ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/25/85)
Oh, yes Having some sort of social stratification in the world is an absolute must. AD&D appears to do it by Experiance level, which is mildly (:- silly, as it excludes young princes from owning castles. In my Arthurian-like Chivalry campaign, Demondance, most of the time the leader of the party was not the most powerful member. For quite a while, the experiance level of the only knight in the party was two below everyone else's. And of course, as a knight, he (Sir Simon-Henri de Beauville) had absolute say over - well, everything really. He decided what the party was to do next. He decided what the order of march was to be. He decided how the plunder was to be divided (ie he gets 80% of it) Only a knight is allowed (by Law) to wear plate armour, or ride a warhorse. The only thing that kept the others in line was the fact that he was a knight, their Lord and Master. If they defy him, he can attack them. If they defend themselves, their social levels take nose-dives, goodbye knighthood, hello outlawhood. It was interesting while it lasted, but alas they are all knights, now, and the strongest member of the party has sway again. But I would strongly advise any GM designing a campaign to also design a social structure. It's quite easy (though social advancement is a bit tricky), and adds something else to reward players with: "You get 200 gps, a magic handcherchief, you go up an experiance level *and* you are no longer considered to be a peasant by Lady Jude" It does place additional restraints upon their behaviour, though. Evils and thieves cannot be too concerned about their social standing. I have negative social levels for those who want infamy, but they have never been put to use, except for NPCs. -Nige Gale cough