D&D 5E I hope 5th edition makes room for "Adventurers" and "Heroes".

[Blackwarder]

I think that the main difference between and adventurer and an hero in D&D terms is that Heroes goes on quests and adventurers just go exploring.

To me, it's the difference between and advanture path and sandbox.

Warder

 

[shamsael]

I am going to try running a Next game where the PC's don't gain a background until 3rd level. I want 1st level to be where the PC's are just starting their career.

I want their actions during the first two levels to reflect on what background they end up choosing and I want them to choose according to their actions.

You must mean specialty/theme, right? Background represents your trained skills and a minor role playing benefit.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I think that the main difference between and adventurer and an hero in D&D terms is that Heroes goes on quests and adventurers just go exploring.

To me, it's the difference between and advanture path and sandbox.

Warder

You might be right, but which was Frodo ?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that the main difference between and adventurer and an hero in D&D terms is that Heroes goes on quests and adventurers just go exploring.

To me, it's the difference between and advanture path and sandbox.

Warder

It's an interesting interpretation... IOW an "adventurer" is someone who goes looking out for adventures, a "hero" is someone such that adventures go looking out for him

After all, if you leave the town and go in a far or forgotten locale and kill 100 dragons, they don't raise up a statue of you. But if you save the town from 100 goblins (or just 1 dragon) then you're a hero.

 

[KidSnide]

But there is another, possibly more important element of distinction IMHO, and that is lethality.

...

I think the two ideas belong to two fundamentally different gaming styles. An "adventurers' campaign" is more like what life could really be in a fantasy world. A "heroes' campaign" is more like an action movie.

This is an excellent point. Yes, there is some usefulness to being able to tweak the power level of 1st level characters (and 0-level characters are a useful module for some campaigns), but setting the lethality rate is a more important adjustment to move a campaign between the heroic-style and the adventurer-style.

Can you die from a single bad roll? Can a PC die even when the party wins the battle? Does the DM include monsters that the PCs have a low-to-zero chance of winning? These are the type of elements that make an adventurer-style campaign. Whether a 1st level fighter is a good match for one goblin or four goblins is also relevant, but probably not as important.

-KS

 

[Ahnehnois]

You might be right, but which was Frodo ?

I think he would solidly be in the category of "neither".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think he would solidly be in the category of "neither".

In what way is he, or any or the fellowship, not heroes?

 

[Ahnehnois]

In what way is he, or any or the fellowship, not heroes?

Well, he failed. He succumbed to the ring and even though it was ultimately destroyed, it wasn't his doing. Heroes don't fail.

Also, he pretty much went out to pasture and spent the rest of his life periodically ill and suffering the effects of trauma, which is how many real-life heroes end up, but not what I think of when I think of a D&D hero.

I would say this is a character who is just a guy, one of the archetypical everymen in fiction.

***

As to the other characters, I think that many D&D players would not consider them heroes because their actions are for the most part irrelevant to the outcome of the story.

 

[DEFCON 1]

True. But most players have a good knowledge of the game system/edition and expectations as to how that edition typically runs.

Well, then that's on you and your players, not the system itself.

If you're DMing and want the PCs to be 'Adventurers'... and the players arrive for character creation expecting to make 'Heroes'... who's to blame here? The 4E system for having 'Heroes' be their default character design, or YOU for not telling your players ahead of time in the first place "Hey, for this campaign you guys are going to play 'Adventurers' and thus will start a bit underpowered for normal 1st level characters."?

It's the not-so-good DM who doesn't talk with his players specifically about the game he is going to run, and what the players can expect.

 

[FireLance]

Well, he failed. He succumbed to the ring and even though it was ultimately destroyed, it wasn't his doing. Heroes don't fail.

It could be argued that his decision to spare Gollum was what led to the destruction of the ring, and hence, he did succeed - not through cleverness, willpower, or force of arms, but by doing good.

So, for me, at least, the relationship is a bit more complex than "heroes don't fail". As a DM, my games and campaigns tend to evoke the theme that it is ultimately better in the long run to do the morally right thing. At the same time, I do not define heroes by their power level relative to a commoner, nor bestow the title of hero based on simple success. Instead, to me, a hero is one who always (or, at least, usually) tries to do the morally right thing. The fact that doing the morally right thing usually leads to success in my games is actually secondary.