Culture aka Social Class

[Arkat]

Next, the archaic table. Again, scaling is on a 3-18 scale. It might be possible to provide for scores above 18, which would represent higher levels of nobility.

There is already a listing for upkeep in the RQ rulebook and they are much more expensive then the one you listed.

Having one or two Nobles in a group of six or seven is fine, it's when the majority of them all want to be Nobles.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Just letting these things happen, then applying the consequences ruthlessly (but never unfairly), can always be a good tactic.

Take a party of 6 nobles, for example. They'll most likely be from 6 different families, with all of the history of squabbling, infighting and petty oneupmanship that implies. Strike one.

Now have them enter a local village. It's early days yet so they won't be too far from home. Guaranteed that at least one villager will recognise and have a grudge against at least one party member (or their family). Depending on who that villager is, things could get messy and inconvenient. Strike two.

A little bit later, one of the party gets in trouble and needs help. Trouble is that his/her grandfather stole land off some other member's great uncle. Being nobles, these things matter and are remembered. Strike three. Out.

 

[atgxtg]

If the players all played nobles, I'd probably have them be related (mith mortality rates what they were most families had several sons, and lots of cousins, and such). This could set them up for all kinds of uses by friends, ralatives and foes alike.

 

[Utgardloki]

I agree that if everybody or a large fraction of the players want to be nobles, making them all siblings makes a lot of sense.

In fact, I'd feel more comfortable with everybody being a noble (as would be the case in a Rokugan game) than with only one or two PCs being noble. Noble PCs have an advantage over commoner PCs, but if everybody gets the choice, that's fine. It's not really a deal-breaker.

 

[AKAramis]

As far as barbarians not having pigs.Depends on the barbarian. For historical examples, Barbarians from Southern, China, Non Muslim Maylays and people from the Pacific islands could be consider Barbarians befor the 15 century and pigs where a big part of their culture.

Most of those cultures do not raise pigs as much as capture them as food.

Swine as domestic animals are a rare; even in the mediævil societies, pig farming/herding was almost non-extant. Pigs were at best semi-feral.

The barbarian culture presented would not adequately stretch to those southeast asiatic barbarians terribly well, either.

 

[TRose]

First the Austronesian people( aTerm that includes the related people of Maylaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Polynesians among others) have been raising pigs befor they left Taiwan around 3000 BC.Pigs are not Native to say New Guinea and most of the Pacific island and where brought by them in their outrigger boats as they settled the islands of the Pacific and elsewhere.
And as far as them being barbarians, well that can be tricky since the term can have negative meanings, but but although they did practice agriculture and have a tribal system of goverment and except in Indonesia never founded any large cities I think they are closer to barbarians as far as game mechanics go then any other class.

 

[Utgardloki]

although they did practice agriculture and have a tribal system of goverment and except in Indonesia never founded any large cities I think they are closer to barbarians as far as game mechanics go then any other class.

Remember, Runequest does not have any class. The starting professions are just a mechanic to tailor your character to her indicated background.

If you are going to have Austronesians or quasi-austronesians, you'll probably want to define professions for them, with appropriate starting skills.

Also, I'd have no problem with a person who wanted to shift some points from his starting skills to other skills that are logical extensions of her background.

Certainly, Runequest is not D&D, where you have to try to shoehorn characters into preset boxes.

In my Runequest Modern game, I'm not even using professions for PCs. Modern professions might come in handy for generating NPCs, although even there I may just set their skills on the fly based on what is useful or associated with their profession. For PCs, the players are responsible for spending their skill points appropriately for the characters background and profession.

Of course the intent of this thread is to determine possessions. I think the intent is that the starting funds represents the approximate value of what your possessions are worth, and don't just mean that you are dropped into the middle of town carrying a pouch of gold and wearing a loincloth.

It's possible to determine basic starting equipment per profession, or just have one list that is used by everybody, or what I do is just have the players write down what their characters are carrying on a sheet of paper and hand it to me. I look over the list and decide if it is "basic equipment" that they can be assumed to have, or has stuff that has to be justified through expenditure of money.

Which is one reason to require a player playing a noble character to somehow pay a cost relative to the players playing barbarians and commoners.

 

[Utgardloki]

I think if I run a Runequest game in an archaic setting, I'll also eliminate professions, except as a tool for defining NPCs. To make up for it, PCs get an extra 10 points per point of INT to spread around and create their own background. (Perhaps making a limit of 20 points per skill for this "background knowledge".)

That should eliminate differences in starting income.

 

[TRose]

One thing also to keep in mind about a character being a Noble is there a good chance he going to have to pay more for the same stuff.Rather its just because of style, or just because people think as a Noble he has money. Also in some ancient societies bargaining was conisder by nobles to be beneath them and would pay asking price or just do with out.

 

[kintire]

One of the major threads of the Mabinogion is the conflict between the two most famous heroes over the first pigs to be introduced in Wales. There's also an Irish tale called the tale of Mac da Tho's Pig. Medieval people herded, ate and hunted truffles with them.

As for nobles, well that very much depends what sort of game you're running! You all seem to be assuming that every game will be "leave home and wander, killing monsters and taking their stuff". Nobles can have a bunch of fine adventures, pursuing their families' goals, squabbling over inheritance, politicking, fighting in wars foreign and civil and many other things without ever having to seperate themselves from their family at all. And when the monsters do need to be taken care of, who do the peasants turn to? A bunch of wandering mercenaries or the local warrior nobility?

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

This makes perfect sense if you are usuaing the Englisn system of noblility. THe eldest sone inherients the tititl and land, so the other sons get nothing. If lucky they might get a postion as a hosehold knight at home, but often all they got were a horse, armor, a knighthood, and best wishes-if that.

Such a character would make an idea adventurer-since historically that is about the only thing they could do.

It also serves to explain the remarkable popularity of fratricide in medieval times, particularly among the ruling classes. If you're the fourth son and the eldest son to survive your father gets the throne, it doesn't give you a whole lot of incentive to get along with your siblings....

The thing is that different worlds wil ahve different standards for what the term "noble" means. In Glorantha, for example, I'm not sure the term has any meaning whatsoever other than "His parents had money". And there are far more adventuring situations where money won't help you than where it will. In addition, it is remarkably easy to lose money; you could have bad luck at cards, the gang of bandits bluffs you into thinking they all have Bow 162%, you buy a "magic sword" and armor made from the Gloranthan equivalent of cardboard, etc.

 

[Arkat]

I think if I run a Runequest game in an archaic setting, I'll also eliminate professions, except as a tool for defining NPCs. To make up for it, PCs get an extra 10 points per point of INT to spread around and create their own background. (Perhaps making a limit of 20 points per skill for this "background knowledge".)

That should eliminate differences in starting income.

Doling out skill points based on INT would skew things. Right now INT only factors in for the skills that use it as a base starting value. The professions are all quite balanced out. A barbarian/mercenary gets +15/+10 for his attack from culture/profession, while a noble/soldier gets +10/+15. The only part that doesn't equal out is the money and it is a rather sizable gap in parity.

 

[kintire]

In Glorantha, for example, I'm not sure the term has any meaning whatsoever other than "His parents had money"

Among the smelly, barely sentient barbarian cultures perhaps. Carmania, Dara Happa, Kralorela and other civilised places know exactly what nobilty is about!

 

[simonh]

The thing is that different worlds wil ahve different standards for what the term "noble" means. In Glorantha, for example, I'm not sure the term has any meaning whatsoever other than "His parents had money".

The Malkioni are a caste based society, so for them Noble means being a member of the Talar caste. Carmanians and Dara Happa have very stratified societies rules by hereditary patriarchal noble houses.

Some Orlanthi do have hereditary kings, such as the Hemndriki of the Savage Plateau, while others are clan based with chiefs who may or may not be hereditary to varying extents. By and large birth is still pretty important and of course they don't operate cash economies.

The rules as given are IMHO just a basic starting point.

 

[klingsor]

The first son inherits and the rest become adventurers or priests. Never mind RPGs that is pretty much how it worked in reality. I am pretty sure if you look at the Normans then English in Ireland or the English (then British) in America you will find this pattern – poor nobles on the make.

Another example is the Spanish conquest of the Americas – though for that they were members of the minor nobility, rich in name and honour but not in money. The troops were often displaced peasants driven out by changes in agriculture (sheep replacing farmers – sound familiar?).

Nobles were a small percentage of the population (well there were some weird cases where this was not so) but would always be overrepresented as adventures as they would be the ones most likely to get involved – they have the skills (hopefully), the drive and some money. I am not so sure about peasants, they would possibly have been more likely to stay put until driven out by a change in circumstances. However the death rates in pre-modern towns were so high that they needed a constant flow of people into them so there were mobile peasants on the make as well.