• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E I Am SO Over The "Rootless Vagabond" Archetype

dd.stevenson

Super KY
I've heard players say, when pressed for background, that they don't want to give the DM any "fodder" by having things like living parents or family members, or things they value that aren't their swords and their spellbooks.
That's the crux of it for many players I've seen. I think it can stem from a lot of different causes: fear of losing agency, preference for power fantasy, expectation of an DM-adversarial playstyle, and even sometimes an unwillingness to push the spotlight away from the (for them) fun element of dungeon crawling.

In my experience, the best thing is generally to just let players run their boring vagabonds alongside more interesting characters--they'll pick up on the advantages and disadvantages of their character design choices pretty quick, and at that point they're empowered to make an informed choice about how they want to play the game going forward.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

prosfilaes

Adventurer
As a player, I haven't seen much reward in making a lot of connection; it's likely to get ignored in game. A church character can usually keep up with his church, but anything else seemed likely to just get ignored in game.
 

BigVanVader

First Post
I play almost exclusively Martial classes, I love Fighters and I love Barbarians. But my Fighters and Barbarians are vastly different from my Fighters and Barbarians, y'know? It's because I try to vary them up and give them personalities and backstories and all that good stuff They might all have a d12 for health or all be proficient with all weapons, but they all have different reasons for those.
 

As both a DM and player, the amount of backstory I want is based on the nature and depth of the campaign. Usually as a DM I like players to have a really strong rooting in their history and setting. But sometimes I don't want them to bother, such as my playtest campaign which was episodic, jumped around to different places and different levels rather than following any chronological order, and had absolutely nothing happening between actual adventures.

As a player my natural, and probably unconscious, reaction is to make the amount of backstory that makes my character feel real to me, and probably go just a little bit beyond what is actually needed for the campaign. So I tend to do things like make up a sibling or two, decide what my parents' professions are/were, etc. But I'm not going to try to go into any detail tying them to specific organizations or a bunch of NPCs unless the DM gives me the impression that that would be relevant to the campaign. In that case, I'll go hog wild on it.

It would be rather annoying to make up a lot of information, only to find out that none of it actually comes up in the campaign. So a lot of this has to do with exactly what type of campaign I'm going to be playing in. If it's going to be an exploration campaign (and I enjoy these) where the party basically is a bunch of vagabonds, then I'm unlikely to waste my creative effort making a detailed backstory that has no connection to or bearing on the campaign. On the other hand, if it's a campaign where all the characters are related or connected to the same family, or is a primarily site-based campaign, I'm going to want to go into quite a bit of detail, maybe even writing a pre-game narrative (with DM approval) about my character's "story so far..."

As a DM, I think it's important to give players--especially new players--enough direction on exactly what I'm expecting, and now that we're talking about it, I'm going to have to start giving them examples of how it might interact with the campaign rather than just saying, "this stuff might matter."

As an example, an upcoming really, really, ridiculously old-school long campaign that I'm planning to start next year is going to have multiple elements that will impact this. First, every character needs a really strong backstory and awareness of their place of origin. Each character will be coming from an entirely different campaign setting/world, and I will expect them to have a basic knowledge of what their in-character experience would be. I'm actually planning on writing a sales pitch for each of the D&D campaign settings that I'm familiar enough with to do so, so they can get excited about them and pick the one that most appeals to them. (In a different campaign, I might do the same thing on a smaller scale. Perhaps a sales pitch for different cities or organizations or other places of origin.) Then, once we know who they are in a very rough draft form, I'm going to write up a personal "What You Know" document for each individual character. Based on a character's race, class, background, ability scores, languages, skills, region, and any other traits, I will explain to them the basic things they know about "the world." This includes things like what's over them thar mountains, or how much they know about the king (I might not go into actual details, but I could say, "you are well versed in the lineage of the royalty and major nobility of your land"). It also includes things like how much they know about planes, worlds, the deities, etc. Everything from, "You know that you should go to the church of Pelor and be a good person, so you can go to that good heaven place (you can never remember the name the priest uses), and not get dragged into some hellish place with fiends," to "You are familiar with the major deities of humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, and goblinoids, their places of dwellings, and what their general characters and inclinations are commonly believed to be. You know about the 17 Outer Planes and both their colloquial and formal names, as well as the Inner Planes, including the little know quasi and para elemental planes, as well as the transitive and other planes. You understand the societies of the major inhabitants of these planes, and the major magical traits common to them..." While any character can make an ability check during the game to know various information, those who are described as knowing the basics in their "What You Know" will be automatically told anything it says they know when it is relevant or when they ask.

I want them to really feel that they are part of their world. And then, once the campaign starts they will find that they are rarely on their own world, since the characters will be traveling around the multiverse. However, when they do return to their world, they will have automatic tie-ins and that feeling of being the party MVP for that portion of the campaign, since they are the only one who has any idea what is going on--and this is really going to be played up. I'll also allow and encourage characters to form connections and start laying down roots (whether on their home world or elsewhere) as the campaign continues, partly through strongly encouraged extensive downtime.

So, back to the point, even in an campaign of exploration and travel, if the players know that their backstory is going to be important and relevant during the campaign, and if the DM puts extra effort into making sure they have what they need to properly connect with it, I think it will work out. And that's something that just occured to me. I think they need sufficient known options. Most people are better at multiple choice than fill in the blank.

As somewhat of a tangent, I've decided that I need to provide more direction than I used to think I did. In my playtest campaign, for instance, most of the players had little if any D&D experience, sometimes only peripheral (D&D video games). So I'm having them make characters and I end up with 2 players wanting to play 6'+ elves, and another wanting a towering half-elf. I just went with it, because it was a playtest, but that aint' (any sort of traditional) D&D. So I'm going to be very clear about the different races and subraces and where they are found. Sure, if an individual player wants to be an extremely tall elf in a land where most elves are 5'3" (or whatever) I'm not likely to say no, but I want them to be extremely aware that this is an extremely odd aberration and everyone is going to act like it. They can't just pretend that their giant elf is normal because they like giant elves and don't want to think about it. (On the other hand, I'm willing to let them make their own planet and have 6' elves be the norm if they want to--it's a very "geographically" open campaign.) Same thing goes for any other odd relations relative to the campaign world. Players can do it, but they need to know what the norm is and how far off of the norm they are, and be okay with it.

So my current thoughts on getting them involved would be that they need to to have multiple background options presented in an exciting sales pitch, the DM needs to help by fleshing out the information they would know based on their character choices, and they need to know that it will be relevant in the campaign in proportion to the amount of work they are asked to do on it.

On the other hand I've seen backgrounds where I couldn't accept this was a 1st level PC just starting out they had some much stuff in their past already.

I do think that is an issue that can arise. I tend to be rather direct in telling the players about what assumptions they need to know, including what 1st level represents in this campaign.

Even the "path of least resistance" leads to SOME world info. I wonder if it would be possible to do this a little more formally, meaning even your most casual player has something you could hook into, and limiting the amateur fantasy authors to something concrete and relevant in play that I don't have to dedicate a week to reading about. Maybe just being a dwarf fighter means you have to pick up some hooks just as part of that? I wonder what that would look like, if every rules element you took came with a world hook of some sort....

Yes!
 


Gilladian

Adventurer
Having only read the first page of this thread, it seems to me that nobody is addressing one of Kamikaze Midget's main points - that players may be gun-shy of playing a character with "attachments" and that the loner-PC may be a reaction to something.

I find that this is very true. There are many DMs (or were, in older more-adversarial DMing style days) who delight in using ANY tie the PC forms with the world as a way of messing with him. Make a friend? He'll get kidnapped. Have a girlfriend? She's gonna be the evil-high-priest's choice of sacrificial victim. Want to marry? She/he will turn out to be a succubus/fiend in disguise, or his/her parent will be a vampire or a demon. If you're the child of a noble, you'll end up being the long-lost heir to some curse/throne/power that will have everyone in the kingdom wanting either a piece of your hide or your blessing on their cause.

So players learned. No friend, no lover, no spouse, no parent, and you couldn't get abused, dragged along, forced to do what you didn't want, etc...
 

pming

Legend
Hiya.

So players learned. No friend, no lover, no spouse, no parent, and you couldn't get abused, dragged along, forced to do what you didn't want, etc...

Yeah, I've seen that unfortunate outcome as well. But "back in ye olden days", DM's like this quickly got a "reputation"; those DM's either ended up not DM'ing because nobody wanted to play with them, or they ended up with the players they deserved (which is where most of my ill-spoke of experiences I spout off from time to time come from).

What I have done for the past couple of decades is basically state to every new player at the table "Give me something on your characters background. Nothing extravagant, but a half page to a page is good. I want childhood friends, family, hates/loves, anything that you think makes your character who he/she is today. Anything you don't give me (eg, mother/father name and situation...dead/alive/missing/etc.) I am free to come up with". I used to have a sheet with "family info" on it that a player could basically fill in (names, relationships, etc), but I generally have fallen into a much more "story-based free-flow" type thing.

My last campaign was a TPK last sunday...primarily because they were mostly a bunch of murderhobos; no connections to anyone, no ties, and mostly Chaotic alignments (I think one was NG). Needless to say, they didn't stick around to really find out what was going on because they were so damn chaotic...wandered off into the wilderness, found an adventure (I just grabbed a random Dungeon Magazine...#13, IIRC, how appropriate)...and they died to some mean ol' plants.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Remathilis

Legend
I have a simple answer to this: make every character a PART of something by the very nature of their class.

Some classes have this built in semi-automatically (such as clerics or monks) but rather than have the PCs backstory involve magically learning his class abilities, force them to belong to a group.

For example, if your campaign is focused in the kingdom of Generica, make fighters come from the Generica army, clerics belong to the Church of Radiant Light, wizards learn magic from the University of Arcadia, and Rogues be members of the Darklight Guild. Paladins could be from the army or church, warlocks belong to cults, druids to the Druidic Order, rangers to lodges (or the army), the closest tribe is the Coldfort Tribe, and monks learn from the Lu-Shin Monastery. Tie it to their background, but then you need to enforce it; a rogue might embrace his place in the thieves guild or he may deny it, but he is going to face complications when the guild calls on his services or call a target off-limits. Other wizards know each other and challenge each other for status. Druids are the natural enemies of Old One Warlocks. Paladin's demand respect from the common folk, etc.

Of course, this system forces PCs to accept their class is part of their profession. Jim-Bob the Farmboy isn't a Fighter; a fighter needs to belong the military or city guard to be a fighter. A paladin is a term people accept as a title, like knight or noble. A ranger identifies himself as a ranger. However, it has the benefit of giving every PC a hook, and they can then decide if they want to embrace, reject, or attempt to ignore that hook at their own peril.
 

Psikerlord#

Explorer
I like wandering vagabonds just fine, although i have yet to see one who has actually maintained the fiercely independent loner in game. As the party goes on and levels up, meets NPCs etc, inevitably some bonds are formed with some NPCs. At least that's what I've found. I would think it very interesting, actually, to have a player who REALLY goes full lone wolf - it would be a great roleplaying opportunity, revealing why he is such a loner over the course of the campaign.

I should confess I only want one vagabond per party at most. Too many vagabonds = no reason to stay together!
 

pming

Legend
Hiya.

I should confess I only want one vagabond per party at most. Too many vagabonds = no reason to stay together!

This. I have no problem with A lone wolf PC. One of my friends always plays (almost always...90% or so) the "lone wolf" character because he really likes the combat aspect of the game and all the story, NPC, and "role-playing" stuff serves as nothing more than back story to his characters. We all accept this and we all have a great time.

However, as I posted above, when you have a group of characters being a TN Tiefling Warlock, a CG Human Ranger, a CN Human Druid (with god-like stats!), and a CE Dwarven Barbarian...all more or less "lone wolves", you end up with TPK's in short order. They were no longer "lone wolves", they were an actual, roving band of murderhobos. They were only semi-together...most of the time I had three groups; the Warlock staying at one inn, the Ranger at another, the Barbarian and Druid just outside of town. I had to basically run 'three groups' almost every session, with each more or less doing what they felt their character would do. They only came together when I "hand waved" the roleplaying part: "Ok, you all wake up in the morning, have breakfast, and meet up at the crossroads just south of the ruined temple of Wee Jas. You all hear a rather vitriolic sermon going on, presided by priests of Wastri, who have taken over the ruined temple for their own.". If I hadn't done that, each 'group' would have been doing something completely different on their own.

Anyway...as Psikerlord# said, "one per party" is fine, but most/all of a party? No longer a party and just a grouping of people who just happen to be in the same general vicinity of the others...not much fun from a DM'ing perspective, that's for sure. Well, except for watching the inevitable outcome of party implosion....that's good for a laugh (but usually the end to the campaign).

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Remove ads

Top