[RMS]

Originally Posted by Rurik

People keep throwing around stablehand and farmer as if you must start that way. A starting character in RQ3, or Stormbringer, or many games is just not equivelent to a farmer or stablehand.

I have two answers for this. First, the farmer is by far the most common result for base character creation in either game and is relatively inept to begin with in most adventuring type skills. Second, it's just a metaphore for a character who's basically utility to the group is to stay behind and make sure the mounts don't wander off.

On the other issues, without extensive quoting, It has always been my belief that forced balance is artificial, though you and I seem to differ by degrees. You would start a new character at in a 10th level game at say 5th level, which is still a disadvantage. Honestly many of the D&D games I played in started everyone at 3rd or 5th level anyway.

Interestingly, I start most RQ games with "experienced veterans", specifically because I'm not a huge fan of advancement driven play, but that's really a different subject.

But enough with D&D analogies - who plays that system anyway? (Well, OK, I just started in a d20 Thieves World, but it is literally the first time in 20 years).

D&D is just easy to compare due to the levels, but of course in BRP nothing is quite so distinct. Also, oldschool D&D is far less balanced than new D&D...and as I've mentioned elsewhere I haven't played any D&D since about 1983 or 1984, either!

One difference is even rune levels I don't usually run a bunch of NPC's as the retinue. The party is the players, and maybe 1-2 NPC's come and go.

I do since I can't imagine a rune lord running around by himself. It just makes sense to me that they start aquiring followers - not to mention that they can afford basic support types anyway. They're supposed to be leaders. In fact, someone who can't attract a following (for whatever reason) wouldn't advance to rune level in mainstream cults in my campaign. Characters have to do more than just meet the basic mechanics. There has to be enough support, in all forms, to support them being promoted to a rune level character.

Honestly, once a character reaches Runelord and Priest level normally all their time would be spent doing mundane boring cult stuff, and really should retire from adventuring. PC Runelords and Priests are therefore kind of oddballs anyway, and I don't attach a bodygaurd of NPC's to them while they are adventuring - I just prefer the party to be mostly the PC's - excepting situations where they are leading raiding parties or armies etc. etc.

The first part depends on the cult IMO. A rune lord or priest should embody the god. A Sword of Humakt or Storm Kahn or similar action oriented cult should definitely be involved in regular dangerous situations. I can't see such characters settling into a "desk job" until they are forced by physical fraility. Being a good Wind Lord should involved a certain amount of wandering around and getting into random dangerous just because... Note: my campaigns rarely consist of "adventure after adventure", but rather involve a small handful of adventures per year with weeks or seasons of mundane "downtime" inbetween, so our ideas might be very much in line here.

I don't "give" rune lords a bunch of guards. In contrast, their adventures should generally be cult missions, which naturally has them leading cult members into action. At that point, my players are typically setting up large expeditions to do things, involving significant support: both cult and hired help to fill niches. It's just natural for them to aquire various followers over time. This is an organic thing. I don't just hand them a bunch of followers as a reward for gaining rune status. (Aside: in my longest running game, they specifically spent several years of game time leading a large army, and we zoomed in/out of the strategic and tactical level. If a PC died here, the player would have most likely developed one of the powerful NPCs leading various segments of the army. Of course if that didn't appeal to the play, I would have allowed them something else, so long as it was reasonable.)