Pretty much everything that is good here is taken from Burning Wheel. There are some OK new concepts here and there but overall I didn't think it was worth my time, and that's is saying a lot because my time isn't worth shit!
>Pretty much everything that is good here is taken from Burning Wheel
Well, it was designed by the Burning Wheel guy. >'This wasn't so much a 'heartbreaker' or 'love letter' to DnD; it was my drunk call to it at 3 in the morning'
In my game, adventurers have the precedence of protecting the cities and villages from incursive monsters, putting them on-par with royal guardsmen, so I'll keep playing my games, and you keep doing... whatever this is.
>guards trusted to personally protect royalty are on the same level as soldiers sent out fully expected to die
Your logic is flawed.
But then, my game is more of a fantasy game, where royals aren't grimdark shitheads and actually pay reverence to those who do well for them.
The difference between soldiers and bandits was often if someone was paying them. They were violent and often ended up as soldiers because they lacked any other skill or profession to make a living with.
anyone under arms tends to be higher status then mere day labourers. because they have the power of violence and can enforce their eill. thats why landsknect or seargents where above laborers even if they conducted illegal actions and might be rogue from any established lord.
The difference between soldiers and bandits was often if someone was paying them. They were violent and often ended up as soldiers because they lacked any other skill or profession to make a living with.
Real property means titled property. The 'real' in 'real estate' is derived from the same word as 'royal'.
By the end of the Middle Ages there were more land-owning untitled peasants/burghers (Franklins or the equivalent) than there were actually landed nobles - the nobility just owned far more of the total land. And there were many, many untitled nobles.
Part of what drove the Age of Discovery and colonial periods were unlanded nobles looking for new land to make claims on. Both Hernan Cortes and Hernando de Soto were 'fijo d'algo'/'hildagos' (sons of means), an entire social class of unlanded Hispanic nobility.
>Nobleman, swerve >MONK COMING THROUGH >Going to say the frick out of some prayers >Can't get saved without prayers >When I'm done I'll scribe that manuscript >Can't even read books without scribes, bet u didnt even kno that
>High nobility 4 >Low clergy 5
Yeah, that wasn't how it worked. High clergy were high nobility (or at least their siblings). Their level should be the same. And low clergy had to be careful round low nobility; guess who had the soldiers and money?
Yes. The lowest monk doesn't give a flying fart what viscount threechin thinks about anything because he serves the highest Lord of all, and only a king or emperor would dare to frick with the Church.
Well, the lowest monk DOES give a flying frick about what Abbot Fourchin thinks given that the abbot is who the monk actually serves. And guess what, Abbot Fourchin is Viscount Threechin's younger brother, so the monk knows he has to watch his step.
>Merchants are near the bottom and lack any kind of variation between a peddler with a sack and a Guildmaster who controls the entire flow of good through the port.
it makes sense when you realize it's only about persuasion, not overall social status, and it's based on modern society but with the names changed (substitute "academics" for "clergy" and "politicians" for "nobility")
the monarch being shoved in at the top without thought is the only thing that doesn't really fit that explanation
I think it sounds kind of fun. It probably doesn't need to be laid out like this as hard set numbers but the idea that you can only really sway people so much due to your social standings is pretty fair, but that trickery and riddles apply to everyone is very classical heroic.
I mean even if you have buttloads of charisma and roll high, you're not convincing the emperor to take off his clothes. But hey, maybe there's something you can do to fool him into it?
Its better if this stuff is hardcoded, so players have to consider it in every interaction, and also so they can make measurable progress up the social scale.
At the end of the day all tabletop rules are just suggestions. The DM can always rule that some extreme situations allow you to bypass social standings or having the right argument/bribe gives you a modifier to how much higher up the totem pole you can look in the eye.
>backtracking this desperately
At that point don't even pretend you have a rule and let the DM homebrew things, instead of having a rigid yet nonsensical rule that still requires modifications to be usable.
Its better if this stuff is hardcoded, so players have to consider it in every interaction, and also so they can make measurable progress up the social scale.
The point that's being ridiculed here is "super adventurers start at the bottom rung of the social ladder"
Even leaving aside that comes from Torchbearer, a game built on the premise that only truly desperate or insane people try to make a career of diving for treasure in monster-filled dungeons, that's how it should be even for D&D or other "heroic" adventure games. You're level 1, you have 0 achievements to your name and you're hoofing it from town to sell your dubious proficiency with the sword on your hip that is your most valuable possession in the world. Of course you get no respect.
So it's impossible for a duke to convince a parish priest of anything because the priest has a higher social station(?), but the duke can still convince a college of cardinals of things because they're all in a group(?).
"Convince" and "harangue" are mechanically different. A duke's opinions don't mean anything to a parish priest. A duke's footmen might matter, but never the duke's footmen's opinions. If you people would stop skimming maybe you could hit on the actual criticisms of the page and stop embarrassing everyone with your half-formed reactions.
>linear scale to describe complex webs of interactions
Just as stupid as "karma" systems in vidya. >convincing a crowd of your superiors is possible, convincing a single one of them is impossible
Somehow even dumber than the above.
"Convince" and "harangue" are mechanically different. A duke's opinions don't mean anything to a parish priest. A duke's footmen might matter, but never the duke's footmen's opinions. If you people would stop skimming maybe you could hit on the actual criticisms of the page and stop embarrassing everyone with your half-formed reactions.
If there is a topic or question you want to discuss, write it in the opening post using complete sentences. I won't tell you again. Do not reply to this post.
It could have made a difference between professional soldiers/town militias/reputable mercenaries and ragged conscripts/low level mercenaries/auxiliary marauders. It makes sense that latters would be commonly considered expendable cannon fodder by their commanders and bottom of barrel scum that can't die in some ditch soon enough by everyone else.
>Proceed to have sex with the Queen & Princess at the same time in front of the entire royal court after the King admits that neither he nor anyone he can hire can stop the dragon >GM has to go along with it otherwise he doesn't have a campaign
Nothing personal Grimecoreoids
For the sake of the discussion, the rule is about lowly Adventurers interacting with the rest of the world. I'm sure you're not supposed to use it if you're the Baron Harkonnen trying to convince the Emperor to lend you a few Sardaukars.
Haggling is about obtaining two torches for the price of one, which is the basic experience in Torchbearer.
I would merge most of those Tiers because an adventurer should be able to haggle with a merchant. Also because the difference between a Duke and a Cardinal isn't that great if it comes to talk with them, you just need the social standing necessary to even approach them, then to respect a different etiquette and have a fricking good reason to waste their time.
... I'm afraid I agree with other posters, I may as well use GURPS guidelines than this.
I need to get a game of TB going one of these days at least a short one. I've run it as a one shot and enjoyed it despite some mistakes I made in the dungeon design (made a puzzle way too hard). Having rules like OP makes sense in TB because you are playing people crawling around in mud and blood who have been rejected by society at large. Half the responses in this thread seem to be assuming this is about 5E or something like that. Truly the majority of /tg/ has absolutely terrible taste and a very blinkered view on what RPGs can be. >captcha: D0RK
Why the frick would convincing a crowd of people be easier than convincing an individual? Is that a typo?
Nevermind, this looks moronic whatever it is. The only useful part is a reminder of the concept that outside special cases, random traveling jackoffs aren't actually allowed to even speak to nobles.
Dickering with soldiers? Why that sounds mighty homosexual.
this game is crap
It is. It has a couple okay ideas. But it was ultimately pretty shit.
Pretty much everything that is good here is taken from Burning Wheel. There are some OK new concepts here and there but overall I didn't think it was worth my time, and that's is saying a lot because my time isn't worth shit!
I really didn't like the flavor too.
>Pretty much everything that is good here is taken from Burning Wheel
Well, it was designed by the Burning Wheel guy.
>'This wasn't so much a 'heartbreaker' or 'love letter' to DnD; it was my drunk call to it at 3 in the morning'
In my game, adventurers have the precedence of protecting the cities and villages from incursive monsters, putting them on-par with royal guardsmen, so I'll keep playing my games, and you keep doing... whatever this is.
Right, so equivalent to a soldier, just like it says in the OP's scale.
>guards trusted to personally protect royalty are on the same level as soldiers sent out fully expected to die
Your logic is flawed.
But then, my game is more of a fantasy game, where royals aren't grimdark shitheads and actually pay reverence to those who do well for them.
Why would soldiers be socially lower than peasants and actors?
It's an example you're supposed to modify according to your own homebrew culture.
Just read the single page we got here.
A great deal of medieval footsoldier were mercenaries. Not sure if one would generalize a soldier as often "worse" than a peasant, but still.
anyone under arms tends to be higher status then mere day labourers. because they have the power of violence and can enforce their eill. thats why landsknect or seargents where above laborers even if they conducted illegal actions and might be rogue from any established lord.
The difference between soldiers and bandits was often if someone was paying them. They were violent and often ended up as soldiers because they lacked any other skill or profession to make a living with.
Peasants and actors have jobs.
if that were the case they wouldn't have put prostitutes on the bottom too
He's just reflecting the oppression of society in the hopes that you, the adventurers, will overthrow it.
>Landless, titleless nobility
m8 that's a peasant
No, there were nobles without real property
But not titles.
Real property means titled property. The 'real' in 'real estate' is derived from the same word as 'royal'.
By the end of the Middle Ages there were more land-owning untitled peasants/burghers (Franklins or the equivalent) than there were actually landed nobles - the nobility just owned far more of the total land. And there were many, many untitled nobles.
Part of what drove the Age of Discovery and colonial periods were unlanded nobles looking for new land to make claims on. Both Hernan Cortes and Hernando de Soto were 'fijo d'algo'/'hildagos' (sons of means), an entire social class of unlanded Hispanic nobility.
There were plenty of landless nobles in the end of the middle ages in every european country
>Soldiers, adventrers 0
>Peasants, labourers, actors 1
>High nobility 4
>Low clergy 5
lol
>Nobleman, swerve
>MONK COMING THROUGH
>Going to say the frick out of some prayers
>Can't get saved without prayers
>When I'm done I'll scribe that manuscript
>Can't even read books without scribes, bet u didnt even kno that
>High nobility 4
>Low clergy 5
Yeah, that wasn't how it worked. High clergy were high nobility (or at least their siblings). Their level should be the same. And low clergy had to be careful round low nobility; guess who had the soldiers and money?
Yes. The lowest monk doesn't give a flying fart what viscount threechin thinks about anything because he serves the highest Lord of all, and only a king or emperor would dare to frick with the Church.
Well, the lowest monk DOES give a flying frick about what Abbot Fourchin thinks given that the abbot is who the monk actually serves. And guess what, Abbot Fourchin is Viscount Threechin's younger brother, so the monk knows he has to watch his step.
>Merchants are near the bottom and lack any kind of variation between a peddler with a sack and a Guildmaster who controls the entire flow of good through the port.
lol
it makes sense when you realize it's only about persuasion, not overall social status, and it's based on modern society but with the names changed (substitute "academics" for "clergy" and "politicians" for "nobility")
the monarch being shoved in at the top without thought is the only thing that doesn't really fit that explanation
>politicians lower than academics
What the frick are you smoking?
it's listed as an example so the writer presumably didn't give enough of a frick to make it make sense
I think it sounds kind of fun. It probably doesn't need to be laid out like this as hard set numbers but the idea that you can only really sway people so much due to your social standings is pretty fair, but that trickery and riddles apply to everyone is very classical heroic.
I mean even if you have buttloads of charisma and roll high, you're not convincing the emperor to take off his clothes. But hey, maybe there's something you can do to fool him into it?
Its better if this stuff is hardcoded, so players have to consider it in every interaction, and also so they can make measurable progress up the social scale.
You don't need to hard code it for it to be considered regularly. All hard coding does is make it harder to account for circumstances and exceptions.
At the end of the day all tabletop rules are just suggestions. The DM can always rule that some extreme situations allow you to bypass social standings or having the right argument/bribe gives you a modifier to how much higher up the totem pole you can look in the eye.
>backtracking this desperately
At that point don't even pretend you have a rule and let the DM homebrew things, instead of having a rigid yet nonsensical rule that still requires modifications to be usable.
The point that's being ridiculed here is "super adventurers start at the bottom rung of the social ladder"
Then the point is formed out of DnD brain rot.
Even leaving aside that comes from Torchbearer, a game built on the premise that only truly desperate or insane people try to make a career of diving for treasure in monster-filled dungeons, that's how it should be even for D&D or other "heroic" adventure games. You're level 1, you have 0 achievements to your name and you're hoofing it from town to sell your dubious proficiency with the sword on your hip that is your most valuable possession in the world. Of course you get no respect.
That's practically the only thing that shitty chart got right, tho
Whomever wrote this wears a bowtie as an affectation, and spends all day desperately longing for someone to ask him about it
So it's impossible for a duke to convince a parish priest of anything because the priest has a higher social station(?), but the duke can still convince a college of cardinals of things because they're all in a group(?).
What the frick am I reading?
"Convince" and "harangue" are mechanically different. A duke's opinions don't mean anything to a parish priest. A duke's footmen might matter, but never the duke's footmen's opinions. If you people would stop skimming maybe you could hit on the actual criticisms of the page and stop embarrassing everyone with your half-formed reactions.
>being this assmad
Lol
This is MYFAROG tier
You wrote that shit, didn't you?
Torchbearer dev in the chat I see.
>linear scale to describe complex webs of interactions
Just as stupid as "karma" systems in vidya.
>convincing a crowd of your superiors is possible, convincing a single one of them is impossible
Somehow even dumber than the above.
Yes that's how group psychology works. Holy frick you people are stupid. Probably because you're in groupthink mode.
Did you write this game, anon?
Was i correct about your bowtie
GURPS wins again.
Being better at autistim isn't a virtue.
If there is a topic or question you want to discuss, write it in the opening post using complete sentences. I won't tell you again. Do not reply to this post.
No way a monk has more social sway than land nobility
There's no way that soldiers are below peasant either, but here we are.
It could have made a difference between professional soldiers/town militias/reputable mercenaries and ragged conscripts/low level mercenaries/auxiliary marauders. It makes sense that latters would be commonly considered expendable cannon fodder by their commanders and bottom of barrel scum that can't die in some ditch soon enough by everyone else.
>ragged conscripts/low level mercenaries/auxiliary
Still above peasants.
>Proceed to have sex with the Queen & Princess at the same time in front of the entire royal court after the King admits that neither he nor anyone he can hire can stop the dragon
>GM has to go along with it otherwise he doesn't have a campaign
Nothing personal Grimecoreoids
>drops a fireball into the king's court
oh no, anyways
So unless there's a "crowd" of kings it's impossible for anyone to ever convince the king of anything, even if they're his own advisors.
But anyone, even the lowest of beggars or criminals, is allowed to go before the king and pose riddles to him, and they will be taken seriously.
>Your majesty, Lord Harrington has attacked villages within my duchy three times now, we must respond with royal troops!
>...
>Okay fine... The greed of my lord is surely to blame, your houses and fields I will set aflame! What am I?
>Lord Harrington's army? Oh blast, to arms men!
>royal troops
Literally no such thing in medieval times...
Wrong.
>random monk has higher status than a duke
Great design
For the sake of the discussion, the rule is about lowly Adventurers interacting with the rest of the world. I'm sure you're not supposed to use it if you're the Baron Harkonnen trying to convince the Emperor to lend you a few Sardaukars.
Haggling is about obtaining two torches for the price of one, which is the basic experience in Torchbearer.
I would merge most of those Tiers because an adventurer should be able to haggle with a merchant. Also because the difference between a Duke and a Cardinal isn't that great if it comes to talk with them, you just need the social standing necessary to even approach them, then to respect a different etiquette and have a fricking good reason to waste their time.
... I'm afraid I agree with other posters, I may as well use GURPS guidelines than this.
I need to get a game of TB going one of these days at least a short one. I've run it as a one shot and enjoyed it despite some mistakes I made in the dungeon design (made a puzzle way too hard). Having rules like OP makes sense in TB because you are playing people crawling around in mud and blood who have been rejected by society at large. Half the responses in this thread seem to be assuming this is about 5E or something like that. Truly the majority of /tg/ has absolutely terrible taste and a very blinkered view on what RPGs can be.
>captcha: D0RK
It's obvious it was written by a zoy guzzler with political opinions.
Why the frick would convincing a crowd of people be easier than convincing an individual? Is that a typo?
Nevermind, this looks moronic whatever it is. The only useful part is a reminder of the concept that outside special cases, random traveling jackoffs aren't actually allowed to even speak to nobles.