-magical abilities to be disassociated, because they can't explain why the fighter can reliably use that one combat technique once per day, and not use it again. Other people say the fiction just lines up so that the opening appears once per day, because this is a narrative fiction, so it's not disassociated.

It's sort of a bad term, because of that. "Disassociated mechanics" mostly means "the exact point where my own suspension of disbelief can't hold up", and that point is very different for different people. Some people would find Dungeon World's "you only get hurt when you fail an action" to be wildly disassociated, while others consider it a smooth-flowing part of the system.

[Kurald Galain]

As far as I understand, dissociated mechanics are ones that don't have a meaningful connection to the game world. If you can't describe in the world's terms what is actually happening or the characters couldn't possibly have any explanation for the mechanic then its probably dissociated.

Yes, that is correct.

But the daily limit on a Barbarians rage isn't really an abstraction of anything in the game world, it's an arbitrary limitation in the rules for the sake of game balance.

That depends. It would not be disassociated for a character to have a limited amount of stamina / primal energy / mana that replenishes by sleeping / meditating / prayer at sunrise.

But then other people are putting out examples like making an ooze prone or delivering an inspiring speech to empower someone who can't possibly hear it. I don't think mechanics like that are dissociated so much as they are incomplete.

The key is that they are intentionally so. The GM explicitly cannot make judgement calls on whether an ability should work; the ability works as written regardless of circumstances (and you either adjust the flavor accordingly or ignore the flavor because "relax, it's just a game"). For example, the official take on proning an ooze in 4E is that you don't actually throw it prone because that's not possible, but your character does something unspecified which results in the ooze getting the exact same penalties as for being prone, even though it's not technically prone.

That's the disassociation.

Other people say the fiction just lines up so that the opening appears once per day, because this is a narrative fiction, so it's not disassociated.

Then those people misunderstand what "disassociated" means. Check Hytheter's explanation again. Your character doesn't know what an "encounter" is or that he's in "narrative fiction", hence these are disassociations.

[Hytheter]

If you have 100 HP, and someone swings a sword at you for 1d8+4 damage, you aren't getting hurt. Someone people consider that to be a disassociated mechanic, because in the world fiction if you take a sword to the teeth that should maim or kill you. Your characters should feel that a sword to the teeth is dangerous. But a sword to the teeth is clearly not actually dangerous.

Other people consider that to be an HP abstraction; a sword to the face isn't dangerous until it is. They have a different image of the game.

The only problem here is that for some reason you're assuming this whole time that the sword is hitting them straight in the face when nothing in the mechanics says that this is the case. You have 100 HP which means you can take a beating. You get hit for 8 damage, which means you are hurt but not killed. These aren't even close to dissociated, it's readily apparent what's going on. Admittedly, the abstraction is a little eyebrow raising considering that our hero can take a good ten or so sword chops without going down, but it's still definitely an abstraction.

A lot of people consider the 1/encounter or 1/day limits on non-magical abilities to be disassociated, because they can't explain why the fighter can reliably use that one combat technique once per day, and not use it again. Other people say the fiction just lines up so that the opening appears once per day, because this is a narrative fiction, so it's not disassociated.

It's dissociated because it's entirely arbitrary. It would be a different story if restrictions on the move made it legitimately unlikely to be usable more than once. But that then also includes the possibility that the ability could actually be used more than once per day, or alternately that there won't be a chance to use it at all! The point about it being fiction is irrelevant to whether the mechanic is dissociated. The mechanic is dissociated because it gives control of the narrative to the player that the character doesn't have.

But there's a point to be made there too - dissociated mechanics can be useful for giving players control of the narrative, so if that is desirable then so are the mechanics. Fate has a few dissociated mechanics that give players control of the narrative, which is desirable because creating a narrative is the point of Fate.

It's sort of a bad term, because of that. "Disassociated mechanics" mostly means "the exact point where my own suspension of disbelief can't hold up", and that point is very different for different people. Some people would find Dungeon World's "you only get hurt when you fail an action" to be wildly disassociated, while others consider it a smooth-flowing part of the system.

I don't think suspension of disbelief has anything to do with it. The aforementioned 100HP hero taking still fighting after 10 sword hits breaks my suspension of disbelief a little, but as I already stated I don't think that makes the mechanic dissociated. It doesn't break my suspension of disbelief because of a disconnect between mechanics and game world - it's more like when I'm watching an anime and find myself thinking "There's no goddamn way he could be standing after that!"

That depends. It would not be disassociated for a character to have a limited amount of stamina / primal energy / mana that replenishes by sleeping / meditating / prayer at sunrise.

Oh, I'm not saying that all x/period abilities are dissociated but some of them definitely are; I'm under the impression that this is especially true for 4e, which is one of the main things that prompted Alexandrian's dissociated mechanics essay in the first place.

The key is that they are intentionally so. The GM explicitly cannot make judgement calls on whether an ability should work; the ability works as written regardless of circumstances (and you either adjust the flavor accordingly or ignore the flavor because "relax, it's just a game"). For example, the official take on proning an ooze in 4E is that you don't actually throw it prone because that's not possible, but your character does something unspecified which results in the ooze getting the exact same penalties as for being prone, even though it's not technically prone.

That's the disassociation.

Right, I haven't actually played 4e so I didn't realise that they forced the matter to such a degree. That is a bit iffy.

[Kurald Galain]

The only problem here is that for some reason you're assuming this whole time that the sword is hitting them straight in the face when nothing in the mechanics says that this is the case. You have 100 HP which means you can take a beating. You get hit for 8 damage, which means you are hurt but not killed. These aren't even close to dissociated, it's readily apparent what's going on. Admittedly, the abstraction is a little eyebrow raising considering that our hero can take a good ten or so sword chops without going down, but it's still definitely an abstraction.

Well, we get a thread about every week on whether HP represent health or plot armor. According to the former camp, as you say, if you have 92 out of 100 HP then you are scratched or bruised, and your character can simply take a lot of punishment (like characters in action movies, really). This is associated.

According to the latter camp, if you have 92 out of 100 HP then, your character is less capable of dodging and less lucky, but the attack missed and you're not actually wounded. Except when the attack was a poison needle, then you were wounded after all. And except that people can restore your dodging and luck by putting a bandage on you. And that spells like Resist Fire don't actually make you resist fire, but instead make you more likely to dodge fire and more lucky against fire. This is (very much) disassociated.

As Snips, Snails & Dragon Tales puts it, "that move was so inspiring that it turns out that retroactively, I wasn't wounded in the first place".

Oh, I'm not saying that all x/period abilities are dissociated but some of them definitely are; I'm under the impression that this is especially true for 4e, which is one of the main things that prompted Alexandrian's dissociated mechanics essay in the first place.

Indeed. For instance, in 4E, a combat encounter will take less than a minute in-game, whereas a skill encounter can take hours. In the former case, your "encounter powers" refresh after you rest for five minutes, in the latter case they don't.

Right, I haven't actually played 4e so I didn't realise that they forced the matter to such a degree. That is a bit iffy.

Yeah, it's probably the main criticism of that game (as soon as you realize that people who say "it plays like a computer game" are actually complaining about disassociations). It's not that all disassociations are bad, but it is true that having too many of them will turn people away.

[NoldorForce]

The key is that they are intentionally so. The GM explicitly cannot make judgement calls on whether an ability should work; the ability works as written regardless of circumstances (and you either adjust the flavor accordingly or ignore the flavor because "relax, it's just a game"). For example, the official take on proning an ooze in 4E is that you don't actually throw it prone because that's not possible, but your character does something unspecified which results in the ooze getting the exact same penalties as for being prone, even though it's not technically prone.

That's the disassociation.

What prevents the GM from making a judgement call, though, that's not present in other editions? Or conversely, what's the issue with using a bit of imagination to bring the fiction with what the underlying rules say? (Also, what prevents you from tripping an ooze in 3.x?)

Stuff like this that centers around interpreting tight rules always seemed artificial, since you're never married to one particular interpretation of those rules in the fiction.

It's sort of a bad term, because of that. "Disassociated mechanics" mostly means "the exact point where my own suspension of disbelief can't hold up", and that point is very different for different people. Some people would find Dungeon World's "you only get hurt when you fail an action" to be wildly disassociated, while others consider it a smooth-flowing part of the system.

This seems to be the implicit definition, considering how experimental a number of RPGs have gotten in the past decade or so if they aren't following in D&D's footsteps. Compare things like Dogs in the Vinyard, Fiasco, and Microscope; all of those are rather weird compared to the original versions of D&D.

In particular, the "plays like a computer game" trope is a reaction to newfangled changes like keywording and clearly delineating rules, which 3E didn't do nearly so much of. (Recall the weirdness of Strongheart Vest interacting with Hellfire Warlock, after all.) Back when 3E was released, people were complaining about it being Diablo in TRPG form, so complaints about an edition being too much like a computer game are really just people complaining about changes they don't like, pure and simple.

[BayardSPSR]

Here's an in-depth example of dealing with the second from Strike!:

I'm used to games that flow from "I do/try to do this" to "roll that and we'll evaluate what happens," rather than "I do this" to "wait, never mind, the rules for that don't make sense, so I do come up with a way for them to make sense," so the example rubs me the wrong way. I'm aware that people can rightly like some of the other results of such a system, just... Rules exist to tell me what the results of what I try to do are; rules telling me what I may (or must) try to do in the first place are just bad improv.

Characters need some way to advance

Well... Not really. While I run homebrewed systems exclusively, I have found that it's possible to cut character advancement entirely and have no one mind at all.

That depends. It would not be disassociated for a character to have a limited amount of stamina / primal energy / mana that replenishes by sleeping / meditating / prayer at sunrise.

You also have the weird disconnect (I think that's what I want to call disassociated mechanics, "weird disconnects") regarding the fact that "rage" need not correlate with the character's emotional state.

In particular, the "plays like a computer game" trope is a reaction to newfangled changes like keywording and clearly delineating rules, which 3E didn't do nearly so much of. (Recall the weirdness of Strongheart Vest interacting with Hellfire Warlock, after all.) Back when 3E was released, people were complaining about it being Diablo in TRPG form, so complaints about an edition being too much like a computer game are really just people complaining about changes they don't like, pure and simple.

No they aren't. As I've said in a different thread, tabletop RPGs and many computer games do actually resemble each other, and it's possible for tabletop RPGs to resemble certain computer games in ways that people consider to be inappropriate. Both hobbies evolved over the same period of time and influenced each other (see pedit5).

Criticizing a TTRPG for resembling a MOBA more than games more directly inspired by TTRPGs is valid. I personally find that any relationship with video games feels video-gamey, which covers the whole D&D franchise. That doesn't mean they're bad or that people shouldn't like them; it just means that I recognize their two-way relationship with video-game implementations and find that it feels different from games developed more independently, like those ones you think are weird.

Weird being a word that describes my impressions of the assumptions behind the whole D&D family, by the way.

[Max_Killjoy]

so complaints about an edition being too much like a computer game are really just people complaining about changes they don't like, pure and simple.

I really wish these discussions could dispense entirely and permanently with the attempts at telling other people why they think what they think.


Personally, I have no loyalty to any prior edition of D&D, I dislike D&D of all editions intensely for several reasons... and within five minutes of reading through a borrowed copy of 4E, I was thinking "this is an attempt at bringing in MMO elements". No prompting, no one else's opinion, no prior influence.


But somehow, despite not liking D&D's rules anyway, this was just a "bad reaction" to changes I didn't like?

[Kurald Galain]

that "rage" need not correlate with the character's emotional state.

That's because the word "rage" has multiple meanings. The one appropriate to the barbarian is not "anger", but "to move with great violence or intensity".

Criticizing a TTRPG for resembling a MOBA more than games more directly inspired by TTRPGs is valid.

Yes. It's also worth noting that disassociated mechanics are normal and expected in many genres of video games (as well as board games).

[BayardSPSR]

That's because the word "rage" has multiple meanings. The one appropriate to the barbarian is not "anger", but "to move with great violence or intensity".

Which I understand to be a metaphorical anthropomorphism , comparing, say, a stormy sea to emotional tumult.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's because the word "rage" has multiple meanings. The one appropriate to the barbarian is not "anger", but "to move with great violence or intensity".

In this context of the rule or ability in question, is "rage" a noun or a verb?

Yes. It's also worth noting that disassociated mechanics are normal and expected in many genres of video games (as well as board games).

To a point. There's the long-standing debate about how tolerable gameplay vs story segregation is (personally, I loath it), for example.

[Kurald Galain]

Which I understand to be a metaphorical anthropomorphism , comparing, say, a stormy sea to emotional tumult.

But it works both ways, in that a barbarian can be compared to a stormy sea.

In this context of the rule or ability in question, is "rage" a noun or a verb?

Both.

To a point. There's the long-standing debate about how tolerable gameplay vs story segregation is (personally, I loath it), for example.

Yes. Disassociated Mechanics are directly a kind of Gameplay And Story Segregation. In computer games, it is rather more accepted in certain genres (e.g. shmups, platformers, MOBA) than in others (CRPGs, sandboxes). As WOTC found out, turns out that in tabletop games it is also rather more accepted in certain genres (e.g. chess, Settlers of Catan) than in others (TRPGs, obviously).

[Mightymosy]

But it works both ways, in that a barbarian can be compared to a stormy sea.


Both.


Yes. Disassociated Mechanics are directly a kind of Gameplay And Story Segregation. In computer games, it is rather more accepted in certain genres (e.g. shmups, platformers, MOBA) than in others (CRPGs, sandboxes). As WOTC found out, turns out that in tabletop games it is also rather more accepted in certain genres (e.g. chess, Settlers of Catan) than in others (TRPGs, obviously).

One quick note from someone who really loves Settlers of Catan: My opinion why it has grown to so much popularity is that the game mechanics are very much non-dissociated (as I understand the term), at least for a board game, compared to other board games.
The basic premise is you build roads and settlements. For this, you need resources. These resources you get from different kind of fields next to the settlements you have. Some fields give resources more often than others. The dice determine when which field gives resources.

When you look closer, a lot of the actual details don't really work realistically. For example: Even though resource fields have different production rates, in RL it would likely not result in the bell curves given by the two D6 that are thrown in Settlers.

But the point is that the main premise as outlined above is easily understandable. Nothing difficult about it, really.
It's easy to grasp because most people intuitively understand the concept of gathering resources to build settlements to gather more resources, and some fields are more productive than others.

As a side note: Think about the "distance rule": You may not build settlements next to any other settlement (including your own). There must always be at least two "road spaces" distance to any exsisting settlement when you place a new one.

That rule doesn't resemble anything in real life. I imagine it is there for balance reasons.
And you know what? Of all the basic rules, that rule is the one new players constantly forget - again and again.


The human mind works with what it knows. Great game designers take that into account. We can work with some dissociated game mechanics, but overloading a game with too much pushes people away from games.

I believe a lot of games that might be great fail because too many basic game rules/mechanics feel weird because they run against human expectation.
Maybe a lot of games could have been saved and become blockbusters if they are refluffed in a way so that game mechanics appear more intuitive? Hmm, maybe there's a market out there......gotta go

[Max_Killjoy]

A couple of interesting articles in the subject of disassociated mechanics.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...a-brief-primer
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...ytelling-games

[Knaight]

As a side note: Think about the "distance rule": You may not build settlements next to any other settlement (including your own). There must always be at least two "road spaces" distance to any exsisting settlement when you place a new one.

I'd disagree with your entire thesis, and argue that the popularity of Catan is primarily based on it being an actual good board game that came out to compete against a field full of junk, a luxury future games haven't had. With that said, I do think they carefully fit the theme and mechanics, and I'd argue that that also applies to the distance rule - actual centers of population take rural support, and they have to be somewhat distant from another. In an age of extensive trucking that matters a whole lot less, but there's a reason towns tended to be placed some distance apart historically.

[veti]

With that said, I do think they carefully fit the theme and mechanics, and I'd argue that that also applies to the distance rule - actual centers of population take rural support, and they have to be somewhat distant from another. In an age of extensive trucking that matters a whole lot less, but there's a reason towns tended to be placed some distance apart historically.

I haven't played the game, but - how do you understand "settlement"? And approximately how much distance does each "road piece" represent?

If a "settlement" can mean "anything from a sprawling metropolis to a tiny village", and a road piece is like "20 miles or more", then settlements on every single piece should be perfectly feasible. But if a settlement means, by default, "market town", and you read road pieces as "something indeterminate, but probably less than five miles", then the spacing rule makes sense.

I bring this up because - my guess is, the rules don't actually specify either of these things. So some players are probably imagining the map they play on to be the size of, let's say, Texas, while others are thinking more like Barbados, while looking at exactly the same map. And that would cause these two players to have quite a different mental picture.

[BayardSPSR]

I bring this up because - my guess is, the rules don't actually specify either of these things. So some players are probably imagining the map they play on to be the size of, let's say, Texas, while others are thinking more like Barbados, while looking at exactly the same map. And that would cause these two players to have quite a different mental picture.

That's it. German-style boardgames...

The game also has a "robber" that doesn't really represent a robber, as far as I can tell.

[Kurald Galain]

That's it. German-style boardgames...

The game also has a "robber" that doesn't really represent a robber, as far as I can tell.

It does represent a robber. Whether it acts like one is up for debate.

Anyway, Knaight is correct in that Catan is popular because it is very well written, not because its mechanics are associated (note to Mightymosy, association is unrelated to whether a rule is intuitive or easy to learn). Disassociations are normal and expected in board games; nobody is going to complain about a board game that it "plays like a board game".

[BayardSPSR]

It does represent a robber. Whether it acts like one is up for debate.

Yeah... There's something a bit off-putting about the fact that the piece acts in a way that resembles a semi-nomadic native population inadvertently interfering with the resource-collection efforts of the colonists is called a "robber," for me.

[Murk]

I always assumed the rule about spacing between villages was because it makes it impossible for more than three villages to be on the same resource - which makes sense: one area of grain or woods just can't sustain six full villages (with the game implying this resource is at least half of the income of the entire village). No matter the size, that made sense to me.

Also, in Dutch the robber is just a "bandit", which I'm guessing is closer to the original? (It would be very weird if it wasn't). It sounds better than "robber", to me.

[Segev]

Yeah... There's something a bit off-putting about the fact that the piece acts in a way that resembles a semi-nomadic native population inadvertently interfering with the resource-collection efforts of the colonists is called a "robber," for me.

If it makes you feel better, think of it instead as a wealthy man who claims the entire region as his own, squanders its resources to maintain his wasteful lifestyle, and sics his minions on anybody who would dare harvest resources to use for the betterment of their whole community.

[BRC]

If it makes you feel better, think of it instead as a wealthy man who claims the entire region as his own, squanders its resources to maintain his wasteful lifestyle, and sics his minions on anybody who would dare harvest resources to use for the betterment of their whole community.

Perhaps some sort of Robber-Baron.

[BayardSPSR]

If it makes you feel better, think of it instead as a wealthy man who claims the entire region as his own, squanders its resources to maintain his wasteful lifestyle, and sics his minions on anybody who would dare harvest resources to use for the betterment of their whole community.

Yeah, I think I'll do that. Fits with German history, as well.

[The Glyphstone]

Peasants! Build me a manor house by stacking sheep on top of each other!

[2D8HP]

Peasants! Build me a manor house by stacking sheep on top of each other!

In reading A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th-Century, I learned the Jacquerie said, "scratch a Noble, find a Bandit".
So under ever 10th level D&D "Lord" is a "murder-hobo".

[Honest Tiefling]

In reading A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th-Century, I learned the Jacquerie said, "scratch a Noble, find a Bandit".
So under ever 10th level D&D "Lord" is a "murder-hobo".

That's pretty impressive that the character can still be a hobo despite having a home with servants. I certainly don't put that past DnD PCs, but someone tell me if there is any way to justify this with German History, please.