I've been hearing a lot of talk about "heroic fantasy" and "1st level characters are heroes" in connection with D&D4e. The lead designer, Mike Mearls, worked on the distinctly heroic "Star Wars" and "Iron Heroes" and suddenly the word "hero" is on everybody's lips.
Here's my thoughts on that: D&D characters are supposed to be adventurers. Not necessarily heroes.
The term "adventurer" suggests a lot: it suggests that the character is somehow separate from the mass of normals, and it suggests that the character is going out and exploring and doing stuff, as opposed to some hypothetical fantasy game where you just sit at home and learn tailoring, or spend the whole game in Wizard's Academy. This is all good. These are all safe assumptions. But it doesn't necessarily imply that the character is a hero, a quester, a champion bravely fighting against the forces of evil, etc.
Now, I *like* heroic campaigns, but that's not the only way to play D&D. In fact, in the last campaign I ran I was always subtly trying to get the PCs to take the more heroic option (like take a risk to rescue the imprisoned princess instead of just telling some NPCs to do it) but they rarely went for it, they generally preferred to just go for the gold. If you go back to the cobwebby 1st edition roots, most of the adventures are set up in the style of "let's explore the unknown and test ourselves and hopefully not die in the process!" Whether the characters were Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil didn't necessarily enter into it... this was something for the individual players and the individual GM to work into the structure of the game. The point of D&D is to establish a fantasy world, a simulation (guess which one of the Three Big Gamer Types I consider myself?
), where you can then do whatever the hell you want. The narrative is important. The gameplay is important. But the main point of D&D, IMHO, is to create a big sandbox: to create options for the player and the DM to play the kind of campaign they want.
There are plenty of fantasy settings where the characters are adventurers but not heroes, like pretty much any Evil PCs campaign, or like the old Dying Earth Jack Vance adventures where the main character is a rogue who is motivated purely by self-interest. Or The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, or the power-playing and diplomacy of the Amber books, or the heroic but very gritty and very ambiguously moral situations in the Elric of Melnibone books. Or Clark Ashton Smith's high-body-count fantasy short stories. Or the various weird fantasy settings of China Mieville, Lord Dunsany, Neil Gaiman, Clive Barker, Dianna Wynne-Jones, etc. I think that all of these different play styles, not just the venerable and without-it-there-would-be-no-D&D J.R.R. Tolkien "fight the big bad guy!" style, should be supported within D&D.
Now, the only problem with D&D as a "big sandbox" is that it may be confusing to newbies. There may be too many options, too much chaos. But I think it's important not to oversimplify. I think this already happened a little bit between 3.0 and 3.5 -- not the rules, which were totally complicated in both 3.0 and 3.5, but in the opening text, the way the game presents itself to that hypothetical audience of newbies:
Lemme read the "Introduction" section from the Player's Handbook 3.0:
"Welcome to the game that has defined the fantastic imagination for over a quarter of a century.
"When you play the Dungeons & Dragons game, you create a unique fictional character that lives in your imagination and the imaginations of your friends. One person in the game, the Dungeon Master (DM), controls the monsters and people that live in the fantasy world. You and your friends face the dangers and explore the mysteries that your Dungeon Master sets before you.
"Each character's imaginary life is different. Your character might:
* explore ancient ruins guarded by devious traps.
* put loathsome monsters the the sword.
* loot the tomb of a long-forgotten wizard.
* cast mighty spells to burn and blast your foes.
* solve diabolical mysteries.
* find magic weapons, rings, and other items.
* make peace between warring tribes.
* get brought back from the dead.
* face undead creatures that can drain life away with a touch.
* sneak into a castle to spy on the enemy.
* travel to other planes of existence.
* wrestle a carnivorous ape.
* forge a magic wand.
* get turned to stone.
* get turned into a toad.
* turn someone else into a toad.
* become king or queen.
* discover unique and powerful artifacts of amazing magical power."
To me, this is a pretty good explanation of what D&D is all about. It still needs some fleshing out for newbies -- it's not easy for most newbies to understand what roleplaying "is" unless they experience it -- but it's solid. Now let's look at the Introduction text in the Player's Handbook 3.5:
"This is the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game, the game that defines the genre and has set the standard for fantasy roleplaying for more than 30 years.
"D&D is a game of your imagination, in which you participate in thrilling adventures and dangerous quests by taking on the role of a hero -- a character you create. Your character might be a strong fighter or a clever rogue, a devout cleric or a powerful wizard. With a few trusted allies at your side, you explore ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure. The game offers endless possibilities and a multitude of choices -- more choices than even the most sophisticated computer game, because you can do wahtever you can imagine."
Okay. Not terrible either. But a step in the wrong direction, IMHO, because it's a simplification. And I worry that D&D4e keeps going farther in this direction. First, the characters are heroes. Second, it's all about "exploring ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure." Both are generally true in most forms of D&D. But they're not ALWAYS true. There are city-based and wilderness-based campaigns. There could be rogue-based campaigns, pirate-based campaigns, ninja campaigns (I played in one!), Evil campaigns, diplomacy-and-intrigue-based campaigns, spellcaster campaigns, whatever. Many of these are the kinds of campaigns supported by 3rd-party d20 products, like Green Ronin's books, and it is easier to build these kinds of variant campaigns around a Simulationist base ("here are the rules for how the world works, now go nuts") than around a Narrativist base ("this is the plot that your characters must fit into") or Gamist base ("the character roles are hardwired into the game system; one must be a Leader, one a Fighter, one a Healer, etc.").
Like I said: I like heroic campaigns. They can be really fun. But I don't think that should be ALL that D&D is about. It's a subtle difference in the way the game is presented in the core rules, from "Enter this fantasy world and be a fictional character and do weird and interesting stuff and face dangers and face the unknown" to "Hey guys! Let's become heroes and fight monsters!" The latter is *generally* a pretty good description of D&D... but not always. It's not always enough. There are other play styles, and I don't want the core D&D rules to ignore them. (And no, I don't think 3.x ignores them. That's the nice thing about 3.x, it's very open to customization.)
Now, I will admit... when I was a little kid, I did in fact play D&D because I wanted to be a hero and fight monsters. :/ It was later that I got into options... it was later that I got into the "What would happen if I played a sinister Lawful Neutral shaman oozemaster? What would happen if I played a vengeful lizardman exiled from his tribe? A drunken wastrel bard who can't help spending all his gold on useless things from the PHB list as soon as he gets it? A crazed, mask-wearing tiefling shadowdancer? A literally bird-brained Hengeyokai sparrow-headed shaman with an Intelligence of 4? A vaguely East Indian demon-summoning sorceress who was the offscreen leader of a crazed cult, would my DM let me get away with it?" Or from a DMing aspect: "What if I ran a pirate game? What if I ran an Ancient Egyptian game? What if I ran a this-and-that game?"
So, you could argue that this kind of Simulationist, "open up the game world to various types of play" aspect of D&D is always going to be secondary to the "heroic fantasy" aspect which is what attracts the majority of newbies. And if you wanna argue that, fine. It is important that the game be comprehensible to newbies, after all. (Make skills simpler, fine. Get rid of multiple attacks in combat, fine.) But I do think that "adventurers" describes the typical adventuring party better than "heroes" -- unless the DM is forcing the players to conform to "heroic" behavior by heavily pressuring them, which is not a good thing -- and I do think that "fantasy adventure" is a better way to describe D&D in all its aspects than "heroic fantasy." I like these options, I like having lots of options, and I don't want them to go away in 4e. It's always an adventure game, but it's not always a heroic game.
Here's my thoughts on that: D&D characters are supposed to be adventurers. Not necessarily heroes.
The term "adventurer" suggests a lot: it suggests that the character is somehow separate from the mass of normals, and it suggests that the character is going out and exploring and doing stuff, as opposed to some hypothetical fantasy game where you just sit at home and learn tailoring, or spend the whole game in Wizard's Academy. This is all good. These are all safe assumptions. But it doesn't necessarily imply that the character is a hero, a quester, a champion bravely fighting against the forces of evil, etc.
Now, I *like* heroic campaigns, but that's not the only way to play D&D. In fact, in the last campaign I ran I was always subtly trying to get the PCs to take the more heroic option (like take a risk to rescue the imprisoned princess instead of just telling some NPCs to do it) but they rarely went for it, they generally preferred to just go for the gold. If you go back to the cobwebby 1st edition roots, most of the adventures are set up in the style of "let's explore the unknown and test ourselves and hopefully not die in the process!" Whether the characters were Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil didn't necessarily enter into it... this was something for the individual players and the individual GM to work into the structure of the game. The point of D&D is to establish a fantasy world, a simulation (guess which one of the Three Big Gamer Types I consider myself?
), where you can then do whatever the hell you want. The narrative is important. The gameplay is important. But the main point of D&D, IMHO, is to create a big sandbox: to create options for the player and the DM to play the kind of campaign they want.There are plenty of fantasy settings where the characters are adventurers but not heroes, like pretty much any Evil PCs campaign, or like the old Dying Earth Jack Vance adventures where the main character is a rogue who is motivated purely by self-interest. Or The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, or the power-playing and diplomacy of the Amber books, or the heroic but very gritty and very ambiguously moral situations in the Elric of Melnibone books. Or Clark Ashton Smith's high-body-count fantasy short stories. Or the various weird fantasy settings of China Mieville, Lord Dunsany, Neil Gaiman, Clive Barker, Dianna Wynne-Jones, etc. I think that all of these different play styles, not just the venerable and without-it-there-would-be-no-D&D J.R.R. Tolkien "fight the big bad guy!" style, should be supported within D&D.
Now, the only problem with D&D as a "big sandbox" is that it may be confusing to newbies. There may be too many options, too much chaos. But I think it's important not to oversimplify. I think this already happened a little bit between 3.0 and 3.5 -- not the rules, which were totally complicated in both 3.0 and 3.5, but in the opening text, the way the game presents itself to that hypothetical audience of newbies:
Lemme read the "Introduction" section from the Player's Handbook 3.0:
"Welcome to the game that has defined the fantastic imagination for over a quarter of a century.
"When you play the Dungeons & Dragons game, you create a unique fictional character that lives in your imagination and the imaginations of your friends. One person in the game, the Dungeon Master (DM), controls the monsters and people that live in the fantasy world. You and your friends face the dangers and explore the mysteries that your Dungeon Master sets before you.
"Each character's imaginary life is different. Your character might:
* explore ancient ruins guarded by devious traps.
* put loathsome monsters the the sword.
* loot the tomb of a long-forgotten wizard.
* cast mighty spells to burn and blast your foes.
* solve diabolical mysteries.
* find magic weapons, rings, and other items.
* make peace between warring tribes.
* get brought back from the dead.
* face undead creatures that can drain life away with a touch.
* sneak into a castle to spy on the enemy.
* travel to other planes of existence.
* wrestle a carnivorous ape.
* forge a magic wand.
* get turned to stone.
* get turned into a toad.
* turn someone else into a toad.
* become king or queen.
* discover unique and powerful artifacts of amazing magical power."
To me, this is a pretty good explanation of what D&D is all about. It still needs some fleshing out for newbies -- it's not easy for most newbies to understand what roleplaying "is" unless they experience it -- but it's solid. Now let's look at the Introduction text in the Player's Handbook 3.5:
"This is the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game, the game that defines the genre and has set the standard for fantasy roleplaying for more than 30 years.
"D&D is a game of your imagination, in which you participate in thrilling adventures and dangerous quests by taking on the role of a hero -- a character you create. Your character might be a strong fighter or a clever rogue, a devout cleric or a powerful wizard. With a few trusted allies at your side, you explore ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure. The game offers endless possibilities and a multitude of choices -- more choices than even the most sophisticated computer game, because you can do wahtever you can imagine."
Okay. Not terrible either. But a step in the wrong direction, IMHO, because it's a simplification. And I worry that D&D4e keeps going farther in this direction. First, the characters are heroes. Second, it's all about "exploring ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure." Both are generally true in most forms of D&D. But they're not ALWAYS true. There are city-based and wilderness-based campaigns. There could be rogue-based campaigns, pirate-based campaigns, ninja campaigns (I played in one!), Evil campaigns, diplomacy-and-intrigue-based campaigns, spellcaster campaigns, whatever. Many of these are the kinds of campaigns supported by 3rd-party d20 products, like Green Ronin's books, and it is easier to build these kinds of variant campaigns around a Simulationist base ("here are the rules for how the world works, now go nuts") than around a Narrativist base ("this is the plot that your characters must fit into") or Gamist base ("the character roles are hardwired into the game system; one must be a Leader, one a Fighter, one a Healer, etc.").
Like I said: I like heroic campaigns. They can be really fun. But I don't think that should be ALL that D&D is about. It's a subtle difference in the way the game is presented in the core rules, from "Enter this fantasy world and be a fictional character and do weird and interesting stuff and face dangers and face the unknown" to "Hey guys! Let's become heroes and fight monsters!" The latter is *generally* a pretty good description of D&D... but not always. It's not always enough. There are other play styles, and I don't want the core D&D rules to ignore them. (And no, I don't think 3.x ignores them. That's the nice thing about 3.x, it's very open to customization.)
Now, I will admit... when I was a little kid, I did in fact play D&D because I wanted to be a hero and fight monsters. :/ It was later that I got into options... it was later that I got into the "What would happen if I played a sinister Lawful Neutral shaman oozemaster? What would happen if I played a vengeful lizardman exiled from his tribe? A drunken wastrel bard who can't help spending all his gold on useless things from the PHB list as soon as he gets it? A crazed, mask-wearing tiefling shadowdancer? A literally bird-brained Hengeyokai sparrow-headed shaman with an Intelligence of 4? A vaguely East Indian demon-summoning sorceress who was the offscreen leader of a crazed cult, would my DM let me get away with it?" Or from a DMing aspect: "What if I ran a pirate game? What if I ran an Ancient Egyptian game? What if I ran a this-and-that game?"
So, you could argue that this kind of Simulationist, "open up the game world to various types of play" aspect of D&D is always going to be secondary to the "heroic fantasy" aspect which is what attracts the majority of newbies. And if you wanna argue that, fine. It is important that the game be comprehensible to newbies, after all. (Make skills simpler, fine. Get rid of multiple attacks in combat, fine.) But I do think that "adventurers" describes the typical adventuring party better than "heroes" -- unless the DM is forcing the players to conform to "heroic" behavior by heavily pressuring them, which is not a good thing -- and I do think that "fantasy adventure" is a better way to describe D&D in all its aspects than "heroic fantasy." I like these options, I like having lots of options, and I don't want them to go away in 4e. It's always an adventure game, but it's not always a heroic game.
Last edited:
