Warrior titles.

[AgeOfFable]

On p30 it says that warrior's level titles depend on their Path, of which there are four, not directly on their alignment. But Table 1-11: Warrior Titles (p32) gives titles by alignment.

(reposted in the correct forum )

[jmucchiello]

How about just ditching level titles as meaningless? Why are barbarians and chieftains neutral? What if I don't want to be a champion?

[finarvyn]

Level titles serve a couple of purposes.

1. They add flavor to the character. If you don't like it, don't use it.

2. They allow for shorthand notation for keying a dungeon level. Dave Arneson used to use shorthand like "2 Swordsmen" and he knew that a swordsman was the title of a 3rd level figher in OD&D. Of course, he could just say "two 3rd level fighters" but it wasn't as cool that way.

[jmucchiello]

1. They don't add flavor. They impose non-contextual and bizarre flavor. How did my 1st level neutral fighter suddenly become barbaric when he became 2nd level? If they made any semblance of sense I wouldn't rail against them. But they are arbitrary and provide no value either in the game world or at the table.

2. Your appeal to authority was equally self-defeating since a number-based description like "3rd level fighter" conveys a lot more information than "swordsman" which I need to cross reference on the chart. (And it isn't necessarily easy to know what class a given level title goes with. Swordsman doesn't have this issue but ranger could be fighter could be elf.) Cool is useless if I have to spend a moment looking up "swordsmen" to figure out what level the fighter is.

[Ravenheart87]

1. They don't add flavor. They impose non-contextual and bizarre flavor. How did my 1st level neutral fighter suddenly become barbaric when he became 2nd level? If they made any semblance of sense I wouldn't rail against them. But they are arbitrary and provide no value either in the game world or at the table.

2. Your appeal to authority was equally self-defeating since a number-based description like "3rd level fighter" conveys a lot more information than "swordsman" which I need to cross reference on the chart. (And it isn't necessarily easy to know what class a given level title goes with. Swordsman doesn't have this issue but ranger could be fighter could be elf.) Cool is useless if I have to spend a moment looking up "swordsmen" to figure out what level the fighter is.

Then don't use the tables. It won't hurt your game if you leave them out.

[jmucchiello]

Just because I want to eliminate them from the game is no reason not to want them not printed in the book. When the classes go 10 levels, they take up more namespace in the game's lexicon. I also want to create 3rd party material and if a barbarian is a 2nd level neutral fighter than I shouldn't really make a barbarian class. So I will continue to express my dislike of the class level titles.

[Sizzaxe]

I like level titles and I always have. Please keep them in. This is one of those things that _does_ add flavor imo.

And the idea that we are going to take them out to open up space for third party publishers to create 15 or more different fighter type classes drawn from each level title (yes that's an overstatement) makes me want to, well ... it makes me sad.

[bholmes4]

I like level titles and I always have. Please keep them in. This is one of those things that _does_ add flavor imo.

And the idea that we are going to take them out to open up space for third party publishers to create 15 or more different fighter type classes drawn from each level title (yes that's an overstatement) makes me want to, well ... it makes me sad.

This sums up how I feel as well. They add flavour and 3rd party publishers can work around them.

[kataskicana]

Yeah... I am hoping to publish modules for DCC and have been trying to think of ideas for content supplements too... and the old-school greatness is so broad you don't need a million classes. All the ideas that I can think of that would actually be interesting and different aren't really Appendix N so much as they are ideas drawn from more contemporary fiction/settings.

I think all the unique monster and item ideas would be best inserted into adventures rather than pulled out and put in a book by themselves too. You can give so much more flavor and background in the context of an adventure than just putting an item in a list like a catalog entry.

[jmucchiello]

I like level titles and I always have. Please keep them in. This is one of those things that _does_ add flavor imo.

Explain this flavor for me. Why does a barbarian cease his barbaric ways at third level and suddenly become a beserker

Why does a "cutpurse" cease pickpocketing and become a burglar who does "break-ins" (generally meaning no one is home at the time) and then become a "robber" again someone who steal directly from victim and finally after years of taking people's money he graduates to "executioner". What? Has he amassed so much wealth that now he no longer needs money and decides to instead just go around killing people.

Why are only 1st level chaotic priests Zealots? Are the hearts of lawful and neutral priests just not really "into it"? Oddly enough when he is 2nd level his is now merely a "Convert". I guess after a level in the priesthood he loses some zeal.

Can you give XP penalties to 3rd level neutral clerics for failing to blog about your game and not living up to the title of Chronicler? Does a 4th level neutral cleric take over the game when he becomes Judge? And give the game back when he becomes a Druid (with a change in gods I assume if his deity had nothing to do with nature, I presume)?

Dwarven culture is weird. All chaotic dwarves go through rebellious stages to active sabotage of a Disidant and thrown out at 3rd level as Exiles. I guess this is why dwarven society is generally lawful since their treatment of chaotic dwarves is so regimented. Likewise all craftsmen and master craftsmen dwarves are neutral. It says so in the level title.

Ironically, the chaotic society of elves treat give all elves a single set of titles. Strange.

I'm dead serious. Sure, as trends the titles give flavor but as soon as you apply them to a specific person they make no sense. And in many cases are down right silly. In the real world, titles are applied to people based on their position, not their current level of experience. Sometimes experience equals position but more often than not, position is granted without regard for experience.

[finarvyn]

ranger could be fighter could be elf.

You must be an AD&D guy, which is okay but you're taking your preconcieved ideas into this game and stressing over it.
1. Ranger? Is there a ranger in DCC? I'll have to re-read the rules.
2. Elves are elves. If there is a ranger class, then an elf who chooses to be a ranger no longer acts like an elf. There certainly aren't any "elven rangers" in DCC.

I'm not trying to be a pain with this. I'm just pointing out that the discussion is supposed to be about the Beta playtest for DCC RPG, not what we like or dislike about AD&D or how to make conversion to AD&D more convenient.

[finarvyn]

2. Your appeal to authority was equally self-defeating since a number-based description like "3rd level fighter" conveys a lot more information than "swordsman" which I need to cross reference on the chart. (And it isn't necessarily easy to know what class a given level title goes with. Swordsman doesn't have this issue but ranger could be fighter could be elf.) Cool is useless if I have to spend a moment looking up "swordsmen" to figure out what level the fighter is.

I'm not trying to "appeal to authority" (whatever that means) but am simply trying to explain the history behind level titles. You can like them or not, but their history isn't in doubt.

Taking it back even farther, Arneson chose three distinct "levels" for fighters: the flunky, the hero, and the super hero. (They translate to OD&D levels 1, 4, and 8 if you are interested.) For magic-user he started with wizard and then added a few below that (which you can find in the Chainmail miniatures rules set if you care) to give some variety. And those level names were then used as "monster" names in encounter charts, dungeon keying, and so on,

Lots of old timers fondly like and use level titles. I'm not proposing that level titles should be eliminated, or saying that they need to be there because of history. I'm simply trying to let you know where they came from.

[finarvyn]

I like level titles and I always have. Please keep them in. This is one of those things that _does_ add flavor imo.

Explain this flavor for me.

Think about the military. In the American army there are levels like private, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, major, colonel, general. (It's more complex than this, but bear with me.)

Which sounds more cool:
1. 7th level army guy
2. Colonel

[Sizzaxe]

I like level titles and I always have. Please keep them in. This is one of those things that _does_ add flavor imo.

Explain this flavor for me.

I'm dead serious. Sure, as trends the titles give flavor but as soon as you apply them to a specific person they make no sense. And in many cases are down right silly. In the real world, titles are applied to people based on their position, not their current level of experience. Sometimes experience equals position but more often than not, position is granted without regard for experience.

Well, it's really simple actually. Would you rather be called a 2nd level cleric or an Adept? Would you like to attain 3rd level thief in your guild or to have attained the status of Rogue?4th level warrior or Headman? Advance to 5th level wizard or master the secrets necessary to become an Elementalist?

Your concern seems to be one of "realism" or maybe accuracy but, why is it more realistic for a pc to refer to himself as a 5th lvl fighter as opposed to a Paladin? I think your point is somewhat meta-gamey.

But admittedly level titles don't resolve all difficulties. Your barbarian could be a case in point.

See, the titles are for flavor, not hard and fast core mechanics. Ignore them if you don't like them. In the game they are an implied way of comparing power. How else do you propose doing it in game?
e.g. "That guy's a warrior and he's also a warrior but the second guy is just a lot more powerful than the other guy." Instead of "See him, he's but a Squire, but the guy on the horse, he's a Paladin. The Squire doesn't stand a chance."

Sure you could argue about the guy on the horse not wanting to be called a Paladin, that he's more like a Cavalier, but he had to leave that title at fourth level. I think that's an inherent misunderstanding of what DCC was meant to do. They are both warriors with differing ability levels that are expressed by title. Otherwise we have 15 different classes to express different kinds of fighters. That's just not the point of the system.

Does it make perfect sense? No. But niether does what you are proposing. And I'm not sure either way makes more sense than the other. Its a flavor choice. And see, keeping it in hurts noone. Because you can leave them out of your personal game play. But officially taking them out of the rules hurts all those who prefer them.

[jmucchiello]

Well, it's really simple actually. Would you rather be called a 2nd level cleric or an Adept?

The flaw with your argument is thinking I'd rather be called a "2nd level cleric" in game. I don't introduce myself now as a 8th level computer programmer. You should only call me an Adept if that is what POSITION I have at the local temple to my deity. But my skill at looting dungeons (for my deity) should have no bearing on what someone is calling me by TITLE.

[QuentinTheTroll]

I like level titles and I always have. Please keep them in. This is one of those things that _does_ add flavor imo.

Explain this flavor for me. Why does a barbarian cease his barbaric ways at third level and suddenly become a beserker

Just because you can't taste it doesn't mean other's can't.

I'll appeal to a deeper history: monickers for local and regional heroes are very, very old.

Because heroism is fatal (and villainy even more so), those who make a habit of adventuring and plundering and surviving get tagged with a public rank.

"The Terrible" "The Great" "The Good" are common nicknames appended to royalty, based on their experience (XP) and actions.

Great champions took on common epithets: "the Red" "the Victorious" "the Cruel".

These nicknames were and are important shorthand to convey a person's renown.

In a heirarchy, a uniform set of ranks for the clergy (Clerics) provides verisimilitude, order and clarity.

As to the "universalism" - it is not uncommon for one culture to ascribe its own rank names to similar (or even dissimilar) rank names to another culture's rank names. Even today, an imam may be referred to (or compared to) a "priest," even though the word choice is not a perfect marriage.

So, "Simon the Cutpurse" is known regionally for his feats (and crimes) because they've reached a level of notoriety that classifies him as such.

The nicknames aren't chosen by the character (or player) - they are ascribed to them by the society, based on their actions. Using XP as the mercury in the "thermometer" is a game mechanism that represents a cultural trait.

It isn't like the PC's are aware of how close they are to "leveling up" nor do they sense anything when they do, even though the player does. The player responds to mechanics - the PC responds to his culture.

It includes flavor, but it is not only flavor. Just because you can't taste it doesn't mean you shouldn't use it for the benefit of your players' experience.

[reverenddak]

I'm not a fan of titles. I don't like titles the same way I don't like the gods named in core rule books. Titles relative to levels are basically proper names. Proper names belong in campaign settings. I've always thought the titles in AD&D were odd, and I'm surprised to see them in DCC. But they're not deal-breakers, fortunately. I lived with the "forced" gods of the D&D pantheon because I actually "liked" Greyhawk (though I didn't really know better) and Orcus is totally bad-ass, and I've dealt with Melf's derivative spells and Bigby's hands for a long long time. Not a big deal in the end, because ignoring things I don't like is a bit easier than re-writing them.

Those are my 1d3 cps.

[QuentinTheTroll]

Well, it's really simple actually. Would you rather be called a 2nd level cleric or an Adept?

The flaw with your argument is thinking I'd rather be called a "2nd level cleric" in game. I don't introduce myself now as a 8th level computer programmer. You should only call me an Adept if that is what POSITION I have at the local temple to my deity. But my skill at looting dungeons (for my deity) should have no bearing on what someone is calling me by TITLE.

Let me put it another away in a non-game situation.

A man claims to be possessed by a demon, and a diverse group is called into help:

A corporal in the National Guard.
A cardinal from the Catholic Church.
A senior data analyst from a research lab.
A petty thief.

Okay, weird group for an exorcism, I know, but the fact they are going into the guy's house (the dungeon) doesn't change the social acknowledgement of their status.

Inside his house, they maintain the ranks and recognition amongst themselves and their society.

Of course, the petty thief could "graduate" to "hardened criminal," the analyst can get a promotion, the cardinal can get called to Rome, so and and so on...

Any promotions they experience could theoretically be measured in their own XP!

[Sizzaxe]

Just because you can't taste it doesn't mean other's can't.

Thank you, that's a good way to put it.

I didn't mean to say you would "prefer" to be called a 2nd level Cleric, just that it's a potential way to express someone's reputation for power and ability.

And it still isn't required to use titles. I'm just attempting to explain one potential flavor aspect that titles add. They aren't really a "rule" as I see it. But if it bothers you take it out of _your_ play, not the presentation of the game. Others _do_ like it.

I suppose you could just as easily tell me to add it into _my_ play; but I do feel that it is a certain beneficial addition to the presentation of the DCC rules. And as they say, presentation is everything. We could take out all flavor text if we wanted, but then we would just have a rulebook that read like a math textbook; or worse the OGL.

[jmucchiello]

But the cardinal could be 3rd level priest or 15th level priest. We don't know how good he is at dungeon crawling. We only know that he is charismatic enough to have moved up the priestly hierarchy to be called a cardinal.

All generals are not most bad ass warriors in an army. And all corporals are not more bad ass than all privates in an army. Just because someone has decided to promote him to corporal does not mean his is better than every private in the army.


My point is that TITLES relate to POSITIONS within SOCIAL STRUCTURES. EXPERIENCE is completely orthogonal to POSITION. That is how humans organize themselves: excellence can be a path to position but more often than not social interaction is the easier path to position.

Take chieftain from the neutral fighter list. You don't just kill you 1000th orc and become proclaimed chieftain. No, to become chieftain you have to fulfill whatever requirements your tribe's social structure imposes for being proclaimed chieftain. The same applies to a cleric becoming an adept or curate. It has nothing to do with experience points.

[QuentinTheTroll]

Take chieftain from the neutral fighter list. You don't just kill you 1000th orc and become proclaimed chieftain. No, to become chieftain you have to fulfill whatever requirements your tribe's social structure imposes for being proclaimed chieftain. The same applies to a cleric becoming an adept or curate. It has nothing to do with experience points.

Great example, and technically, I understand it.

In practice, achieving such a feat of renown such as killing 1000 orcs would translate directly to being made chieftain. In history, we see this: in ancient Israel, David is first promoted by the people as a King in waiting when he is credited with "slaying 10,000."

More importantly, someone who has achieved sufficient XP (via killing orcs, adventuring, what have you) has also achieved in-game experience not directly measured by XP. XP is the map, not the territory itself.

Not unlike sports, where statistics are used to determine, but only to a degree, a player's "greatness", XP is rough measure of a players quality and fame. The "intangibles" are often (in both) important to sealing a character's rank in public.

[reverenddak]

In practice, achieving such a feat of renown such as killing 1000 orcs would translate directly to being made chieftain.

I understand this too, it's pretty hard to quantify social status or rank, but XP and levels is as good as it gets. But one Army's General is another Army's Field Marshal.

[QuentinTheTroll]

In practice, achieving such a feat of renown such as killing 1000 orcs would translate directly to being made chieftain.

I understand this too, it's pretty hard to quantify social status or rank, but XP and levels is as good as it gets. But one Army's General is another Army's Field Marshal.

Right, and I think the judge should make his own lists, if that's the reason. On the other hand, there's only one "Greatest of All Time", and that moniker is known around the planet. Say "Hand of God" to soccer fan, and he'll say Maradona. There's no "realistic" reason why monikers can't be universal.

After all, an English speaker and a Russian both recognize that Ivan the Terrible was, well "terrible!"

Social ranks are more universal ideas than slight nomenclature differences, say, between the Turkish and Ethiopian armies. All countries and cultures have their "Greats, Goods, Terribles, Conquerors, Cruels, Reds, etc."

The point is that these characters (in both worlds) are rare, and that can be both roughly measured and described based on a reading of their "XP."

[talmor]

Personally, it seems like Titles for all the character classes come from 0ed - 1st Ed D&D, and are themselves holdovers from Chainmail. They seem to have little if any connection to fantasy literature (Aragorn only went from "Ranger" to "King" after all, and I don't recall Grey Mouser ever getting different titles). As such, to me, they fall under "nostalgia for nostalgia's sake" and, much like percentile thieves skills, can be safely excised from the game.

Not that I'm against characters gaining title and rank, but I feel these should be social in nature, not mechanical.

Of course, when I look at DCC, I don't see an updated 0Ed take on D&D, but a stripped down version of 3.x, that lets me play a grittier, faster game, so, this is just my opinion.

[reverenddak]

I personally don't have a problem with Titles being mechanical, it is a game after-all. I just prefer that they be campaign specific, i.e. up to the Judge or Players.