I am jealous of these & will probably use them for NPCs at some point in the near future!
D&D 5E Bards. They are silly. Is there a way to make them NOT silly?
- Thread starter Fauchard1520
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
But it can't. I mean, it literally can't. What it should be is an entirely different question.
The only way to avoid having the players own mental ability extend into the game space is if the character is so removed from the choices of the player that it becomes an automaton. As long as the player makes choses on behalf of the player, or the player in any way animates the portrayal (that is, if the player role plays the character), then the player's mind is also in the game space.
And if the character really was separate from the player, so that you could say that it made choices without the input of the player, and its abilities did not depend on the players, then in what sense would you be actually playing the game much less the character?
Again, what it should be is a fairly subjective statement, but I don't think this fact that the player's decision making ability and charisma extend into the game universe and become a part of it is a problem to be solved. And, I think most RPers - even if they've never articulated the issue fully - understand that you can't take them out of the game, and probably do not want to be taken out of the game (otherwise, why play), and yet are still also OK with playing something somewhat different than themselves and yet know at the same time that their character can never be fully distinct from themselves. This limitation is something you have to just live with if you want to play a traditional RPG. All traditional RPGs are subject to it, and I think you are correct that while we could go the other way and completely eliminate the separate 'mind' of the character, we can't in fact eliminate the mind of the player from the game space.
Whether we should eliminate the mind of the character completely is another matter.
I find that a lot of people - and this a very human thing to do - are perfectly comfortable reasoning on the basis of qualitative differences - "white/black", "light/dark". And most people are perfectly comfortable with reasoning on the basis of quantitative differences provided they can be demonstrated a tangible objective measurement. But, I find that most things in the real world don't exactly fall into either category. You can point out that "white" and "black" and "light" and "dark" are themselves quantitative differences that exist on a continuum, and while that is true you shouldn't get so caught up in that as to deny that those differences don't at some point become qualitative. Likewise, there are many things that exist on a continuum, where the means to objectively measure them are not at all obvious - yet the continuum is there nonetheless. The two extremes we are talking about - on the one hand the character as independent automaton where the mind of the player doesn't intrude into the game space, and on the other hand the character as complete extension of the player's consciousness without its own mental attributes, are radical extremes. There is in the middle a continuum of mixed approaches that are accepting of imperfection, and I think should be allowed to exist.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
*when you want to give XP but the person's in question have turned off the option there ought to be a meme*
I'm not jealous per se, but as someone who isn't very funny, I certainly admire people who are. I got a chuckle out of "Gorgon Lightfoot".
UPDATE: Treant Reznor and Kurt Gnoll-Bane too.
I'm not jealous per se, but as someone who isn't very funny, I certainly admire people who are. I got a chuckle out of "Gorgon Lightfoot".
UPDATE: Treant Reznor and Kurt Gnoll-Bane too.
Celebrim
Legend
There are people that can answer that question better than I can, and I'll see if Jon Peterson addresses it in his 'definitive work' when I get home, but...
I think that given the presence of the Finnish pantheon in the original Deities & Demigods, we can reasonably assume that he was going for the Kalevala. I just think that the implementation missed its mark by about the same degree that the D&D implementation of 'Ranger' missed its target of allowing you to play Aragorn from 'The Lord of the Rings', and that as a result of both arrows going astray, the two classes became highly self-referential and ultimately completely divorced from the original source material. At this point, a D&D bard is a D&D bard, forming its own fantasy archetype referenced by 'Bard's Tale' and 'Ultima IV' and all sorts of other material inspired by D&D.
It probably also didn't help that in the 1980's, the Kalevala was far less familiar to the average player than Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings'.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Then it can't represent itself as allowing you to play such a character. Instead of class: Bard, can sing real well. You have class: fighter, if you can sing, so can your fighter.
Not really, no, it's just a matter of abstraction. The same as you can abstract swinging around sharp lengths of steel in a life-or-death struggle down to rolling an icosahedron. The player's mental abilities & knowledge aren't taken out of the equation, even though mental abilities & knowledge might very well matter when fencing, they're just shifted from the act itself, to the mechanics of the game.
It is a failure of the system, if it purports to model the decision-making ability or charisma of the /character/.
I see the middle as the player extends into the game space, just not into the fictional space. That is, if you can optimize your character to be good with a sword and decide who he attacks with his sword, even if you have absolutely no experience, formal skill, or even third-hand knowledge of sword-play, then that game has given you the option of playing a character who is good with a sword. Even if, theoretically, you might occasionally chose to attack the 'wrong' enemy, from the PoV of a real soldier, say - for instance, in D&D, it's prettymuch always optimal to focus fire, while IRL, depending on the weapons & doctrines involved, it may be considered ideal to wound as many enemies as possible, instead. The same /does/ apply to anything else - that the character capability may have less to do with physical abilities notwithstanding - if the game models it abstractly and brings it into the realm of play (game mechanics, rules, player decisions about same, etc), then the player can play a character with entirely different capabilities.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
My name is Matt Foley, and I am a Bard, and I live in Caravan DOWN BY THE RIVER!
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
I must admit, I give Bards a fair amount of ribbing, but I do think they are an excellent class. You can certainly reskin them as Truenamers and chanters and lose the music aspect altogether, or you can play them as serious spellsingers line Finrod Felagund or Luthien, or ridiculous spellsingers like Tom Bombadil.
In fact I find the latter far more frightening. The fact that a Bard can be silly while destroying you is terrifying.
In fact I find the latter far more frightening. The fact that a Bard can be silly while destroying you is terrifying.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
This is the first I've heard of that. If it's all based on one epic, then that would explain the very specific pre-requisites to get into the class. That Aragorn could be played at level 1, and Väinämöinen required levels in three different classes first, could be attributed to either the power of the class (bards are supposed to be rare and super magical, I guess?) or just because the author was weirdly interested in the story and there wasn't a player pressuring him to get the class playable quickly.
If we're going to talk about self-referential reflections, though, then we'd be remiss if we didn't mention Gilbert Chris Von Muir. As the iconic bard from the unlicensed-yet-ridiculously-influential D&D video game series, Final Fantasy, Gilbert was a reflection of the state of D&D bards circa 1990. He had a feathered cap, and he played a harp. (He kind of looked like the picture of the bard in the 2E PHB.) His main combat options were to sing debuffs at enemies, run away, use healing items more effectively by spreading the effect to the entire party, and play the harp in such a fashion that it causes damage to enemies.
Of those options, the last one seems the most controversial. Should a bard be able to deal damage by playing music in combat? Or should they pick up a rapier (or bow) and just impale dudes? It presents an interesting dichotomy between a low-magic setting and a high-magic setting. Honestly, as much as I prefer a lower-magic setting where wizards and clerics are the only spellcasters you need, a bard who shreds on their harp so hard that it literally melts the face of any enemy who hears it sounds super rad. Could that angle save the bard from appearing silly?
see
Pedantic Grognard
The original Bard class for D&D was published in The Strategic Review #6 (Volume II issue I), February 1976. It was created by Doug Schwegman, not Gary Gygax.
The introduction section for that original bard class reads:
. . . I believe it is a logical addition to the D & D scene and the one I have composed is a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds, the norse ‘skald’, the celtic ‘bard’, and the southern european ‘minstrel’. The skalds were often old warriors who were a kind of self appointed historian whose duty was to record the ancient battles, blood feuds, and deeds of exceptional prowess by setting them to verse much like the ancient Greek poets did. Tolkien, a great Nordic scholar, copied this style several times in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (for example Bilbo’s chant of Earendil the Mariner). The Celts, especially in Britain, had a much more organized structure in which the post of Barbs as official historians fell somewhere between the Gwelfili or public recorders and the Druids who were the judges as well as spiritual leaders. In the Celtic system Bards were trained by the Druids for a period of almost twenty years before they assumed their duties, among which was to follow the heroes into battle to provide an accurate account of their deeds, as well as to act as trusted intermediaries to settle hostilities among opposing tribes. By far the most common conception of a Bard is as a minstrel who entertained to courts of princes and kings in France, Italy and parts of Germany in the latter middle ages. Such a character was not as trust worthy as the Celtic or Nordic Bards and could be compared to a combination Thief-Illusionist. These characters were called Jongleurs by the French, from which the corrupt term juggler and court jester are remembered today . . .
I wanted to put the Bard into perspective so that his multitudinous abilities in Dungeons and Drageons can be explained. I have fashioned the character more after the Celtic and Norse types than anything else, thus he is a character who resembles a fighter more than anything else, but who knows something about the mysterious forces of magic and is well adept with his hands, etc.
Then, for the start of the actual class description, it says, "A Bard is a jack-of-all-trades in Dungeons and Dragons, he is both an amateur thief and magic user as well as a good fighter."
