But of course, not every character is a bard, so what do the other characters do with their free time when the bard is creating? Well, we're told the fighter is sharpening weapons and practicing with them, the cleric is praying, the monk is meditating, the druid is passively walking in the woods and feeding squirrels and presumedly, the thief is sleeping and dreaming of money.
None of these things, however, advance the actual character's experience in the game. Fighters don't have to practice with their weapons, do they? I mean, we assume they do, and that this somehow equates to the process of going up a level, with experience numbers passing a certain goal post being seen as a "tipping point" for where all that practice and weapon sharpening raises the fighter from 3rd to 4th level. But then again, suppose a fighter doesn't practice? Suppose a cleric doesn't pray and suppose a druid doesn't care about squirrels?
Some will jump ahead of me here and imagine that I'm proposing a fighter has to say, "I practice" on a regular basis or else they'll drop a level in experience, or fail to level, but NO, that's not of any interest to me. I don't like rules that penalize the players for not role-playing, or that take away skills the players already have ... at least, not for arbitrary nonsense like having to declare their actions. I'd rather go on assuming that fighters practice and druids walk with squirrels. Instead, however, I'd like to bring the Gentle Reader's attention around to a proposal that might be seen as positive.
I remember you had a system for learning how to crew a ship. Rolling 3d6 until the entire bell curve was filled. You never followed up on it unless I'm forgetting. I'm guessing it didn't work out as it seems to be a way to make use of down time training.
ReplyDeleteMy own experiences with idle time in games has produced a lot of different results, but here are the highlights.
ReplyDelete1. Training. D&D's advancement system is uncompromising. Get experience (money, monsters, magic) and then level. You don't level by practicing with your sword/spellbook/prayers. You gain no mechanical (meaning specific, in-game) benefits from those activities, at least none that the rules specify. Any attempt to say that characters must train to level, or keep their level is, in my opinion punishing success. I hate "training" in D&D. It's right up there with alignment in my list of Shit-Not-To-Include.
2. Creating. Your bard example is a good one. A Bard could perform a new composition and possibly net some more cash, a new lover (or several), or just a good meal, a bath and a warm bed for the night. This is again outside the D&D that I know as it was written, but well-within a DMs discretion to grant or use as a springboard for further adventures. Wizards and Clerics on the other hand can make actual useful stuff for the party that is valuable and has specific in-game mechanical application. Other characters, like the Thief, can do more than just dream about money. I've had characters spend a lot of time messing with Greek Fire devices, and improving their personal gear (instant-off rucksacks being one memorable example).
3. Entrepreneurial Pursuits. Every party I've ever run wants their own business eventually. Coming up with ways to translate that into a meaningful game mechanic has been a fun game-design exercise, but it's exhausting and I've never been satisfied with my results. There are much better games to simulate running a business than D&D. That said, it can be fun to play Innkeepers & Capitalists. Running a business is such a pain in the ass that it can (and for me has) made a great adventure hook. "Uh oh! Taxes are due, and you can't afford it, but the Baron has a deal for you. You just need to move some crofters off his land and he'll call it even. However, if you decline, he'll probably press you all into indenture."
4. Special Pursuits. Let's take the example of the paying fighter. After showing sufficient devotion to her/his god, the fighter gains a "devout" bonus and gets a +1 on reaction rolls from other religious types of similar affiliation. Maybe the god actually smiles on this follower and grants her a +1 to hit once or twice a day for a week after. If she went to the trouble to slaughter a bull, throw a feast and sacrifice to the god, burn a bunch of expensive incense, and hire the senior clerics and their staffs to run the whole thing, maybe we grant a real boon -- temporary use of a Bless spell, or a daily Cure Light Wounds for a week or so.
There's a lot of opportunity here for creative DMs and Players to add depth to their world and characters, but you won't really find a lot of it in the books. Perhaps it doesn't belong there.
Carl, you will find a lot of it on my wiki.
ReplyDeleteAs I would expect, Alexis. :-)
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'm inclined to take offense at the notion that I am anything less than the "original Carl."
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to make sure there's no confusion . . .
The earliest Carl (or as Anglicized, "Charles") that I can find is Carl VII of Gotaland and Sweden, c. 1130 to 1167; numbers I through VI seem not to be known, but they are generally acknowledged to have existed.
ReplyDeleteI trust you're both born later than 1167.
Curses! You've discovered my weakness!
ReplyDeleteI also see that it's a name without a meaning. Like, most of the time, when I research names, I can find a definition (however loosely associated). With Carl, there's nothing beyond, "This famous person has this name."
You'll be pleased to know you're wrong. Wikipedia describes Carl as "free man."
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_(name)
The only problem now is figuring out how to get you to Paris.
This is what I get for reading Wikipedia while drinking . . .
ReplyDeleteGetting pretty far afield, but having had this name for a few summers, I've heard Carl means and has meant "farmer" but this is my favorite, being that I am of Scandinavian origin, and it's a job title:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housecarl
See also, huscarl.
One more thought on the topic at hand, any "downtime" activity (5th ed. D&D has a well-defined system all these things and they call it downtime) could lead to small but meaningful in-game benefits, or perhaps even penalties. For example, your business starts to lose money, you injure yourself training, you screw up the purification ritual before conducting elaborate prayers, etc.
ReplyDeleteI kind of bagged on training in my initial response, but I think training and staying dedicated to a fitness regime and perhaps martial arts (fencing, boxing, stick fighting, etc) could yield a character perhaps a few additional hit points or some combat bonuses, as long as they stuck with it.
Spamming your comments. My apologies, Alexis, but this was too good:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churl
Shorter: "but the word soon came to mean 'a non-servile peasant'"
LOL
My comments do not feel spammed!
ReplyDeleteAny time you want to add information about old english word origins, professions, rural law and organization, particularly if the word is taken as an insult by some, you just go right ahead. I like knowledge.
I accept my name's etymology as "churl." Very fitting.
ReplyDeleteCarl, on the topic of downtime, I would be concerned about giving my players options with conditions. They'd have to be presented with full knowledge of the risks, else it's just safer to not do anything.
Ozy -- I totally agree with being upfront with the group about how the system would work. If I present a candy jar and invite my players to grab a handful, I'm obligated to tell them some of the Almond Rocas in there are cat turds and leave the candy-grab entirely optional.
ReplyDeleteI like to balance risk against reward in games, which is why I brought up the idea that there might be some less-than-desirable effects of a person's downtime activities. In my own experiences, players are willing to accept risks if the rewards are attractive enough. Maybe the chance at a +1 to hit for the week is worth the risk of a training injury that could sideline the character for a week while she recovers.
What I'm driving at is that I think a system that grants boons should also levy banes on occasion because reward without risk is nearly meaningless (as is the converse).
I accept that premise, Original Carl, and have long argued that risk is central to the game. However, consider also that reward is also made meaningful by COST. If we make the effort to produce something valuable in the long term, at the expense of time and sacrifice, we are rewarded by the fruits of our labour.
ReplyDelete