Our AD&D campaign totally had this. In spades. We had one player who liked trade and commerce and well we pretty much all liked trade and commerce so a lot of our games ended up being trade related. The way we dealt with this was easy. The farmer, or trader or whomever wasn't the player's only character. They had adventuring characters as well. If they are resistant to the idea, then maybe suggest that the adventuring character be somehow connected to the farm or business. Also, consider that farmers can also have adventures. Roving bands of goblins, orcs, or bandits could be troublesome. Wolves might hound their livestock, or even werewolves. Gaming with that character could be some sort of castle defense. Really though I think the best way to go is to have the player have more than one character, and then give their farmer/trader attention when needed.

Haven't has a player who wanted to play a mundane farmer before. I suppose I would just let them farm to their hearts content. Of course there are still worldwide events that will affect them from time-to-time. I'd also roll for regular encounters. The encounter mix would be different, much less highly hazardous wilderness and monster encounters, and alot more farmer and townsfolk and what not encounters, but that would change from time-to-time as well.

Getting a crop in in the face of any natural disaster, or during a war would be an interesting proposition. There's always bandits and thieves, and traveling storytellers and bards.

Almost every ancient or medieval generation has to deal with at least one ...or more, clan feuds, or wars. Actually there's been a war the U.S. has been involved in just about every twenty years or so, since this country has been founded. There was only one generation that skipped this, and that was around 1880 or so, just after the civil war, with that single exception, there has been a major war about every 20 years

1775-83 AWI
War of 1812
Indian Wars 1796-1840
Mexican-American War 1847
Civil War 1861
1866-1876 Western Indian Wars
Spanish American War 1899
First Work War 1916
Second World War 1939
Korean War 1951
Vietnam 1961-1974
First Gulf War 1991
War in Afghanistan 2001-
War in Iraq 2003-
Libyan Revolution 2011-2013
Syrian Civil War 2011-
War on Terror 1991-  

Lastest U.S. casualty is SFC Zachary Allan Bannister, 33, who was killed in action while serving in Alpha 3236, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Kenya, Africa on October 17, 2016.
Reference: https://www.facebook.com/sofrep/posts/1123182741081605

The U.S. has escalated operations in the continent of Africa, the last few years to help combat radical Al-Qaeda splinter groups such as Al-Shabaab. While DoD claims training exercise, I suspect he may have been caught in an ambush by Al-Shabaab who themselves have been escalated operations the last couple of years in Africa. They have been targeting and frequently attacking regular Kenya army units, I know of at least three such attacks this year alone... anyway a moment of respect for our latest fallen soldier is on order.

Anyways, I would let them play and do breakout sessions for the homebodies. When running a large groups, breakout sessions are mandatory as the group usually splits into one or more subgroups that each develops their own goals and (aometimes conflicting) agendas.

Incidentally in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, the peasant farmer is pretty much the only PC who starts with any food.  I've always thought that was an interesting contrast to the standard week of standard rations plus week of iron rations in the backpack.  The small budget and lack of food puts some pressure on the PCs to get out there and do some dirty work.

Quote from: rawma;927782Did that come up as a different theme for a campaign, or as a way to stop playing a weak character from some random generation method? I've not seen the former but have seen the latter; back when I first played D&D, one guy insisted you had to play every character you rolled, in the order you rolled them, but he cleared through the chaff in the spiral notebooks full of characters he rolled by having a crowd of twenty go into a dungeon, meet one monster and retire if they survived.

A schism between the farmers and the adventurers just seems like a dysfunctional group.

1: There are no weak characters in D&D. There may be weak (minded) players though. YMMV in other games. From what I've seen so far its either allways been a players interest. They happen to like that aspect (same as how some like the kingdom builder endgame of D&D). Or it occurred on a whim (Probably from a too good description of the rural start town). I have though never seen a player do it to be disruptive or baulky.

2: Well there wouldnt be a schism otherwise would there?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927784Since I always say "This is a game about adventuring so make characters who want to adventure," no.

Usually the same. Someone saying "No. I dont want to go beat up goblins. I want to plant potatoes and go to the harvest festival." When the whole pitch was "Adventurers going adventuring" would likely get a firm. "No." back.

If Im running something more open ended then maybee "yes" maybee "no". Maybee I'll just hand them Agricola.

Quote from: Omega;927746The subject came up of players having their character effectively refuse the call to adventure and instead want to stay a lowly farmer or peasant.

I would interpret that as a statement by the player that they don't want to play.  That's fine.  They don't have to play.  No one is forcing them.  This game is about adventurers who go adventuring.  If you don't want to play that game, don't.

"A game about adventurers who go adventuring" certainly is one way to look at it:). It's certainly how the hobby began.

The other way is "it's a game about people living in a given setting and potentially, getting caught in, instigating or resolving trouble", however:p. It certainly existed almost since the same time.

Let me make it clear that neither of these is superior, at least not as far as I'm concerned, though my default is the latter. It's just that the latter certainly is more permitting regarding what activities the PCs might undertake, which I find fun;).
The former needs the PCs to go adventuring, or it couldn't keep it "about PCs who go adventuring", could it?

In the end, we're back to needing to know what kind of game you're playing, so you wouldn't accidentally disrupt it. Say, it might happen by trying to shift a game away from adventuring when the PC has the means to retire and become a respected person. I've done that mistake myself, but it's sill a mistake if you agreed to play a game about adventurers who go to adventures:D!

Great! Your PC becomes a farmer, so now he's an NPC.

Here's 3D6, roll up a new character or GTFO.

I run games for groups looking to have fun, not Bitchnugget the Special Snowflake.

I would rather not deal with a player who decides his character is going to go off and do something that the rest of the players aren't doing.  Maybe jumping back and forth between that player farming and the rest of the players doing something else like exploring the wild or fighting the bad guys sounds fun to you but it sounds like a tedious pain in the ass to me.  Either that person wants to do what the rest of us are doing or they don't.  If they don't, they can leave.

edit - I am very clear about what sort of game I will be running before characters are even made.

"Farming? You don't know how. You could buy some land and have some peasants work it for you, but all land is owned by some lord, so you'd have to swear fealty to him. And would he find the best use for an Xth level fighter to be supervising peasants? Or might he send you on... adventures? Anyway, for the meantime you'll need to get loot and level up and try to get to know some lord who you can swear fealty to. In other words, adventure."

There is a campaign in the Dorastor supplement for RuneQuest/Glorantha that specifically describes a farming setting, with rules for working out production and so on, sure it's on the borders of a monster-infected hellhole, but the premise is that the PCs are farmer/settlers. In fact, there was a movement called the Seattle farm Collective, I think, that promoted the simple farmboy/girl as a good base for campaigns.

It works best with non-Class based systems, though, as I cannot see anyone writing up "Farmer" as a class in D&D.

Quote from: soltakss;927857There is a campaign in the Dorastor supplement for RuneQuest/Glorantha that specifically describes a farming setting, with rules for working out production and so on, sure it's on the borders of a monster-infected hellhole, but the premise is that the PCs are farmer/settlers. In fact, there was a movement called the Seattle farm Collective, I think, that promoted the simple farmboy/girl as a good base for campaigns.

It works best with non-Class based systems, though, as I cannot see anyone writing up "Farmer" as a class in D&D.

Commoner NPC class.

Thanks to Omega for creating the thread but I think people are taking the title a bit too literally. AsenRG and a few others get it, though. It's also interesting to see how the fantasy default goes hand in glove as an assumption with "wandering band of adventurers".

I don't think I've personally seen this exact problem but there's often been uneasiness over why the PCs are together, especially once the character concepts moved outside the idea of pure explorers/treasure hunters.

An alternate hypothetical would be the PC who has a settled life and social standing, like an aristocrat, an official, or a scholar. Even if they go on one adventure, keeping them on the road indefinitely may be problematic.

But it's fine if they want to farm.  Give them prices for different qualities of land, draft animals, buildings, fences, livestock, and seed.  Let them marry a buxom peasant girl and have half a dozen cute little kids.  But then the crop fails and there's a drought in the land and the goblin raiders are picking off the sheep and the neighbours are telling the local lord that you stole their cattle and the local priest swears it's all your daughter with the endearing weird traits who's clearly a witch and a bullette knocks over the barn.  And the kids are gonna starve and the wife needs expensive medicine.  And there's a reward or a treasure or a beanstalk that grows to the clouds when your kid sells your dry old cow for a handful of beans and you throw them on the hard dry ground in disgust.  And then a band of adventurers arrive and instead of saving the day they set up a protection racket and start eyeing your daughters.

Adventure can come to you after all.  Did you think the player characters were the only murder hobos in the world?

Quote from: Arminius;927880Thanks to Omega for creating the thread but I think people are taking the title a bit too literally. AsenRG and a few others get it, though. It's also interesting to see how the fantasy default goes hand in glove as an assumption with "wandering band of adventurers".

I don't think I've personally seen this exact problem but there's often been uneasiness over why the PCs are together, especially once the character concepts moved outside the idea of pure explorers/treasure hunters.

An alternate hypothetical would be the PC who has a settled life and social standing, like an aristocrat, an official, or a scholar. Even if they go on one adventure, keeping them on the road indefinitely may be problematic.

What do you think the actual question is? Is it a different question which could be a different thread, like, "Why do your players' PCs stay in the same place and cooperate and spend their lives on adventures?" or "What do you do when some/all of a PC group want to do other things besides adventure together?"

There's a guy who's posted on the TFT email list several times about the impossible GM challenge he feels will destroy any GM, which is what if he just keeps saying his PC starts digging a hole and keeps digging and asking what he finds. I mention this because to me this seems both not a problem, and also a more obvious version of the problem some people struggle with in trying to force their group behavior expectations on roleplayers and/or players who aren't as interested in staying together and doing what the GM expected/wants/prepped.

But of course, part of my "solution" is to not care that much if the group splits or I need to tell players their character isn't part of the group any more because they chose to go somewhere else, or if the other PCs ditch or kill their PC for valid reasons, or if they all decide to go explore down a path where there isn't any treasure or anything that looks like an adventure like they think should appear for them because they are the PCs, or if they decide to push their survivability thinking I'm going to deus ex save them from suicidally stupid choices.

Player: I start digging down. What do I find?
GM: You know even in TFT we have rules for that? Where are you digging? What are you using to dig? How long are you planning to dig? What's your work schedule.
Player: 5 meters back towards the house from the mailbox. I keep digging. Let me know what I find. I'll let you know when or if I stop. Could be years.
Player: Ok. You start digging down. So far, just dirt and worms and rocks. Other players, you find Vord The Delver in the yard of his aunt's house, digging a hole.
(Other players think he's been possessed, bring a mystic who confirms he's just a crazy jerk. Players decide to go adventuring in the mountains, leaving Vord behind.)
GM: So, Vord is apparently just going to keep digging. Do you have any interest in playing as a different character?
Player: No, I keep digging. What do I find?
GM: Well so far you've found more dirt and hit clay two feet down. It's going a lot slower now. Just clay for an hour. Out-of-character, if Vord is really just as crazy as you say, he's probably just going to hit clay for a long time, and need to widen his pit and/or get a ladder, and after a while the villagers might intervene. But basically you've created a crazy character who has little to do with the rest of the party. If you really want to game it out, we could do that later, but probably Vord is just a crazy NPC. Are you interested in playing the adventuring game the rest of us are doing, with a different character, or not?
(If yes, player starts a new character. If no, he's not a player in that group any more.)