Warrior titles.

[QuentinTheTroll]

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

Based on that logic, XP should be awarded based on how good of a story it makes back at the tavern, not on an exercise in mathematics, weapons mastery should be based on measured repetitions (practice, like in real life) instead of at mechanical stages of development. Loot should never be randomly generated, but should spring organically from the setting's backstory.

The rules provide game mechanics for aquiring glory and gold - the stated objectives of the ruleset.

Why challenge the mechanics for glory, but accept without comment the mechanics for treasure? If the rules for acquisition are purely social, it is no more difficult to devise a social construct for acquiring treasure than it is for fame, in which case this entire ruleset is not necessary for your purposes.

It is inherent to the system that people can play it any way they want to. I just don't understand the objections to one set of the rules on a basis by which the other collection of rules are embraced. That seems contradictory.

[QuentinTheTroll]

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.

They are. The Judge owns the rulebook, and probably a pencil!

However, such a personalized ruleset can't possibly be codified in this text, and therefore it makes sense that a ruleset is put in place for the majority of people who aren't going to fiddle with the titles, but prefer to have a commonly recognized progression of ranks.

I suppose they could footnote every page with boilerplate:

"The Judge, as authority of the game, can choose to modify, replace, ignore or even subvert any of the rules contained herein. Furthermore, the Judge and the games other players have the expressed permission to 1) play this game if they want to 2) play something else or 3) do something else with their time."

I'd be interested in other campaign's ranks and such, out of curiosity, but I don't think they need permission from the publisher to develop them! The only caveat I would have is that it might be best to try to use the ones in the book first, and change them if they really don't work.

If they work, you don't have to waste time developing your own ranks, and you'll have the added bonus of being able to discuss your campaigns (and player ranks) online without confusion or having to translate! But that's all meta-game stuff. In game, I can't see any drawbacks to creating your own ranks. The only drawback I see in "skipping" the ranks is losing some salt (and possibly withdrawing a potential reward for some players who are more driven by glory than gold.)

[reverenddak]

They are. The Judge owns the rulebook, and probably a pencil!

True, it goes without saying, which is why it's not a deal breaker for me. It's easily ignored, just a preference. Most of us ignored (or never even noticed) most of the quirks of DMG. But, I would argue that we want to get our monies worth, so every word that we have to ignore is a copper wasted.

(It should also go without saying that we want the game to be as close to the game we want to play as possible. Re-writing every rule we disagree with has its practical limits. "If you don't like it, change it" is not a valid argument for a commercial product.)

[jmucchiello]

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

Most of those 1000 orcs were killed in the Great Tomb of Molydbu. Is anyone going to know YOU killed 1000 orcs?
But every 5th level neutral warrior is a chieftain? How many chieftains are there? If a party has a chieftain, where are his tribesmen when he's in the dungeon? If the party has 3 5th level fighters, are there three different tribes following them from town to town?

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.

That's the thing. Level titles do not quantify social rank. Social rank does. It has nothing to do with xp.

I am stunned at how popular they are.

[QuentinTheTroll]

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

Most of those 1000 orcs were killed in the Great Tomb of Molydbu. Is anyone going to know YOU killed 1000 orcs?
But every 5th level neutral warrior is a chieftain? How many chieftains are there? If a party has a chieftain, where are his tribesmen when he's in the dungeon? If the party has 3 5th level fighters, are there three different tribes following them from town to town?

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.

That's the thing. Level titles do not quantify social rank. Social rank does. It has nothing to do with xp.

I am stunned at how popular they are.

Yes, they will know. Not to be too "on the nose" about it, but this game is at least 50% about the glory. A 5th level guy is going to be kind of a big deal. A chieftan is a chieftan, regardless of where his "tribe" may or may not be.

Was not Aragorn the "Captain and King" of Boromir, long before he ever wore a crown?

You are thinking way too literally about these titles, I think. If you don't like them, don't use them, but there isn't a logical, authoritative reason NOT to use them.

And yes, every 5th level warrior is going to attract followers of some sort or the other. A 5th level guy is likely to be the highest ranking warrior for miles within a villiage's borders. He may choose to dismiss them, ignore them, or run them off, but it's hard to think there won't be the opportunity to lead men by the time a warrior achieves 5th level.

Secondly, you are right: level title DON'T quantify social rank. That's the point. They are an illustration of the social rank that anyone who has survived and achieved a certain level of adventurous success will enjoy. Again, it is a mark of glory and status within society.

Think of it this way:

Warren Buffett is called an Oracle. Before he achieved XP to warrant that, he was something of a Maven. Before that, an Expert, and before that a Student.

Anyone who goes through some sort of demonstrated financial expertise will earn the same progression of monickers. It is easier to find Students of Business than an Expert, and harder still to find someone you would describe as a Maven.

[jmucchiello]

Yes, they will know. Not to be too "on the nose" about it, but this game is at least 50% about the glory. A 5th level guy is going to be kind of a big deal. A chieftan is a chieftan, regardless of where his "tribe" may or may not be.

You are thinking way too literally about these titles, I think.

There is no other way to take them since every talks about using them IN GAME when referring to other PCs/NPCs. If the word Chieftain comes out of a character's mouth (via the player) SPECIFICALLY to refer to 5th level neutral warriors, they why shouldn't I treat it literally?

If you don't like them, don't use them

ASIDE: {GAVEL} New Board Rule. The above statement should always "Go without saying" and thus not be said. {GAVEL}

but there isn't a logical, authoritative reason NOT to use them.

Funny, I thought my posts above contained many logical reasons not to use them. I thought the Zealot one was most logical or illogical. Hmm.

And yes, every 5th level warrior is going to attract followers of some sort or the other. A 5th level guy is likely to be the highest ranking warrior for miles within a villiage's borders. He may choose to dismiss them, ignore them, or run them off, but it's hard to think there won't be the opportunity to lead men by the time a warrior achieves 5th level.

But all 5th level warrior come in only 3 types: paladins, reavers and chieftains. Who is going to run toward a reaver? And exactly what is the social rank of a reaver or murderer (2nd level thief). And why are cutthroats more socially acceptable than murderers? And why do assassins suddenly become master thief and not master assassin? Ugh.

Secondly, you are right: level title DON'T quantify social rank. That's the point. They are an illustration of the social rank that anyone who has survived and achieved a certain level of adventurous success will enjoy. Again, it is a mark of glory and status within society.

Glory and status in society is gained by being a member of that society. Not by hiding in crypts and dragging gold out into the light. This is my problem with leveling via monster bashing and treasure stealing having anything whatsoever to do with social status. It is far more likely that the local mayor is a 0-level human than he is 5th level at anything at all. His social status is still higher than the adventuring party that blows in and out of town when rumors of gold tickles their fancies.

Anyone who goes through some sort of demonstrated financial expertise will earn the same progression of monickers. It is easier to find Students of Business than an Expert, and harder still to find someone you would describe as a Maven.

Maven is generally a self-described title. And as such is fine in my book. Call your character anything you want. It has nothing to do with reaching level 9 in your field of expertise.

[Sizzaxe]

Well one man's copper wasted is another man's gained

but in truth, I'm not sure I can argue this any further than I have; it _is_ a preference after all. But it amazes me that what amounts to a rather minor item of game flavor can instill such passion in certain factions. I'm trying hard not to make too big a deal out of this one, 'cause there are other battles more critical to fight if you ask me.

But I geuss I just really like that Joseph & Harley presented the classes this way. It made me a happy, satisfied customer with the version of the game they created. It was on a creative wavelength I truly appreciate. To have so many people come out against it, and clamor for change over what was a creative choice vs a mechanical one bothers me though. It's as if the creative presentation of the rules are being nitpicked, so that the game is changed to reflect more of _your_ creative wavelength. I feel that's a bit presumptuous.

To tell you truthfully I think they made an effort to incorporate alignment with titles that seeks to strike a middle ground between those who do and don't like titles. I really like that. But the fact is they included titles. It doesn't affect game play, b/c you can drop them without affecting your game one whit.

And again, if we're saving coppers in printing costs then we could ask them to cut all the flavor text and color from the game and just present an Excel template of the rules. You can make the same case with the game's art. Does the art always "match" your concept of the game? Someone has made a negative comment about Mullen's art. He just doesn't like it. Should we pull it from the game too?

Sorry, I went into argue mode again. I'll try and be more positive next time

[meinvt]

I like the idea of the titles. I think the particular lists need work. The thematic jumps can be jarring. For example, as a neutral cleric you get titles that suggest being an arbiter or judge, and then suddenly druid. Other lists are better. I kind of like the encouragement to give yourself a title in this way.

[jmucchiello]

I like the idea of the titles. I think the particular lists need work. The thematic jumps can be jarring. For example, as a neutral cleric you get titles that suggest being an arbiter or judge, and then suddenly druid. Other lists are better. I kind of like the encouragement to give yourself a title in this way.

I admit if the titles were in any way logical I would probably not have made so many posts about it.

[finarvyn]

I like the idea of the titles. I think the particular lists need work. The thematic jumps can be jarring. For example, as a neutral cleric you get titles that suggest being an arbiter or judge, and then suddenly druid. Other lists are better. I kind of like the encouragement to give yourself a title in this way.

I admit if the titles were in any way logical I would probably not have made so many posts about it.

That's okay. Clearly from the passion of your posts this is an important issue to you, so it's good that you let your voice be heard.

I've played OD&D for 35 years and they had level titles from early on and it never really bothered me much one way or the other. I mostly ignored them.

On the other hand, you appear to really have an issue with the internal logic and "realism" of something that I would have just shrugged and ignored and moved on about. I'd say you ought to compose some alternate lists and post them to see what others think of them.

[jmucchiello]

I'm not going to post an alternate list of level titles as I think the whole concept is flawed. If you want me to create titles for social positions with a setting, sure. But they would have nothing to do with levels.

My caveat above was that if someone were to detach all the secondary meaning from these titles I would be less vocal. I never said I would do anything that supports the flawed concept that is LEVEL TITLES. Levels do not exist in the game world. They are an artificial construct of the game system. References to levels at the table are always out of character. That belief has been with me since forever. And just because you disguise level 3 by calling it a cutpurse, doesn't change the fact that cutpurse has an everyday meaning that is not tied to level and thus makes no sense that someone would use the term in game to convey a level of prowess when saying it.

[finarvyn]

My caveat above was that if someone were to detach all the secondary meaning from these titles I would be less vocal.

Okay. I must have totally misunderstood your entire point before. I guess we're back to "just ignore them" then.

[Talath]

I actually agree with jmucchiello in that level titles are a flawed concept that is being re-introduced in the DCC RPG for "flavor" and legacy purposes. However, I think this is one bit of flavor we will still see in the final product; and despite my objection to whatever purpose they are being included for, I feel that I'd rather be with level titles than without.

If J. Goodman is serious about their inclusion, then they should be used whenever possible as a shorthand for class/level/alignment. Including them and then not using them is wasteful and indulgent.

[GnomeBoy]

If J. Goodman is serious about their inclusion, then they should be used whenever possible as a shorthand for class/level/alignment. Including them and then not using them is wasteful and indulgent.

Oh man, but that's going to make it tough to know what they are referring to, without having memorized all the titles...

I mostly agree with Jim; they are inconsistent and awkward. I like the concept of a character developing a title or having one imposed upon him based on his in-game reputation, but the idea that such things change every level didn't make sense to me thirty years ago, and it would be something I'd leave out now.

I can ignore them, right?

[Ogrepuppy]

{GAVEL} ...... {GAVEL}

(looking around) Alright, who gave this guy a gavel? Are those even allowed on these boards?!?

We've discussed this privately before, but really, man.....lay OFF the COFFEE. Just one cup a day. You're very worked up over something that is, in the big picture, trivial. I start to wonder if I've walked into the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch after reading some of your tirades against the other forum members. We get it: you're right, everyone else is wrong.


Oh, and for the record, I like titles. Just because you're jumping up and down trying to explain why I'm WRONG WRONG WRONG for liking them....I still do. They're illogical, zany and fun.

(You're not actually going to tell me I'm having fun the wrong way, are you?)

[jmucchiello]

{GAVEL} ...... {GAVEL}

(looking around) Alright, who gave this guy a gavel? Are those even allowed on these boards?!?

We've discussed this privately before, but really, man.....lay OFF the COFFEE.

If you can't read someone invoking a freaking Gavel on a message board as a joke, YOU need to lay of the coffee.

I start to wonder if I've walked into the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch after reading some of your tirades against the other forum members.

Hmm, Gavel. Argument Clinic sketch. Gavel. Argument Clinic sketch. *WHACK* No, hold your head like this and say "Wahhhhh."

(Smiley added for the humor impaired. Should you fail to see the humor in this, seek medical attention immediately. Do no use without alcohol. Rotate your tires. For a good time, laugh a little.)

[wavemotion]

They're illogical, zany and fun.

And that's the best reason of all to keep them! I agree.

(You're not actually going to tell me I'm having fun the wrong way, are you?)

There are wrong ways to have fun. But not with something as trivial as titles.

-Dave

[GnomeBoy]

I do like to add in titles when I play Monopoly though...

*ducks in case gavel is thrown*

[reverenddak]

I've been getting ready for my DCC play-test on Thursday. I've decided, since this IS a BETA and these rules were given to us FOR FREE, I will be embracing the Rules As Written. I've also concluded that the whole game is completely ironic, but sincere at the same time. So far I love everything this game is about and what it is trying to do. We'll see if my players feel the same way tomorrow. I will also ask my group to abandon all presumptions and preconceptions, except those that come from reading Appendix N! This game is designed to be FUN. So I will be playing the game with that spirit and intent. This means I will be embracing the silly stuff I would normally ignore, which include canned Gods,the Character Creation Funnel, and especially the arbitrary Class Titles.

I'm a bit worried if the characters will earn 101 XP by the end of the first adventure.

[jmucchiello]

I will be embracing the Rules As Written.

I'm a bit worried if the characters will earn 101 XP by the end of the first adventure.

Of course not. There are no rules for XP in the beta. How can they earn even 1 XP?

[Aplus]

Just dropping in to voice my support of the level titles. I like them a lot.

For players that have never played an older style game before, I think it gives them a signal telling them, "Oh, I can take this warrior and outfit him and play him like a barbarian or a paladin. I guess we don't actually need separate classes for all those permutations of fighting-men!"

That is just one of the many reasons I think the titles are awesome.

[reverenddak]

You mean the XXX aren't roman numerals?

[GnomeBoy]

You mean the XXX aren't roman numerals?

I wish I had time to do the math to work out how many characters fight how many monsters worth 30 XP each works out to 101 XP for each character... Of course the funnel complicates that math no end.

[jmucchiello]

Just dropping in to voice my support of the level titles. I like them a lot.

For players that have never played an older style game before, I think it gives them a signal telling them, "Oh, I can take this warrior and outfit him and play him like a barbarian or a paladin. I guess we don't actually need separate classes for all those permutations of fighting-men!"

Must resist the urge to say, "and then when he levels up he can discard those Barbarian clothes and start wearing Berserker clothes because Bersekers are always new and improved Barbarians." Damn. Failed Will save.

[GnomeBoy]

Level titles are the new black.