Hello all,

I have played DnD 3.5, DnD 4, Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader RPGs, and in each of these games nearly all the classes can be seen as heroic and can all display a combat prowess. Each character is able to hold their own and bring their own unique set of skills to the table.

I have recently bought WFRP3 and ATK in preparation for our next role playing adventure, and I am struggling to get my head around the arguable mundane sounding classes. I quite like the idea that your group is composed of not-necessarily-elite warriors (such as scribes, gamblers, commoners, etc) as that can make the story compelling.

But I was curious as to how this works. Does it work? My problem is that i can imaging a lot of people would just wish to play something like Swordmaster or Ironbreaker or Waywatcher or Witch Hunter, etc; classes that take no crap from anybody. If you were allowed to choose your class from the get-go, surely the majority of people see themselves as a hardcore bounty hunter, or a devout warrior priest, instead of a... commoner? It is because of this reason that I would see the 'take 3, choose 1' method to actually force some people to take a less-adventurous class. This method seems to give a bit of a cross section of classes. But then I would predict that a player would be given the choice between 2 mundane classes and a solid hardcore class, and instantly those 2 mundane ones get disregarded.

What happens in the case of character progression? If you started as a mundane class, do you more or less just head straight for a class change at the first available opportunity to be a hardcore something-or-other?

So I guess I am wondering if this is a problem? Is it a big issue for some people? Is the urge to be a dragon-slaying-champion-of-the-world too much to resist? Or have I completely misjudged the significance of these mundane classes?

I think my fear is that a lot of these cool classes are going to be heavily avoided in my gaming group, and I was hoping that someone would tell me that that is not the case.

Can someone provide me with their experiences involving these "mundane" classes?

In my groups, a player started playing a dwarf Ironbreaker, and changed on the first available chance to a Ratcatcher. Another started as a Thug, and changed to a Burgher. Their explanation was that they wanted to play a usefull character...

It all depends on the adventures you're going to run. If they are combat-heavy, all players will want to play combat-oriented characters. On most of my adventures, social and investigative skills are paramount (and one adventure had no combat at all). But if you're going to run a combat-heavy adventure, maybe your players will favour the combat-heavy-duty careers. The best solution, in my view, is to choose an adventure which has a little of each world, so a balanced group will allways be the best option. Nowadays, most of my groups have one combat-oriented character, one or two characters who can do a bit of fighting, and one or two completely social ones...

Well, for starters, WFRP is not (and has never been) a balanced game in respect to different careers being as good in combat. I know this is very much the case in DnD (which is one of the big problems I have with that system) and in DH/RT (but in my opinion less so than in DnD).

WFRP caters to people who want to play out a story where adventurers of varying prowess and skills face a grim and ruthless world together. WFRP also build a lot on the concept of letting players shine at the stuff they are good at. It is the responsibility of the GM to make certain that not all encounters are straight combat ones, and that the abilities of the mundane careers come into play. The War dancer is not inherently better than the commoner at resisiting the effects of fear/fatigue/stress, using more than one type of challenges makes for a more interesting story.

Playing as a "Commoner" might not sound all that fun to many, but put it into perspective: maybe you want to play a poor farmer who just got his farm burned down by marauding beastmen. He joins up with a couple of adventurers to hunt them down and then stays on with them. After several adventures he evolves from being a weak but angry commoner into a powerful, determined witch hunter. I know that I would much rather play a character like that than a Iron breaker from start. Much more room for story and evolution.

But if you want careers to be balanced in combat and more well-defined in terms of evolution and skillset I think you should make some changes to the way careers are obtained. First, throw away the "take 3, 1" rule, just let your players what they want (but I recommend that they take different careers). I personally don't like randomization of career anyway (if I have an idea, like the commoner example above, I want to play that and not some boring ironbreaker). Secondly, make sure that you warn people not to take careers that do not have weapon skill/ballistic skill. There are some exceptions (wizards/clerics), but careers that have no weapon skills will generally be a lot worse than careers that do in combat.

If some of your players surprise you and really want to play a more non-combat role you have to take that into account as GM when constructing adventures. If the player wants to be able to do some good in a battle, he should buy a high score in either str or ag and aim to buy Weapon skill/Ballistic skill as a non-career advance as soon as possible.

vip_chicken said:

It's all in the types of story that you tell now and that you can tell with a different approach.

Do you see the hulking dwarf with a super-large battle axe with a super-heavy armor exchanging swings with the ultimate super-large evil dragon?
In this case you are right. You have issues with mundane careers.

But... imagine a more "mundane" medieval world... where the ultimate evil isn't necessary the best-of-the-realm-fighter or magician but someone that has power, that you "can't kill with your swords".
Intrigue, mysteries, desperation, disease, moral dilemmas... a world where night isn't only absence of the sun but a perilous time to be on the road and where a single, small blade, can spell death more than a two-handed-monsters-eating-fireball-casting hammer.

The first way is more tempting, easy and fast, but the second one is more powerful... use the force... Luke...

I've taken many players from the clichè of D&D and high fantasy to a more gritty, believable game style, and they don't want to come back.

My 2 cents.

My wife plays a High Elf Envoy, which is fairly useless in combat being a socially oriented career. Not so really, her long bow has seriously helped the party by whittling down the incoming enemies before they are in range of the other characters weapons. So it is perfectly effective in combat and exceeds at social encounters. There are also situations where you are running a large scale battle with the progress tracker and only doing encounter mode for the combatants actually engaged with the PC, in this case that socially oriented PC could yell out an inspiring rally call that advances the token on the tracker for her allies.

The key is using the tools available to let everyone shine. Maybe someone playing a commoner is always going to know where to look in town to find that seedy person who gives the clue to help push the story forward, or that rat catchers' knowledge of sewers helps the PC's navigate their daring escape. Now put that commoner into combat, maybe the Roadwarden he has been traveling with has a soft spot for someone trying to better their station and helps train him with firearms, roleplaying this well would motivate a good gm to throw and extra fortune die in there now and again to show that, and it would also set the perfect back drop for the commoners career transition to a Roadwarden.

Sometimes it just seems to me people try way harder to find problems than they do finding solutions.