D&D: Adventurers, Not Heroes

[ptolemy18]

No, I mean the "mistaking quirkiness for depth" phase.

Oh, now you're hitting below the belt! Well, everyone has their own preferred style of gaming.

Quirkiness is good. Weirdness, variety, character acting is good. Detailed backstories are good too. Depth is good too -- unless by "deep" you mean self-importantly serious and becoming so attached to a particular character that you'll quit the game if they die.

On the other hand, I would certainly consider all my characters "deep" in that they all fit into the campaign setting and have worked-out backgrounds and personalities based on their background, like any good fictional character. I do tend to run characters who have a melodramatic and over-the-top and bizarre element, because that's the kind of fantasy I like, as opposed to trying to go completely serious all the time. I like that too, but I prefer my D&D to have a certain bizarreness. (Maybe this goes back to the Jack Vance element? In addition to his much hated spell mechanics, his books are certainly bizarre, a lot more bizarre than self-serious Tolkien.)

I remember once a newbie player asking me after I had just run a game, "Are there any comedy RPGs?" And I said "Well, obviously, every RPG is sort of a comedy RPG," and she laughed. Meaning because of the level of in-game banter and silliness which is inherent to 95% of RPGs. All RPGs, except the most hardcore and psychological (which is an acceptable type of RPG too) are to a certain extent self-referential and winking.

Now, obviously there's a limit to this, which varies from campaign to campaign. I wasn't playing characters whose sole function was to break the story and provide anarchy. We've all known (or been) gamers like that. But when my DM called for characters for a ninja game, I made a loyal ninja. But on the other hand, there is an inherent element of anarchy in RPGs. A large number of people play RPGs in order to get away from reality's restrictions and do crazy things ("crazy", of course, can range from quirky and interesting to obnoxious and attention-getting, just as "gamist" can range from practical to "uninterested in roleplaying and mean to the other players if they do the less-than-optimal thing for roleplaying purposes"). So I tend to be less interested in games where the character roles are firmly tied down by the game setting itself -- whether it be "all of you must be heroes and attempt to kick as much ass as possible" (D&D4e) or "all of you must be enforcers of a religious sect" (Dogs in the Vineyard). Those games can be really fun, and I do really like playing a serious psychological RPG or a RPG about some very particular obscure subject once in awhile. (Variety is important.) If all the players can agree to play a particular type of campaign, and you can run a game set in Ancient Jerusalem or the New York mafia, then that is awesome. But for long-term campaigns, rather than one-shots, I prefer a setting with a lot of flexibility, where I have a lot of character options.

To me, the best RPGs start with a rich setting. Within that setting, certain types of roles suggest themselves, but the characters' roles aren't narrowly defined. Then the players make their characters, and (extreme example) if they want to play a cook, a thief, an aristocrat, a wizard and a sailor, it's the DM's job to make an adventure which is fun and suited for a cook, a thief, an aristocrat, a wizard, and a sailor. After all, the main point of a game is to make the players happy.

So -- yes, I like a lot of flexibility in D&D. And flexibility means being open to the weird and bizarre and quirky, as well as the serious and hardcore-heroic.

 

[hong]

So I tend to be less interested in games where the character roles are firmly tied down by the game setting itself -- whether it be "all of you must be heroes and attempt to kick as much ass as possible" (D&D4e) or "all of you must be enforcers of a religious sect" (Dogs in the Vineyard).

Three words: Subvert the expectation.

Like this:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=186400

(There's a character backstory in the middle there somewhere.)

 

[Treebore]

So the "3HD at first level" is an rumor for 4E? I didn't read the thread, but I made the assumption this thread was related to that thread and being a hero because your powerful.

 

[Baumi]

The latest Playtest Report has shown that even though the PCs are stronger than before, they still had a hard fight against some Wolfs and Goblins (one Hero dying at the first round!), so they are not suddenly megaheroes.

And don't forget, everything that works for heroes also works for Villains (at least for Villains that use Classes).

I hope that they will do the same as in Saga Edition where you get 3x more HPs in the first level. Combat's are still hard, but the extremely high HP-Curve between levels is flattened and therefore you can use the same type of Adventures longer and can use a higher CR Range without overwhelming the players.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've been hearing a lot of talk about "heroic fantasy" and "1st level characters are heroes" in connection with D&D4e.

They're using 'hero' in the sense of 'highly capable individual' or, as Hong puts it, badass. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the PCs are good guys or not. That said there's always been a presumption in D&D that they're more likely to be good than evil.

 

[ptolemy18]

Three words: Subvert the expectation.

Like this:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=186400

(There's a character backstory in the middle there somewhere.)

Nice character. But I have to admit I'm not familiar with the swordsage class (never bought Tome of Battle), so I don't know the backstory for it, unfortunately. I have no expectations for swordsages so my expectations can't be subverted. (In any case, all the D&D campaigns I've ever played or GMed have been homebrews (again - yay options and customization); I've never played in Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms.)

And BTW your swordsage is SUPER-quirky! All those jokes and D&D in-jokes in the character description!! That sort of stuff is quirk-tastic!

 

[FireLance]

What I don't get is why every single PC has to be a "badass." Some of us don't want to play "badasses." We just want to play adventurers.

To a certain extent, I agree. I would like to start games at the current equivalent of 1st level, and build up the characters from there to the 4e equivalent of 1st level (which might be the current equivalent of 3rd level). If necessary, I'll make up some "Apprentice-level" rules.

 

[ptolemy18]

They're using 'hero' in the sense of 'highly capable individual' or, as Hong puts it, badass. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the PCs are good guys or not. That said there's always been a presumption in D&D that they're more likely to be good than evil.

Well, that's good. But I do also mean "adventurers, not heroes" in the "not necessarily highly capable" sense; I do like a good "first-level schlubs" game once in awhile. I do likes me some low-fantasy occasionally, and I will be bummed if this becomes impossible under the new system.

We'll see, though; I've heard a lot of good things about 4e too, so I'm not saying OMG IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD or anything.

 

[DarkKestral]

Well, that's good. But I do also mean "adventurers, not heroes" in the "not necessarily highly capable" sense; I do like a good "first-level schlubs" game once in awhile. I do likes me some low-fantasy occasionally, and I will be bummed if this becomes impossible under the new system.

We'll see, though; I've heard a lot of good things about 4e too, so I'm not saying OMG IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD or anything.

For one thing, if you want that, you could always treat NPCs as the equivalent of the PCs, only giving them stats that aren't quite so good.

So if your PCs run 32 pt. buy, then run NPCs under the elite array, or under the non-elite array, but still better than 10s and 11s across the board. So the PCs are still a LITTLE better, but not that much. Schlub-ish without being total schlub.

That way, you may still ensure that your PCs won't get smacked down in a single round, but they'll still be a little weaker relative to their opponents than the baseline.

 

[ptolemy18]

For one thing, if you want that, you could always treat NPCs as the equivalent of the PCs, only giving them stats that aren't quite so good.

So if your PCs run 32 pt. buy, then run NPCs under the elite array, or under the non-elite array, but still better than 10s and 11s across the board. So the PCs are still a LITTLE better, but not that much. Schlub-ish without being total schlub.

Hmm, that's a good option.

BTW, what do you mean, "32 point buy"? Is buying rather than rolling the standard for Saga and, presumably, for D&D4e? I've always used the standard statistics-rolling rules for 3.0 and 3.5. Just curious.