Are The Players The Heroes?

[Jacob Marley]

Sometimes they're the heroes; other times they're the villains. Often they are ne'er-do-wells, rogues, and scoundrels. And in many cases - they are all of the above! What is important is that they are the focus of The Game.

 

[Tovec]

As a player I only ever try to make a character, give him personality and see where things go. Unless I'm playing a Paladin or other super-goody-two-shoesy-character I don't try with being a hero and acting like one. If it is revealed I AM a hero over the course of the story that's another deal entirely.

As a DM I find it important to make my party into heroes. This is a lesson I've learned very recently and its one I'm glad I have. Making the party heroes, giving them a quest and having them fight someone truly vile works wonders for party cohesion and unity. It drives the story forward and makes sure they have something to focus on.
They don't have to be traditional heroes, or have Good goals or morals but it certainly makes them the good guys overall. Think about heroes in TV shows.. like the show Heroes. They aren't necessarily Good, or even all about the good end-goal. Some are, certainly but each is an individual and has their own motives. As soon as you institute an enemy like Sylar then they have something to rally against. Sylar is vile, he doesn't want the same things as the other people and for that he is the enemy. He wants them dead or controlled.

Just my two cents.

 

[Jacob]

"The PCs are the Heroes" doesn't really ring as "the good guys" to me. More along the lines as the people whose story we are following. Their importance is up to the PCs themselves, but they should feel important in something for the world you're providing. Saying the campaign world is bigger than the PCs just pushes me away from any DM who claims as such.

However, I know quite well that without a basic structure of world to work off of, gaming falls apart. I'm also not arrogant enough to say "no railroading" because that's pretty much what is happening in any game, and you'd be a fool to subscribe to such knowledge. The DM provides paths for the PCs to follow, which the PC can even keep refusing, but in the end fleshing out who that PC is. PCs can claim who their characters are or how powerful they are over others all day, but in the end that's just talk. It's the DM that provides scenarios that flesh them out, showing reality over fantasy.

In the end, balance. Make it entertaining to the PCs, and build a world that intrigues them and actually puts challenges and consequences for them and what they do. But for Pete's sake never make the world the focus of the game, or you're just going to make the PCs wonder if they are playing a game, or just being told about things happening.

 

[Sekhmet]

This thread is interesting to me, for some unknowable reason.
On one hand, OP says PCs are not more important than NPCs in his world, and later clarifies that NPCs were given PClike attributes to cover that idea.

I've never actually made all NPCs inherently weaker, and I don't know any DM who has. Yes, 3.x offered "NPC classes" that are weaker variants of PC classes, and they're there to suggest that some people are untrained professionals - people who've picked up swinging a sword around a bit more than a person who's picked up research. They're not full-fledged Fighters because they haven't dedicated their life to learning to fight, but they're definitely better at fighting than an Adept is. They're most likely a farmer in the local militia.

On the other hand, there is the sense that the OP has a living world which alters around the PCs, forcing them to react to situations outside of their control, which is entirely the same as every other DM, whether or not their parties are the focal point of "fate".
Really, it is just another plot device.

However, what really interests me is the gap between PCs and NPCs in his world. How do you explain the difference between a level 15 and a level 3? A level 15 is legendary, almost mythological, and a level 3 is the local karate master or University professor. A level 1 is that guy down the road who's really good at bow hunting. The NPC class people are the guys you run across on a daily basis with no particular set of skills or experiences - they bag your groceries, they cook your food, they take care of your garbage.

I'm interested in knowing how OP deals with that situation.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This thread is interesting to me, for some unknowable reason.
On one hand, OP says PCs are not more important than NPCs in his world, and later clarifies that NPCs were given PClike attributes to cover that idea.

I've never actually made all NPCs inherently weaker, and I don't know any DM who has. Yes, 3.x offered "NPC classes" that are weaker variants of PC classes, and they're there to suggest that some people are untrained professionals - people who've picked up swinging a sword around a bit more than a person who's picked up research. They're not full-fledged Fighters because they haven't dedicated their life to learning to fight, but they're definitely better at fighting than an Adept is. They're most likely a farmer in the local militia.

On the other hand, there is the sense that the OP has a living world which alters around the PCs, forcing them to react to situations outside of their control, which is entirely the same as every other DM, whether or not their parties are the focal point of "fate".
Really, it is just another plot device.

However, what really interests me is the gap between PCs and NPCs in his world. How do you explain the difference between a level 15 and a level 3? A level 15 is legendary, almost mythological, and a level 3 is the local karate master or University professor. A level 1 is that guy down the road who's really good at bow hunting. The NPC class people are the guys you run across on a daily basis with no particular set of skills or experiences - they bag your groceries, they cook your food, they take care of your garbage.

I'm interested in knowing how OP deals with that situation.

Like I said, I run a classless game of my own creation (which has taken untold hours to make). You can be hit die 20 and have 3 hit points. You can be hit die 6 and have 100 hit points. It all depends on investment and build.

A level 3 isn't a local karate master. My system is flexible enough that I don't have to simulate real life until higher levels. I've revised skills thoroughly to reflect life more adequately. I've revised the economy to reflect a much more realistic pricing system than one in the 3.X PHB. I've had to change many things to achieve this "balance." Taking exceptionally simple steps defining "really hard" for Knowledges goes a long way. What's "really hard?" It means different things to different people. Giving examples really helps with this sort of thing. Certain skills just get revised in this fashion (Knowledge, Perform, Balance, Jump, etc.), either by defining DCs or by tweaking them. Then there are the skills that got scrapped and rebuilt (Intimidate, Diplomacy, Craft, etc.). Much more work went into the latter.

At any rate, if you have a 3 hit die character, he'll be good at something. Take the martial arts studio. You're hit die 3, and you're focused on martial arts. The master is probably better than the other students. I figure, with good feats, special abilities, etc., it looks like he's around hit die 6. He's also entirely focused on martial arts, and while you're picking up a lot, you're also branching out to learn stealth techniques, a social skill, good saves, hit points, temporary hit points, etc. By hit die 6, if you ever reach it, he'll be better than you are at martial arts. But he's focused, and you're broad. You could potentially beat him, but he's more skilled.

At hit die 1, am I a weaponsmith? Cool, I have ranks Craft (weaponsmithing). Maybe a feat to boost it. Maybe a special ability boosting my technique. And if I'm a craftsman, I'll buy enough Status to be in that area (which means I have more starting money, too). I'm now a weaponsmith. Of course, I might branch out a little to armorsmithing or blacksmithing. Once I'm sufficiently satisfied with my crafting skills, I can dump some of my starting points into saves, weapon groups and ranks, armor proficiencies, other skills I'm interested in, base attack or defense bonus, etc. I can round him out a little.

I personally hate having two-dimensional characters when I can help it. Even if I use one occasionally (to represent 2D people that you'll meet in real life occasionally), I hate using it. It feels unnatural to me. I don't say "this guy is a blacksmith, so it's all he is in this world" and not think about it. He may or may not have good hit points for his hit die; he may have exceptional or abysmal skill with a blade.

Keep in mind, my setting is a pretty lethal world. It's easy to die. Not that people are out to get you most of the time, but hit point pools are less than in D&D, damage is higher, and a "Hit Chart" is often used to see what happens on a successful hit in combat (d100, huge variety of effects, from diseases or infections, from head damage or concussions or skull fractures, to hamstrung effects or groin damage). It's easy to die, and this is the world people live in.

One side effect of this is a skilled populace. The weak members of society are the minority. The skilled and talented are the general populace. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who is a purely a cook, with no other skills to be mentioned.

At any rate, I hope this sheds some light on things. When you ask more questions (as you probably will), I'll elaborate more.

 

[slwoyach]

In my games the characters are heroes in all sense of the word.

 

[Jhaelen]

When I GM, I don't have my players be the Heroes. By "Heroes," I don't mean 'altruistic good guys'. I mean, 'the setting does not revolve around them'. They are but a few humble characters in the world.

Well, first, I guess you're talking about the _characters_ because the players are most surely not Heroes.

In my game the characters are the _protagonists_ but not necessarily the 'Heroes' (in the sense you're using the word). I.e. actions will revolve around them, but those actions needn't have a large scope or impact on the setting as a whole. At least that's what's true until late into the campaign.

High-level gameplay is different because the pcs become so incredibly powerful that it is difficult to tell stories in which they aren't the Heroes. If you have the power to change the world, chances are you will, even if it's something you actively try to avoid, because such power attracts attention.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, first, I guess you're talking about the _characters_ because the players are most surely not Heroes.

In my game the characters are the _protagonists_ but not necessarily the 'Heroes' (in the sense you're using the word). I.e. actions will revolve around them, but those actions needn't have a large scope or impact on the setting as a whole. At least that's what's true until late into the campaign.

High-level gameplay is different because the pcs become so incredibly powerful that it is difficult to tell stories in which they aren't the Heroes. If you have the power to change the world, chances are you will, even if it's something you actively try to avoid, because such power attracts attention.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue semantics with anyone. So, you're correct, I meant the PCs. I was wrong, you are right, etc. I'm much more interested in intent than in semantics.

I agree with you in a 3.X game. When you have Miracle, Greater Teleport, Gate, it's hard to actually stop them from achieving world-altering goals at high level without completely railroading them.

In the game I run, those types of spells are either impossible or incredibly hard to achieve. I had to change quite a bit in order for this to work, but it's the way things are for my group. In D&D, I don't know if it's possible to stop them from changing the world at high levels.

Our low level gameplay sounds similar superficially. I can't say for certain, obviously.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think that the players are more important than NPCs, but their story definitely is to me.

My PC's are destined. There lives are literally being manipulated by the gods. In the terms of the Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series they are 'Ta'veren' - which I find a very satisfying explanation for the quality of being a 'player character'. This is represented in the games mechanics: the players recieve 'destiny points', which almost all NPC's don't have, they have elite stat arrays, which almost all NPC's don't have, and they are advantaged characters, which most NPC's aren't, and most oddly somehow a number of such unusual characters with great destinies find themselves in the same place at the same time. Somehow six 'one in a million' characters are all in the same place at the same time.

And this is explained in game and in story as well. If any wierd coincidences occur surrounding the characters, they aren't coincidences. The fact that adventures spring up where ever they go is explained not just because it would be a boring game otherwise, but in game as well as the mechanations of the gods. Almost invariably, at some point in a campaign I expect the PC's to come face to face with a deity. In several cases this has happened at 1st level.

In my current campaign, literally, the destiny of the universe and the very lives of hundreds of thousands of people hang in the balance on the basis of the PC's decisions. The players and player characters and certainly the majority of NPC's don't as yet know this, but it is true nonetheless. If the players aren't the most important people on the whole world, then they are certainly numbered among them. Sure, there are other stories out there, some of which might even be as important as this one. It's a big world. And the villains, personages like Keeropus, are as important in the role of antagonist to the story and the world. But the PC's are literally important in a way that virtually all NPC's aren't. If an NPC knew of the PC's destiny, and the NPC was a hero themselves, they'd throw themselves in front of an arrow that was hurtling at the PC and say something like, "I did it because I am replaceable, but you are not."

The PC's are currently 3rd level. Which means, that in terms of HD and the like, they are just now beginning to be above average in power and ability. But in importance, they are just about unmatched. Jace Merlkin the Dragon Hunter, who is 20th level and the highest level mortal fighter currently on the planet, though having a story and being important in his own right is not as important as the PC's.

 

[JamesonCourage]

My PC's are destined. There lives are literally being manipulated by the gods. In the terms of the Robert Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series they are 'Ta'veren' - which I find a very satisfying explanation for the quality of being a 'player character'. This is represented in the games mechanics: the players recieve 'destiny points', which almost all NPC's don't have, they have elite stat arrays, which almost all NPC's don't have, and they are advantaged characters, which most NPC's aren't, and most oddly somehow a number of such unusual characters with great destinies find themselves in the same place at the same time. Somehow six 'one in a million' characters are all in the same place at the same time.

And this is explained in game and in story as well. If any wierd coincidences occur surrounding the characters, they aren't coincidences. The fact that adventures spring up where ever they go is explained not just because it would be a boring game otherwise, but in game as well as the mechanations of the gods. Almost invariably, at some point in a campaign I expect the PC's to come face to face with a deity. In several cases this has happened at 1st level.

In my current campaign, literally, the destiny of the universe and the very lives of hundreds of thousands of people hang in the balance on the basis of the PC's decisions. The players and player characters and certainly the majority of NPC's don't as yet know this, but it is true nonetheless. If the players aren't the most important people on the whole world, then they are certainly numbered among them. Sure, there are other stories out there, some of which might even be as important as this one. It's a big world. And the villains, personages like Keeropus, are as important in the role of antagonist to the story and the world. But the PC's are literally important in a way that virtually all NPC's aren't. If an NPC knew of the PC's destiny, and the NPC was a hero themselves, they'd throw themselves in front of an arrow that was hurtling at the PC and say something like, "I did it because I am replaceable, but you are not."

The PC's are currently 3rd level. Which means, that in terms of HD and the like, they are just now beginning to be above average in power and ability. But in importance, they are just about unmatched. Jace Merlkin the Dragon Hunter, who is 20th level and the highest level mortal fighter currently on the planet, though having a story and being important in his own right is not as important as the PC's.

While I emphatically disagree with this concept running my game (when I run one, at least... I've played in games similar to this, and enjoyed it), I liked hearing your description of your game.

I'm curious what happens when a PC dies, though. Does someone else take up his destiny? To me, that would make them replaceable in the very essence of the word. I know you've probably thought of this, which is why I'm curious what your solution is.