← Home ← Back to /tg/

Thread 96333419

21 posts 10 images /tg/
Anonymous No.96333419 >>96333457 >>96333475 >>96333497 >>96333503 >>96333546 >>96333567 >>96333717 >>96333824 >>96333964 >>96336730 >>96337578 >>96338069 >>96338071 >>96338257
How realistic do you feel background should be? For me I just can't see any adventures being nobles of any kind.
Anonymous No.96333457 >>96333507 >>96333731
>>96333419 (OP)
The sons that won't inherit anything would be prime adventure material. Epically if they were 4th born sons or later. Where as second born might become knights and third born join the clergy, the further you are from inheriting anything, the more you'll need to make your own way in the world.
Anonymous No.96333475 >>96333523
>>96333419 (OP)
A character's background should be however realistic the tone and atmosphere of the game calls for. If we're playing D&D or some wacky "anything goes" shit like that, sure, be a noble with an ego the size of a planet who's adventuring just for the fucking bragging rights.

If we're playing a more "realistic" game, yeah, sorry, you're probably a conscript, mercenary, or desperate bastard with no inheritance coming, because actual nobles are too important to risk their safe and comfortable lives adventuring.
Anonymous No.96333497
>>96333419 (OP)
Prince Valiant did OK.
Anonymous No.96333503 >>96333523
>>96333419 (OP)
Nobles are the only people who SHOULD be adventuring. Peasants need to get their asses back on the farm. Only nobles have the access to the education, training, and material support to be proper adventures.

OP has never even played Rogue Trader. Sad.
Anonymous No.96333507
>>96333457
inheritance isn't always lineal. If your brother was much better than you, you might want to find an excuse to abdicate the inheritance to him before you are made to do that. You could had also been an adopted child in a family that needed an heir, but they managed to concieve afterwards and now you're in the way of the true heir. It might be an initiation ritual to travel the land and do heroic deeds in the name of your family. Your land could always be lost, to enemies or nature, or a mix of both if the fey covered your land in forest or demons opened a hell mouth.

I could keep going, I think any of this could be a hook as much as a "so I got away from that shit but still carry myself as a noble and people might come to kill us at some point" which I think players prefer,
Anonymous No.96333523
>>96333475
>because actual nobles are too important to risk their safe and comfortable lives adventuring.
Irish inheritance rights demanded you proved yourself in combat. The crusades existed because they had too many nobles wanting to go wreck shit. In a feudalist society the people on top were expected to show their might, it's like rich people buying retarded stuff.

>>96333503
this
Anonymous No.96333546 >>96333762 >>96333794 >>96334887
>>96333419 (OP)
"Realistically" I can't see many women being "adventurers", but I'm still going to continue to play games that let play cute anime girls. Realism-wanking has always been retarded as fuck.
Anonymous No.96333567
>>96333419 (OP)
You think the guy who spent his entire childhood locked up in a castle being tutored in a bunch of different skills and reading books is less likely to become an adventurer than the guy who's been planting potatoes and trying not to starve for as long as he can remember?
Anonymous No.96333717
>>96333419 (OP)
Traditional games?
Anonymous No.96333731
>>96333457
Except they’re to be married into other noble houses, because you don’t want to bring in peasants and dilute the bloodline.
Anonymous No.96333762 >>96333794
>>96333546
I an inclined to concur to a considerable degree.
Anonymous No.96333794
>>96333546
>>96333762
Realistically most people men or women are not going to be adventurers. You need to be a odd ball to be in a job where you pick fights with dragons.
Anonymous No.96333824
>>96333419 (OP)
Ironically I can't see adventurers being anything less than the upper class. Where would they get the training? What about finances for their adventures? People back home who rely on them?

Second or third sons and daughters, fallen nobility, or overly ambitious ones. Nobles forced into it by political opponents, or just dilettantes doing it for the lols.

Like. Irl historically real adventures have been done almost exclusively by the rich and powerful.
Anonymous No.96333964
>>96333419 (OP)
I ran a campaign with one "unworthy" noble son as a PC. It worked nice because he was a gateway to high class and politics but was completely oblivious to commoners so the interactions were interesting.
Anonymous No.96334887
>>96333546
This. Any game that can't have brown tomboys in armor is a game I'm not interested in.
Anonymous No.96336730
>>96333419 (OP)
Couple more classes and you should have English down pat.
Anonymous No.96337578
>>96333419 (OP)
>I can't see adventurers being nobles of any kind
Anonymous No.96338069
>>96333419 (OP)
What game? What setting?

A Pendragon or L5R game is about noble warriors doing adventures, whereas a noble PC in Delta Green would be pretty hard to justify unless they're some sort of limey wanker.

In a general pseudo-medieval fantasy game a noble PC is pretty easy to justify, though. Exiled nobles seeking the coin and connections to reclaim their seat, younger sons with nothing to inherit seeking their fortune, bachelors on the mannerbund, eccentric nobles seeking a legendary treasure or writing a travelogue, a young noble fleeing an unwanted marriage: the possibilities are legion.

They are also useful. A noble is a patron who can more easily fund equipment for an early party, a face for interacting with high society, and a heavily armored warrior for combat. They're also a natural nexus for diverse supporting characters like experts in the wilderness, people good at ranged combat, and people who can infiltrate places a noble can't.

In fact, one short campaign I ran (in Mythras) featured a GMPC noble to help fill these roles, although if its not a PC they need to have some major flaw that makes the PCs the main characters. In that campaign I had him as an extremely old man seeking a treasure he had narrowly missed out on as a young crusader. He was able to provide decades old half forgotten insights to keep the party on track and use his status to help the party sometimes in social situations, but was otherwise more of a burden than a boon until his untimely demise just in sight of the ancient tomb. If you do this, I'd suggest making them some combination of old, insane, crippled, dying, stupid, arrogant, or the mark so that the players have to manage and work around the aristocratic GMPC
Anonymous No.96338071
>>96333419 (OP)
>For me I just can't see any adventures being nobles of any kind.
Lots of places in history had unlanded, even poor nobles
Anonymous No.96338257
>>96333419 (OP)
IRL adventurers almost always came from two classes:
Either criminals/soldiers out of their regular work or being hired as mercenaries.
Or nobles who did not stand to inherit anything and wanted to make their own fortunes.

This was true until rather late in history where rich commoners became rich enough that "boredom" or a version of the noble justification became a thing.

And of course it ignores other adventurer-by-default jobs, like sailor, traveling merchant, and scientist.