Greetings!

In several recent campaigns I have been running--one campaign being set in a northern, Viking-like region; another campaign set within an Eastern European/Russian flavoured campaign, and a Steppe-Flavoured campaign--the emergence of dynamics prioritizing the TRIBE, the FAMILY, and RELIGION, have become dramatic, and ever-present. Centering these basic values of themselves goes a long way towards not only crushing any kind of modernistic fantasies--but also shoves the Player Characters into the campaign IMMERSION. I would add, that doing so also serves as something of a break and reminder for the GM to keep things in the campaign firmly rooted in such traditions, and to not blithely embrace or include modernistic attitudes and stupidity.

I admit, also, it takes some conscious effort and mindfulness at keeping on top of this stuff. Guarding and maintaining the essential dynamics. It also takes some time for the GM and the Players to get used to these dynamics. I think that through time and effort though, it certainly pays off well. There is more realism, more genuine choices and decision-making going on that is meaningful, and fun. It helps to build that wall separating out the modern world from the game world.

What the Tribal elders believe, what your father believes, and what the tribal shamans believe--these things are what is important. Certainly not the crying brat or the self-righteous rebel. The rebels get beaten to death, or sent into exile, slavery, and typically death. Rebels do not tend to prosper and succeed. It is also interesting that within older more traditional cultures--there is no official authority applauding or encouraging social rebels. There is no university professors or media outlets constantly promoting heresy and rebellion. In contrast, every cultural institution, every major social authority, promotes discipline, obedience, conformity to tradition, and a general sense of caution, wisdom, and restraint--instead of lawlessness, hyper-individualism, and the exaltation of selfishness and hedonism. The tribe and family are far more important than YOU, the individual. Family honour, dignity, and legacy--family reputation--is far more important than the individual's desires or preferences.

It has been interesting watching the Players interact with such a social environment. Of course, such dynamics do not necessarily mean that the individual is NOT IMPORTANT, or that an individual's desires and preferences are not meaningful--but the baseline is the considerations of the Tribe, the Family, and Religion, are first and foremost. They are higher ranking priorities on the list of priorities. The individual is far lower in the priority list, and typically, when such priorities conflict--the other higher priorities take precedence. The dynamics become even more pronounced when you consider that these priorities are more or less enforced on everything in an individual's life. Where to go, when to set out on an expedition, whom to marry, what to hunt, how long to stay gone, what to do with interpersonal conflicts and rivalries, all kinds of things. YOU, as an individual, don't just go off and do much of anything. Everything is done in groups, and most everything is done through the planning, support, and approval, of the Family, the Tribe, and the Religion.

It is a very different kind of lifestyle and world view.

Have you encountered these dynamics in your own campaigns? Or sought to establish and build them into your campaigns?

Very interesting stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yes, they are but, it seems to me players are trying to avoid that in games.

For me, there are "murderhobo" (exploration) campaigns and "social" campaigns.

They are not easy to do at the same time - one is interaction with the KNOWN, the other is exploration of the UNKNOWN.

I've had social campaigns mostly involving knights and samurai; they have a proper code and a social position, they have duties to their family AND their king (with occasional clashes), and they sometimes marry and have children (Pendragon being a great example of course).

There is no doubt you can do the same for a tribe/religion/etc. (e.g., Runequest).

My current campaign is oure "murderhobo": the PCs immigrated to a foreign land in search of riches. They are "fresh off the boat".

I do think there are several advantages to a social campaign and I might play one next.

But I think you need a good setting for that, and PCs have to care at least a little for social mores and hierarchies to make it work.

Honor, reputation, relationships and allies become important. It adds a new level to the whole thing.

In addition, if you look at S&S and Appendix N characters, most are outcasts of some sort. Kane, Conan, Fafhrd and GM (even Elric sometimes) make enemies and allies that die quickly. "Social" characters can only be found in Tolkien to some extent, and definitely in Westeros.

I hate the term "murderhobo," especially when our gaming is based on a combat mechanism and a genre of wandering outsiders. That's the game, why use a made-up term to denigrate what our hobby is?

But that's a rhetorical question, no need to respond. To answer the OP, yes I've GM'd campaigns where I've provided social backgrounds and beliefs to the players, then had to nudge them to keep within the milieu. How has that worked out? Some folks have a blast, some get a little uncomfortable at times: "Slaves? I thought we were the Good Guys."

Yeah, that's what Runequest and Glorantha have been doing since 1978, adventure gaming where culture and religion matters (in contrast to D&D's murderhoboing).

The cultures and related skills are one of the things I love about Rolemaster Standard System and MERP.

I tend to agree that a sense of immersion in the world cuts back on the random violence against commoners problem.

Quote from: Baron on August 01, 2023, 05:30:56 PM
I hate the term "murderhobo," especially when our gaming is based on a combat mechanism and a genre of wandering outsiders. That's the game, why use a made-up term to denigrate what our hobby is?

But that's a rhetorical question, no need to respond. To answer the OP, yes I've GM'd campaigns where I've provided social backgrounds and beliefs to the players, then had to nudge them to keep within the milieu. How has that worked out? Some folks have a blast, some get a little uncomfortable at times: "Slaves? I thought we were the Good Guys."

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to disparage the style, it is one I'm using right now in my campaign, as explained. Some of my favorite characters fall into that category... maybe "wandering assassins" would sound nicer, but muderhobo is more or less established.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:38:16 AM
For me, there are "murderhobo" (exploration) campaigns and "social" campaigns.

They are not easy to do at the same time - one is interaction with the KNOWN, the other is exploration of the UNKNOWN.

I've had social campaigns mostly involving knights and samurai; they have a proper code and a social position, they have duties to their family AND their king (with occasional clashes), and they sometimes marry and have children (Pendragon being a great example of course).

There is no doubt you can do the same for a tribe/religion/etc. (e.g., Runequest).

My current campaign is oure "murderhobo": the PCs immigrated to a foreign land in search of riches. They are "fresh off the boat".

I do think there are several advantages to a social campaign and I might play one next.

But I think you need a good setting for that, and PCs have to care at least a little for social mores and hierarchies to make it work.

Honor, reputation, relationships and allies become important. It adds a new level to the whole thing.

In addition, if you look at S&S and Appendix N characters, most are outcasts of some sort. Kane, Conan, Fafhrd and GM (even Elric sometimes) make enemies and allies that die quickly. "Social" characters can only be found in Tolkien to some extent, and definitely in Westeros.

Greetings!

I agree, my friend. There is some difference between "Murderhobo" and "Social" campaigns. Of course, I try to blend them successfully, but while they can have dynamics that compliment each other, the two approaches also possess exclusive dynamics and tensions between them that are often in conflict. It can definitely be challenging to balance and sort out!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: David Johansen on August 01, 2023, 08:01:02 PM
The cultures and related skills are one of the things I love about Rolemaster Standard System and MERP.

I tend to agree that a sense of immersion in the world cuts back on the random violence against commoners problem.

Greetings!

Hello David! Yes, I agree. Rolemaster has the most comprehensive and detailed skill system around. I LOVE ROLEMASTER. The depth, the fine-tuned detail for the world, as well as individual Characters is really top-notch!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I've been slowly building them into the games I DM, starting with 5E and now Mythras.  The Mythras (and I'm guessing Runequest games in general) has passions and cults/brotherhoods/societies that I'm really digging.  One PC is more "I kill, I loot" and may not play long but the 2 totally new rpg PCs are really getting into this part of the game and their groups and religions.  Not having the social element, even in combat oriented games, feels like there's a big hole.  So far it's really helping the PCs get invested in their characters and considering the combat system of Mythras it gives them pause when they might run into something, even in a dungeon delve.