Who's on Top? -- Social Class in Tabletop RPGs
Something I'd like to bring up is how tabletop RPGs portray social class in their settings. Within fiction, it can be very important how disparities in social class are portrayed. On a simplistic level, stories with upper-class villains tend to be revolutionary and/or socialist; while stories with lower-class villains tend to be conservative or reactionary. Some stories are about the low-class underdog that triumphs over those born to privilege, while others are about a great respected master who takes a young pupil in hand and passes on great lessons.
It is impossible to generalize across RPGs, but I'd like to bring up a few interesting points. I discussed the latter point in an theRPGsite thread called "Incompetents in Charge: an issue with some point systems" -- which was spun off from discussion Randomized vs. point-buy RPGs.
D&D and Imitators: Ass-kicking Popes
In D&D, social class is to a large degree tied to advancement. At the start of the game in any edition, PCs are effectively defined as being homeless and jobless, with just a handful of items to their name. While the players might make up colorful backgrounds for themselves, their wealth is strictly defined by the rules -- so it would be a clear violation for a character to own significant property. If someone owned land, they might sell parts of it for coinage.
As they advance, characters gain not only gold cash, but also perks such as title and leadership. This was explicit in the first and second editions, but still implied in the 3rd and 4th by feats such as leadership.
The story this encodes is of homeless, jobless nobodies who through a life of adventure gain wealth and rank. Conversely, even NPCs of high rank such as a warlord or the head of a church are implicitly high-level characters in D&D worlds. Abilities such as skills and spellcasting are tied to level along with hit points and attack bonus -- along with certain abilities or feats such as leadership. Thus, if a character is highly rated at a social or intellectual rating, they will be high level and thus also more broadly skilled and physically capable. A bishop of the region doesn't just have a social position, he is generally a high level cleric and by virtue of his level has high enough stats to beat up a dozen commoners even without his god's aid.
Other games with level-based advancement often have a similar effect.
Point-based Games: Incompetents in Charge
Here I mainly mean systems like GURPS or the Hero System, where there is a single pool of points that you spend from to buy all your character's abilities. However, the trend is similar for other games where you buy social advantages from a supply of points. i.e. You pay points for advantages like wealth, military rank, fame, and/or social status -- so if you have more social advantages, you will have less points to buy other advantages and skills.
This has a good rationale within the game. Being wealthy is itself an advantage that can be used to buy many useful things, and rank hath its privileges. To be fair to all players, a character who has such social advantages must for game balance and fairness have a corresponding weakness.
Social advantages here are quite different from other types, because both in the real world and in fiction, we do not expect that people are all equal. For example, suppose you have a professional team of some sort -- i.e. a pro basketball team, a mercenary team, or a research team. If two members are equally paid and ranked, then you might expect that they have similar ability. If one has an advantage (i.e. an unusually tall basketball player, or a crack shot), then you might guess that his equally-ranked peer compensating strengths. However, if one is more famous and better paid than the other, our explanations depend on how we view the system. We might think the higher-ranked one is more capable if we think the ranking system is fair and based on merit. Conversely, if we think the system is corrupt, then we might assume that the higher-ranking person is no more capable or perhaps even less capable.
In stories, there is a moral about society told from how status corresponds to merit. In some stories, the higher-status hero is more capable. An older hero may pass on the torch to a younger one, but they are not outshone. This is a conservative sort of story, showing that the status was deserved. For example, Aragorn in Lord of the Ring truly represents his high birth. In other stories, the higher-status character has mainly their status to offer compared to lower-status peers. i.e. The privates know what they are doing more than their lieutenant, as in in the movie Aliens. A rich and famous bounty hunter may be outdone by a poor farmer, as in 3:10 to Yuma. These are more socialist or populist stories, that question the social order.
The effect of many point systems, while perhaps unintended, is to effectively enforce the more populist view -- where the poor and the lower-status player characters have greater practical ability. Unlike in D&D, this effect is not true for the rest of the world beyond the player characters. Among NPCs, a high-class character may or may not be more skilled than a nobody -- it is purely up to the GM. Still, particularly over the course of several campaigns, the trend among PCs can become quite noticeable.
What to do about this?
Neither of these are a problem, really. They work as elements of the game. If you wants a different dynamic, you can always play a different game. The two above I commented on because I found them notable, but there are many other possibilities.
It is impossible to generalize across RPGs, but I'd like to bring up a few interesting points. I discussed the latter point in an theRPGsite thread called "Incompetents in Charge: an issue with some point systems" -- which was spun off from discussion Randomized vs. point-buy RPGs.
D&D and Imitators: Ass-kicking Popes
In D&D, social class is to a large degree tied to advancement. At the start of the game in any edition, PCs are effectively defined as being homeless and jobless, with just a handful of items to their name. While the players might make up colorful backgrounds for themselves, their wealth is strictly defined by the rules -- so it would be a clear violation for a character to own significant property. If someone owned land, they might sell parts of it for coinage.
As they advance, characters gain not only gold cash, but also perks such as title and leadership. This was explicit in the first and second editions, but still implied in the 3rd and 4th by feats such as leadership.
The story this encodes is of homeless, jobless nobodies who through a life of adventure gain wealth and rank. Conversely, even NPCs of high rank such as a warlord or the head of a church are implicitly high-level characters in D&D worlds. Abilities such as skills and spellcasting are tied to level along with hit points and attack bonus -- along with certain abilities or feats such as leadership. Thus, if a character is highly rated at a social or intellectual rating, they will be high level and thus also more broadly skilled and physically capable. A bishop of the region doesn't just have a social position, he is generally a high level cleric and by virtue of his level has high enough stats to beat up a dozen commoners even without his god's aid.
Other games with level-based advancement often have a similar effect.
Point-based Games: Incompetents in Charge
Here I mainly mean systems like GURPS or the Hero System, where there is a single pool of points that you spend from to buy all your character's abilities. However, the trend is similar for other games where you buy social advantages from a supply of points. i.e. You pay points for advantages like wealth, military rank, fame, and/or social status -- so if you have more social advantages, you will have less points to buy other advantages and skills.
This has a good rationale within the game. Being wealthy is itself an advantage that can be used to buy many useful things, and rank hath its privileges. To be fair to all players, a character who has such social advantages must for game balance and fairness have a corresponding weakness.
Social advantages here are quite different from other types, because both in the real world and in fiction, we do not expect that people are all equal. For example, suppose you have a professional team of some sort -- i.e. a pro basketball team, a mercenary team, or a research team. If two members are equally paid and ranked, then you might expect that they have similar ability. If one has an advantage (i.e. an unusually tall basketball player, or a crack shot), then you might guess that his equally-ranked peer compensating strengths. However, if one is more famous and better paid than the other, our explanations depend on how we view the system. We might think the higher-ranked one is more capable if we think the ranking system is fair and based on merit. Conversely, if we think the system is corrupt, then we might assume that the higher-ranking person is no more capable or perhaps even less capable.
In stories, there is a moral about society told from how status corresponds to merit. In some stories, the higher-status hero is more capable. An older hero may pass on the torch to a younger one, but they are not outshone. This is a conservative sort of story, showing that the status was deserved. For example, Aragorn in Lord of the Ring truly represents his high birth. In other stories, the higher-status character has mainly their status to offer compared to lower-status peers. i.e. The privates know what they are doing more than their lieutenant, as in in the movie Aliens. A rich and famous bounty hunter may be outdone by a poor farmer, as in 3:10 to Yuma. These are more socialist or populist stories, that question the social order.
The effect of many point systems, while perhaps unintended, is to effectively enforce the more populist view -- where the poor and the lower-status player characters have greater practical ability. Unlike in D&D, this effect is not true for the rest of the world beyond the player characters. Among NPCs, a high-class character may or may not be more skilled than a nobody -- it is purely up to the GM. Still, particularly over the course of several campaigns, the trend among PCs can become quite noticeable.
What to do about this?
Neither of these are a problem, really. They work as elements of the game. If you wants a different dynamic, you can always play a different game. The two above I commented on because I found them notable, but there are many other possibilities.
- High-status PCs are given more points, and this is balanced by rotating who gets to play a high-status PC. This is like the approach of Ars Magica, where the magi are overall more powerful than companions, and companions are more powerful than grogs.
- High-status PCs are given more points, and this is balanced by giving out-of-character perks to the players. This is similar to the approach of the Buffy RPG, where the Slayer or other Heroes get more power but fewer Drama Points than the White Hats.
- The GM can give extra points to the high-status PCs, without requiring anything in balance. This may cause issues with consideration of fairness, though. In particular, the group must decide whose PC gets to be high status.
- Status traits like wealth, rank, and fame can be random or otherwise assigned independently of other traits. High status can then give additional bonuses to ability if feedback is desired. This is done in random-roll systems such as HârnMaster, where a high roll on social class gives advantages in other parts of the system for superior nutrition and training than peasants.