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

[Umbran]

I prefer to approach the question with the attitude that the character's background is just as sacrosanct as any other part of the character sheet.

But... other parts of the character sheet *aren't* sacrosanct. The PCs have money, equipment, hit points, even stat points and levels on the line at various times (depending on edition).

Would I allow the villain to steal 2 points from their strength score and prepare to sacrifice it as part of an evil ritual? Well, maybe, but there would need to be a clear sequence of PLAYER decisions that brought this to pass.

You allow the villain to take hit points. Do you need a clear sequence of player decisions that bring it to pass before you'll allow a villain to attack?

If you have some way in game for the characters to recover from a loss, and the likelihood or frequency of such losses is balanced against their severity, why is this an issue?

 

[KarinsDad]

But... other parts of the character sheet *aren't* sacrosanct. The PCs have money, equipment, hit points, even stat points and levels on the line at various times (depending on edition).

This is like a car warranty. It doesn't cover parts that wear and tear like tires, brakes, etc. Different warranties (like different DMs) cover or do not cover different parts (like different DMs allow different parts of the character sheet to be messed with or not messed with).

 

[Umbran]

How could those who prefer the rootless vagabond be persuaded to adopt something else, if even for a single campaign?

Well, that's kid of like asking how you get the guy who *always* plays a fire-based wizard to play something else. Many of the same ideas apply.

In Atomic Robo, it is done by making it the default way the game is to be played. I presume those who really, really want to play a rootless vagabond will simply beg off the campaign, but those who are willing to try, can do so.

The same goes with other games - pitch the game as, "you are all associated with X" X can be a guild, a knightly order, a particular Duke's court, or what have you. You cant' *make* them, but you can offer the situation in which they can do it.

 

[dd.stevenson]

But... other parts of the character sheet *aren't* sacrosanct.

Of course they aren't.

My point, which I felt I made pretty clearly, is that there's a degree of sacrosanct-ness covering the character sheet. Most players have a strong sense that the character sheet is theirs, and that any interference with the items on that sheet must abide by certain notions of fair play. What exactly constitutes "fair play" varies from table to table and edition to edition--obviously.

My stat point example targets (what I gather to be) KM's current game style; it shouldn't be seen as a far-reaching game style prescription.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The same goes with other games - pitch the game as, "you are all associated with X" X can be a guild, a knightly order, a particular Duke's court, or what have you. You cant' *make* them, but you can offer the situation in which they can do it.

The idea is to use game mechanics to make this something more appealing. While it won't necessarily reach the monolithic player who is stuck in their ways, it doesn't need to -- it just needs to overcome some of the initial objections players might have to the thing.

Open to ideas!

 

[AmerginLiath]

The lack of attachments by people who engage in dangerous activities is a classic staple. Who wants a family when they are busy doing things that may get them killed or worse, their family killed?

Aside from that, there are other reasons why players may not connect themselves to the game world. Some of these reasons might be connected to system issues. A rules heavy game tends to encourage interaction with the rules instead of the setting. Players fixate on their builds and what their characters are mechanically capable of because the system rewards that. A better built mousetrap means more success in the game. What does getting connected to the setting gain the player? A rules oriented player is going to be concerned with the results to be gained by applying diplomacy, intimidation, and so forth because experience tells them that these interactions produce results but just conversing with NPCs and building relationships don't. If you add to this, the absence of support for acquiring followers, and building keeps, temples, towers, and the like, perpetual murderhobos is what you get.

If you as a DM require interaction with the setting to enable successful play then more players are going to do it. This happens more naturally in rules light systems without builds. Randomly generated stats and class choice provide little to no mechanical customization, which can be a GOOD thing when you realize that characters can only individualize themselves through their interactions with the setting, thus providing a compelling motive to do so. The player playing Fytor the fighter can sit back and be generic or make his/her character memorable not by choosing rules mechanics from a list, but by the connections and relationships formed through playing in the setting.

If players have the rules to engage with and are perfectly happy with just that, the setting won't matter.

I always remember what finally killed a DRAGONLANCE game that had been going on for years, through 2e-3e-3.5, where we played basically a long-running soap opera campaign over the years for lack of a better description and would play characters who made little sense by the rules (social power ruled, so our fighters -- as knights -- were on top of the pecking order even at high level, rivaled only by my druid; of course, he was a noble who only cast True Seeing and used his Charisma in lieu of actual spells or animal forms) and we went sometimes weeks without a single combat unless debates about ethics and politics count. At one point, someone made a D&D character. Yes, an actual rootless vagabond Neutral Evil Rogue with all the thievery and deception skills that our characters didn't have counters to (given our Social Contract) -- and started murdering us and taking our stuff. The irony is that the player was the nicest and most innocent guy we knew in real life, and couldn't understand why this was a problem...

 

[Hussar]

I think giving control over the group in a large way to the player might be the way to go. No, the player's character isn't the leader of the group, but, the group now becomes a player resource to be leveraged in the game. Same as having a cool magic item or anything else. The player gets to tell you what the thieves guild is doing, rather than the other way around.

 

[fuindordm]

Well, you could give extra, concrete rewards whenever the PCs return to their organization to report. This is kind of similar to the pathfinder model of quest cards, I guess.

* Return to base to file complete report: 500 gp or equivalent in consumable magic from the organization's stores.
* Bring back proof of BigBad's death: +500 xp (the organization need not have assigned the quest, but it could have bounties posted anyway)
* Replace corrupt official Bob with candidate Amy who is sympathetic to the guild:
+1000 xp and major reward from the guild vaults, if observers decide that the party played a major role in the upset.

Clear goals and clear rewards can be a pretty tasty carrot even for lone wolves. That at least gets them involved, and then storylines and RP opportunities involving their contacts might draw them in further. You can't force them, of course, but you wouldn't want to anyway.

 

[Umbran]

Being able to move damage off of the characters and to an organization doesn't really make sense. Hence, the reason I view it as an "oops" rule. The PCs would be dead without the rule and the rule only makes sense from a metarule perspective, not an in character perspective. The characters do not think that they are moving the damage from one pot to another, the players are.

But that's not just it. Whether you realize it or not, you're adding connotation. Your word choice suggests a certain amount of moralizing about playstyle.

Is the mechanic slightly metagame? Sure, insofar as it is a chance of the players to choose some of the narrative direction through something other than the task resolution mechanics of the game. But you could have said, "That rule is a bit to metagame for my tastes". Instead, you said, "oops rule" which has the connotation of being the thing you do when you weren't careful enough to avoid a mistake. An "oops rule" is something you use to cover when you're sloppy.

But, this is baked into the system. It is something the GM and player can rely on, as much as you can rely on hit points in D&D (and in much the same manner, at that, from a player perspective). There's nothing sloppy about it.

You're free to not like it, and even say so. You're free to not use it. But the connotations you are bringing to the discussion are inaccurate, and unfair.

 

[Umbran]

I think giving control over the group in a large way to the player might be the way to go. No, the player's character isn't the leader of the group, but, the group now becomes a player resource to be leveraged in the game. Same as having a cool magic item or anything else. The player gets to tell you what the thieves guild is doing, rather than the other way around.

Well, what is the *purpose* of having them engage with an organization?

If the purpose was imply to give the player more resources to work with, a tool to use in a larger venue, then what you suggest is fine. The organization, in a sense, becomes a big old magic item the character possesses and can control.

If the purpose is to provide hooks for NPC interactions, motivations and events that would generally become plot twists in the resulting narrative... this solution isn't so hot. If the organization generally does what the player wants, there isn't any need for interaction with the NPCs in the organization, and it isn't a source of narrative complication or tension, any more than the fighter's sword is. I mean, there's a complication when the sword fails to do damage, tension when someone threatens to Sunder it, but not a whole lot else.

The issue is that the vagabond wants to go through life without complication, and the typical purpose of the organization is to add complication.

There are two basic reasons I can think of (already mentioned, but let's remember the) for the player wanting to avoid complication:

1) The player fears a hidden cost. Maybe they have been bitten in the past, where the complication was overdone, so that the player did not have a good time. This is a trust issue. For players who like manipulating rules, laying out the rewards and costs of being in the organization, codifying them, sometimes can help with this. For those who aren't big rules monkeys, or who don't trust you to stick to your own rules, no amount of rules will make them comfortable - the trust has to be built in other ways.

2) The player over-values their freedom. A real-world example of this is a person balking at a good deal on a cell phone contract, because it has a two-year commitment. In reality, very few people change their carriers frequently. If you didn't have the commitment, you'd not change anyway, so being committed really isn't an issue. In a sense, this is a variation of (1) - but the cost is an opportunity cost, specifically - the fear that making a commitment now will preclude them from greater rewards later.

The way through (1) can be a real pain, as building trust is hard.

(2), however, is easier. You handle it in the same way as a cell phone company handles it - override the fear of opportunity cost with current opportunity and features! Find something the player wants. Make organizations the best way to get it. Make your organizations into bright and shiny cell phones that folks stand in line to be part of. This, unfortunately, doesn't lend itself to general organization rules - it is too dependent upon the particular player and character, to it is more a campaign or adventure design consideration.