Tinkering with Social Status for campaign

[captaincrumbcake]

Social Status     Rank        Title                       Armor type                Weapons allowed                                MG*

Royalty	1	King/Queen	Dress Plate	Any Weapon	MG 5
Royalty	2	Prince/Princess	Dress Plate	Any Weapon	MG 5
Upper Noble	3	Duke/Duchess	Dress Plate	Any Weapon	MG 4
Noble	4	Baron/Baroness	Dress Plate	Any Weapon	MG 4
Lower Noble	5	Lord/Lady	Dress Plate	Any Weapon	MG 4
Special	6	Knight	Field Plate	Any Weapon	MG 3
Upper Common	7	Squire/politician	Chain	Sword and below	MG 2
Common	8	Masters/officers	Chain	Dagger, Sword, Battle ax & below	MG 2
Lower Common	9	Craftsmen/soldiers	Chain	Pole Arm, Cross Bow, Flail, Mace & below	MG 1
Special	10	Peasants/serfs	Leather	Club, spear, short bow, normal tools	MG 0

* MG stands for Master Grade item. The higher the value, the better the item; if armor, the value is subtracted from opponents attack rolls, and if weapon, the value is added to wielders attack rolls.

I've been trying to come up with something different than the default approach that: anyone can wear and use any type of armor and weapon they want--can afford--or find, for various reasons. Not to make the game realistic, or a historical simulation, but because--I, personally--find it tediously attacks my senses. I'd like to remove magic, and the actions-based-on-class paradigm. The table above shows only some beginning-tinkering with the idea.

Can it be done and still be the same game? I think so. If the core philosophy of D&D is to play let's pretend, and how we do that is left for each of us to decide, as literally suggested by the creators of the game, then using their example of House Rules (the LBBs) or our own, theoretically fulfills the objective.

Ergo, as a campaign approach, I post the above thoughts. 

[The Red Baron]

Mar 16, 2015 17:02:34 GMT -5 The Red Baron said:

A Prince is any independent sovereign. Generally Kingdoms are large, and principalities are small (possibly city-states): Thus all kings are princes, but not all princes rule a kingdom. A Grand duke is a misnomer, and should be called a prince.

A Duke rules a county. He has some autonomy and possibly has vassal counts but still owes fealty to a prince.

A Marquis rules a county at the edge of a realm, called a march. Marquis are directly answerable to their prince, not a duke, and thus have greater prestige than a count, but at the price of ruling an uncivilized and dangerous land. Margraves have more autonomy to deal with threats to the realm as they see fit.

A Count (Earl in England) rules a county, and is answerable to a prince or more often a duke.

A Baron owns a castle within a county.

A knight is a landed and knighted man, invested with the power to enforce the law, but not to judge or decree it. A knight with a castle becomes a baron.

A freeman owns land in a city or countryside, but has no special power.

Serfs are tied to the land and are bought and sold along with it.

Slaves are bought and sold as individuals, and not tied to the land. A slave is however an extension of their owner, and therefore enjoys the full glory and protection which their status an appendage of that person bestows.

[captaincrumbcake]

Continuing my tinkering with social status for campaign--

I do not have issues with allowing players to have a lot of input into one's campaign. But there are basically two lines of thought about it, IMO. Either they have a lot of say, or the dice do. Given these choices, I would not allow players to choose from what social rank they were born into, anymore than I would let them pick their individual ability scores. There is nothing wrong with the former, if such is the game one wants to develop and moderate. Personally, I like the idea of a random generation, and let things develop from there. But that's just me. So, given that, I am thinking that the following table might be close to what I have in mind.


% Roll            Social Rank*    Starting Money   Ability Modifiers

100	1,2,3	Special	15% chance of +2 to Cha.
99	4,5	Special	10% chance of +2 to Cha.
96-98	6	60-360 GP	5% chance of +1 to Str., Con., & Dex.
86-95	7	30-180 GP	5% chance of +1 to Cha.
76-85	8	30-180 EP	5% chance of +1 to Int. or Wis.
66-75	9	30-180 SP	5% chance of +1 to Str. or Con.
01-65	10	30-180 CP	5% chance of +1 to Str. & Con.

* Where one begins is not indicative of where one ends up.
Granted, the above table is filled with arbitrary information. Isn't every edition?

[hedgehobbit]

How do you plan on enforcing armor restrictions in things like dungeons and wilderness? I'd hate all this work to only result in a "take your armor off when you get to town" type game.

Also, how do you plan to deal with social status outside of noble families/knighthoods? For things like guilds, merchants, clergy, barbarian tribesmen, etc. The Ready Ref Sheets pg 2 has a list of comparable social standing. It might not be accurate but it's a start. Forex, a Mayor might be equal to a Knight and above a Guildmaster. 

[captaincrumbcake]

There is a lot of historical precedence where lowly citizens were denied the ability to own and bear arms; the old west in the U.S. has ample examples of where guns had to be "checked in and out" before entering and when leaving certain towns. Even Back To The Future 3 gives a humorous nod to this. In medieval Europe, and Japan, peasants-serfs knew their status, and the penalty of being caught bearing a weapon and were more than willing to avoid punishment. The system as a whole must be generally assumed, with whatever mechanics one thinks is needed to deal with specific violations of the law.

Evidence clearly suggests this paradigm actually existed for centuries in our own past reality. Why should anyone think such could not be possible in a fantasy game?

[hedgehobbit]

May 30, 2017 12:40:42 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Evidence clearly suggests this paradigm actually existed for centuries in our own past reality. Why should anyone think such could not be possible in a fantasy game?

In the real world, battlefield weapons can be seen as a threat to the ruling class. However, in a fantasy setting, even a well defended city might have a manticore drop down into the city square without warning. The self defense needs in a world with flying, teleporting, and summonable monsters is much more of an issue. 

However, I still see this as more of an issue of enforceability in a game situation where a single heavily armed PC can easily dispatch a dozen or so guards. This is really down to the players. A player of a low born PC will have two choices: 1) suck and continue to suck until he can slowly trudge his way up the social ladder or 2) say "freak it" and try to overthrow the system. Not sure who you play with but 90% of the players I've seen will pick option #2.

This is probably way outside what you're looking to do but an old game Bushido had an interesting take on social status. Firstly, each character would belong to multiple faction, one faction being their family (royal or otherwise) while other factions might include things like trade guilds, merchant companies, wizard's guilds or even local village level political positions (village elder, major, etc). 

Characters were given a ranking from 1-100 representing their level in that faction or organization (100 being the leader) and each organization was also given a ranking from 1-100 representing the power of that organization within the game world (the royal family had a 100 ranking, everything else was below that). To figure a character's overall status ranking you'd multiply both numbers and divide by 100. So the King/Emperor would have 100 ranking as leader of the family and a 100 ranking for the family itself so he'd be the top dog with a 100 overall status value. 

This accomplishes two things. Firstly, it gives the player three ways to increase their status (rather than trying to overthrow the system). 1) Work your way up the latter of membership within an organization 2) perform tasks that increase their organization's status within the world (for example, a member of the wizard's guild might try to drive out a competing guild to raise their guild's status) and 3) create a new organization, such as an adventurer's guild, and build that organization up to be a political powerhouse. 

Secondly, because all statuses are measured on the same scale (it's 1-100 in Bushido but it could easily be 1-20), you can compare statuses and use that comparison for things like ordering lessers around, requesting favors, negotiating deals, etc. One of the things Bushido did was have random encounters where your underlings would request a favor of you and the consequences should you refuse. 

This system gives players more control in setting their own status while also providing way to use that status politically. 

Just a thought. 

[Admin Pete]

Jun 1, 2017 9:52:13 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

May 30, 2017 12:40:42 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Evidence clearly suggests this paradigm actually existed for centuries in our own past reality. Why should anyone think such could not be possible in a fantasy game?

In the real world, battlefield weapons can be seen as a threat to the ruling class. However, in a fantasy setting, even a well defended city might have a manticore drop down into the city square without warning. The self defense needs in a world with flying, teleporting, and summonable monsters is much more of an issue. 

However, I still see this as more of an issue of enforceability in a game situation where a single heavily armed PC can easily dispatch a dozen or so guards. This is really down to the players. A player of a low born PC will have two choices: 1) suck and continue to suck until he can slowly trudge his way up the social ladder or 2) say "freak it" and try to overthrow the system. Not sure who you play with but 90% of the players I've seen will pick option #2.

A lot of that depends on the focus of your game and whether or not social status plays a small part or a large part. I have played it both ways and found both to be fun.